User talk:Steve Smith/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Re:Advance congrats

Thanks very much! It was actually a lot more fun than I thought it would be. And thanks for your help in the earlier stages of the process! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry/vandalism accusations

Hello, Steve. Someone tagged my talk page with a sockpuppetry tag and is making other accusations. Can you help? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone helped me; thanks anyway. BTW, re: your 2007 edits that concern you, Wikipedia is a learning process. You have learned how to use sources correctly now, and you have examined your old articles to fix any problems. So, I don't see why there should be any further restrictions. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Alison Redford page vandalism

Hi Steve, I understand that you worked with Imparo to set up the original wikipedia pages for Alberta Government MLA's, and I am hoping you can help me out with Alison Redford's page. Someone when to a lot of trouble to post a large amount of slanderous information that simply is libel and innuendo, and none of it is sourced. I have no idea how to report this as vandalism, or change it without wikipedia automatically changing it back? How can we go about getting this information reported as vandalism and changed to what it was before? --Thanks --Eldonm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC).

Creating new Wiki pages

Hi Steve-

Have a quick question for you. If in the future I wanted to create a new wiki page from scratch, how do I go about doing that since there would be no site editor assigned yet? Let me know, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianyc (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice on getting format consensus?

Care to give me some advice here? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Derek Smart request

Sorry for the late reply. I just responded to your question at the amendment forum. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil

If you have time, we are looking for peer reviews of the Pedro II of Brazil article. Looking to take this to FA, and would appreciate suggestions. • Astynax ^talk 09:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Derek Smart Request for Amendment case

Hello there! I was reading your exchange with Bill Huffman in the Derek Smart amendment case, and I found myself struck curious. Might I ask, when you mention comments about unaccredited post-secondary institutions being neither here nor there, the comment seems to be focused on Bill Huffman, but his only comments in that regard were to Cla68, and not the council, if my reading is correct. Were you perhaps talking to Cla68? I believe I now understand your reference! Pardon, just didn't click until after I hit save here. :) I left a related comment on the amendment page! 72.192.46.9 (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Recuse: why?

I'm sure you have a good reason for [1] but I've no idea what it is. Is is supposed to be public knowledge? If you care to explain, I for one would be interested to know why William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I find myself wondering the same thing. I think you should reconsider, Steve. Your perspective will be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

AN

Sigh. I agree with your comment that the community should be able to figure out how to tag AN's page; unfortunately those who jumped into the fray with the most zeal were perhaps not the ideal ones to do so. As an uninvolved observer, I tried to help out a bit hamhandedly (note on talk page) but don't seem to have accomplished much. While it should be unnecessary, I wonder if you, someone else on Arbcom, or an Arbcom clerk might want to impose an officially-sanctioned neutrally worded solution. My own personal read would be that it's also time to close off discussion on the noticeboard talk page as well, but I'm sure opinions vary on that. All the best, Martinp (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement on plagiarism

Some time ago, I learned that my article work, along with that of other arbitrators, was becoming the subject of scrutiny. In my case, this scrutiny apparently took the form of an automated comparison of some of my articles to the online sources they cited. This analysis was prone to false positives, and indeed the article of mine that it highlighted as a concern - Ken Allred - was one. However, this prompted me to look at some of other early article work, much of it consisting of biographies of municipal councillors of dubious notability, usually for the first time in years. I was shocked by what I found: I had engaged in rampant plagirarism, and in a few cases had even copied content so exactly that I believe that I was violating the source's copyright. For an example of the problem, compare the second paragraph of this revision to the source material here.

I have trouble putting myself in my 2007 shoes. I was certainly not deliberately plagiarising, but I'm not sure whether I did not notice the extent to which I was copying the source material or whether I did notice but did not see it as problematic; both possibilities seem equally implausible to me, but the question may well be immaterial.

My reaction upon discovering this was that I no longer had the moral authority to serve as as arbitrator, and I immediately announced my resignation to the Committee. Since then, I have been persuaded that this is not necessarily the case; I overcame a problem that I didn't realize that I had, and this is now in the relatively distant past. I have checked my more recent work, including my featured content work, against the (mostly offline) sources, and I am confident that the problem did not persist.

I would welcome discussion on the subject and very open to having my mind changed back (whether by weight of argument or weight of sentiment), but currently plan to resume activity as an arbitrator in short order (concurrent with fixing my old articles).

My sincerest apologies. Steve Smith (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You are admitting a problem and attempting to rectify it. Further, have acknowledged it is a serious issue. And also, appropriately noted that it is something from 2007. The response seems adequate. -- Cirt (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, and if you've noticed yours and are committed to fixing them, I don't see what the issue is :) I know I've had to take another look at old articles of mine and clean them up for various problems (this in the FAs, even.) It happens. (but if you want to go back in time and stop younger you from plagiarizing, I've got a sentient computer that could make it happen). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism is a very serious matter, and in as much as it can amount to copyright violation, places the encyclopædia in legal peril. That said, you have taken action to identify, admit, and correct the problem, and that is highly commendable and to be encouraged. I would, however, suggest that until you and others are confident that any outstanding articles are fixed, you voluntarily refrain from using admin tools, or acting in Arbcom cases, where suggestions of plagiarism are involved - simply as a matter of "good form". Well done for taking the initiative to review your own contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

DuncanHill (talk · contribs) makes a good point here. -- Cirt (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this serves as a good object lesson in the value of going back and checking over our past works, as I doubt you are unique in being placed in this situation. I know my early work is crap compared to what I can do now, and while I have never knowingly plagiarized a work, there have been a couple of occasions where I have been alerted to the fact that I might have inadvertently paraphrased a source too closely. In some cases, I disagreed with the assessment, in one (at least), I agreed and corrected myself.

You could have quietly fixed this yourself, and likely nobody would know. That you are willing to stand up, admit to it and work to fix it reveals a moral character that is much higher than most here, I think. You were a fine candidate to sit on ArbCom when elected, and just as fine one today, imnsho. Reso lute 01:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your statement makes me more confident in you now than ever. Sole Soul (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This kind of behavior is expected of Steve Smith, and I mean the acknowledgment of an error and immediately stating so. This is an editor, administrator and an arbitrator with the best ethics I've seen in quite some time. I think the suggestions above are good but I applaud you for your brave announcement and your honorable and ethical behavior. You still have my support. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that is all well and good but a similar situation arose with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/FlyingToaster and she gave up her Adminship and later requester it back and was refused and she also requested the investigation be removed and that was also refused. Just saying it looks like a very similar case. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, there's a large difference between current and ongoing efforts, and things from three years ago. not to mention the fact that Steve is fixing his own mistake (from a day where we weren't so hypersensitive to plagarism) without being forced to by the community. If he had just gone on and fixed the requisite articles quietly without saying something, would anyone have really noticed? SirFozzie (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not, editors in positions of power here are under the utmost scrutiny. As it has been highlighted, it is not a major issue imo, why not start a RFC to see how much support there is for replacing the Arb status. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just by way of interim response (by all means continue this discussion): thanks for the kind words. I think that Duncan's point regarding plagiarism is an excellent one, and will not participate in any findings regarding plagiarism for the remainder I term (but will participate in cases where plagiarism is an issue, provided that it is not the primary one). Rob's comment is also well-taken; I will need to familiarize myself with the Flying Toaster case before commenting further on it. Steve Smith (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've familiarized myself with the FlyingToaster incident, and I think there are some strong parallels. I think both of us engaged in comparable levels of plagiarism. The two differences I see are that i. FlyingToaster cited her articles in support of her RFA, when the only articles I cited in support of my ArbCom election were my (non-plagiarized) FAs, ii. at the time of her RFA, her plagiarism was recent, where at the time of my ArbCom election my plagiarism was not. Take those for what they're worth; if there's a strong sentiment that I should resign from ArbCom over this (and if you feel that my single post on WP:AN did not draw sufficient attention to this, please do post elsewhere—I'll waive the co-certifier requirement for an WP:RFC/U—I'll do so cheerfully enough. Steve Smith (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, my limited understanding is that Steve is fixed his and FlyingToaster left without fixing the problem. Maurreen (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Is fixing" would be more accurate. But when you're writing very short articles from a single, very short, source, as I was then, it is very difficult to do anything but engage in plagiarism of a sort. For example, here is the article on Colin Strang as I wrote it in June 2007. Compare the first paragraph of the "Biography" section (itself rather a silly thing, since the whole article's supposed to be a biography) to Strang's entry here, and you'll see pretty flagrant plagiarism. Here is what I did yesterday to fix it up. The direct copying of passages is gone, but can I really say with any honesty that that paragraph is now my own work? Not really. The lesson, I think, is that WP:N requirement for significant coverage multiple reliable third party sources ought to be taken seriously (wherever one sets that threshold) because if it is not met, it is practically impossible to produce an article that is anything but thinly disguised theft from the original source. Steve Smith (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Add me to those who feel that this is not a big deal; I understand and agree that they should be fixed, but your open response and general character history indicate that this wasn't deliberate or with malign intent. Lacking either of those, identifying the problem, admitting it, and working to fix it are all we should ask of active Wikipedians. Standards have changed and everyone gets a better and wider understanding of copyright and plagiarism the more they work.

Thank you for being open about it; it gives the community a good example of responsible behavior, and a model to encourage others to look at their own contributions, and what to do if we detect goofs.

I don't think you should resign from Arbcom or undergo a RFC/U. You haven't abused our trust; you've strengthened it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as you are cleansing the soul, when can we expect a statement on your being an Oilers fan? ;o) Reso lute 02:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in any RFC for the sake of an RFC. This is serving the same purpose. Maurreen (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The earlier plagarisms disturb me but I agree that you are being forthright and this shouldn't need to become a major issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

ugh

Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) has been recreated using offline sources to bypass G4, I went to restore the talk page history but it looks like there's a metric tonne of junk in there according to the deletion log. Since you appear to be the man-with-the-plan on this one, can you take a look and get the good talk where it needs to be? –xeno^talk 11:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Note re Lar/Polargeo

The situation between Lar and Polargeo, similar to the situation between Lar and Stephen Shultz is escalating. Here is the sequence of events:

Polargeo adds some views to the uninvolved admin section.
Lar moves these and adds one of his own views.
Polargeo reverts this, accidentally removing Lar's view.
Hipocrite returns Lar's view.
Lar move's polargeo's view again, and threatens to block Polargeo if he returns his view.

Lar was asked to stop removing views on his talk page and instead take a lower-drama action of noting his problems on the page by me, seconded by Thparkth.

This is rapidly spiriling out of control and needs emergy Arbcom intervention to prevent further disruption. I have asked both Lar and Polargeo to stop. Perhaps the individual who choses to stop first should be rewarded, as opposed to losing by default. Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Kennedy Knott Birthdate

I believe I've solved out little mystery of birth/death dates on Daniel Kennedy Knott. I've found a source [2] stating he was born in 1879 (search up "KNOTT, Daniel Kennedy"). I could be wrong, but this seems likely, as it is an Ontario Birth Record (where Knott was born) and it lists him from Grey County, Ontario (where his hometown, Collingwood used to be in). i've gone ahead and made the change, citing the article above, I was just wondering if you have any particular thoughts on this? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've contacted EPL about this and they've corrected it accordingly on their website biography. Thanks again, I'll (hopefully) see you around. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Request that you discuss your rationale at an Arbcom motion

Could you please explain your !vote here? [3] I'm not confortable with your one-word support. Don't remember now what you said about responsiveness during your campaign; you may not have made any sort of pledge to talk more about your actions than previous arbitrators had. Maybe you feel discussion is not necessary in this case; that your vote's merits are obvious. I would still appreciate some talk about it. At its talk page. Novickas (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: R&I workshop

Just a suggestion, but you might want to use a different phrasing than "those adversarial towards Ludwigs2" - maybe just ask for commentary, or single out a few people ask their opinions by name. Mikemikev and Occam are most likely to object on content grounds (this tends to minimize their POV - I don't think the genetic approach is inherently fringe the way Mathsci does, but it is not a position with strong support or strong supporting evidence in the scientific community). Mathsci won't have any real complaints about content, but will likely refuse to acknowledge it simply on the grounds that I wrote it. He may surprise me, but based on past experience I'd predict that he will write and post his own version of the breakdown, with some commentary to the effect that his is superior to mine, and maybe even that it was his idea in the first place (that's happened a good four or five times already - lol).

I swear, I can't win for losing on this article. --Ludwigs2 22:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there are enough editors involved that the R&I article will steer its way through choppy waters. I'm still trying to figure out Occam's block with no diffs provided, that seems like an unnecessary escalation someone prompted. Personally I don't care who, there was no current disruption to warrant it and it should be undone. Nothing to do with supporting (or not) anyone's editorial position, just looking to neutralize the adversarial aspects.

And, personally, the whole mediation thing with Ludwigs2 is a lot of unnecessary wailing and gnashing of teeth. I think it was (in retrospect!) ill-advised to construct such a huge collection of content around which to attempt to gain consensus. Agreeing on anything "large" at R&I is inherently doomed to fail—anyone who steps up to get things organized in this sort of affair inevitably gets shot in the cross-fire. (Been there, done that, at Jogaila no Jagiełło no Jogaila...) Changes are best handled like eating an elephant, a bite at a time. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Ellen Roberts

Ellen Roberts has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. I hope that this is the proper place to note this. I am almost entirely new to Wiki-land, so please let me know if this is an incorrect placement. Thanks.Grassrootsgirl (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Question.

How long does it take for arb to vote on amending a case? Just curious haven't been through this part before. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to only have three arbs now? Sorry just impatient to see something happen Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Richardson family murders

Kindly refrain from violating the policy against deleting other users' comments without cogent reason. The laws of Canada are irrelevant to my edits because I am not located in Canada, and nor is the Wikimedia Foundation, which is incorporated in the United States. Qemist (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Virginia State Lottery

Many thanks for agreeing to do a GA review of the Virginia State Lottery. I have added more cites to the Virginia Code, and to various newspaper accounts of the executive director's appointment and two lawsuits. However, 9 out of 22 references are to the lottery's website. It appears to be the practice that state lottery articles include a description of each game, so I added the references to the website rather than leave these descriptions unreferenced. One could read WP:SELFPUB #5 as arising out of self-published books or blogs rather than a concern for the official website of a government agency. While I admit that both the Virginia Code and the lottery website are primary sources, I am citing them to support background information rather than "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." I have raised the issue at WP:NORN in the hope of getting more guidance. Again, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

We are up to 33 footnotes, but I have retained the references to the official website. Racepacket (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Userfy page on Flypp

Hi I had created a page on Flypp which has been deleted. Please userfy this page or send me a copy of it. Thanks Manu.agl (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help Steve! Since you asked, can you help me put a page on Flypp with unbiased content - just a request - you may choose not to take this any further.

Thanks in advance. Regards, Manu.agl (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2009/GA1

Hi there - just dropping a note to say I've finished making the changes you have suggested in your GA review for this article. As I've said over on my talk page, thank you very much for such a comprehensive and detailed review. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

PAA Images

Yeah, I've noticed. Probably our fault too. I've had success at WP:GL/PHOTO at removing watermarks, but it's not always easy. I guess they really don't want them used. By the way, did you get a response to that email? Sigh. Connormah (talk | contribs) 14:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it was that also. That's a damn shame, there are some very encyclopedic images that we can use there. Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Need help with another policy violator

Hi. I'm having some difficulty with an editor exhibiting behavior similar to Asgardian. Although his behavior doesn't extend to nearly the level/depth of Asgardian's, the individual behaviors (article ownership, refusal to talk on the talk page, fabricating false accusations and then refusing to provide evidence when asked, distortion and dismissal of others' words and statements, and outright contempt for basic polices) are the same. I don't believe a ban is necessary, but rather, having someone politely inform him that his behavior is unacceptable, would suffice. I just wasn't sure where to make the case. I'm loathe to start a formal ArbCom case on it, but I don't want to go to the Admin Noticeboard either, since I've repeatedly observed in the past that the people there are ineffectual. If I outline the case on the talk page of the disputed article in question, and then invite members of the ArbCom to participate, would that be okay? Please let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the relationship between that and Wikiquette alerts? Is one better than the other? Nightscream (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Don Murphy

Steve, I see that you have protected Don Murphy. The two accounts who have been reverting it appear to be sockpuppets - the matter is being discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColScott. I don't think the article should be fully protected (certainly not on the current version which wiped out numerous edits made over the last six months); if you can help to resolve the sockpuppet issue speedily that would be helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be an edit war as we'd ordinarily count it. Take a look at the editing history of Jean Santeuil (talk · contribs) and Dave Chaparral (talk · contribs). They were both created during a period of intense disruption of the article, they've both been inactive for a substantial period and judging from the behaviour and edit summaries they're clearly being operated by the same person. The other accounts are just regular editors who have presumably got the article on their watchlists. I know it's kind of a "wrong version" complaint but unfortunately you seem to have given the sockpuppets what they wanted. If you want to protect it while the sockpuppet investigation is underway, might I suggest reverting the last edit? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the two accounts mentioned above have been blocked as sockpuppets. Could you please unprotect the article per your comment on my talk page? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the very prompt response. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, another sockpuppet has appeared - Ludwig Beethoven (talk · contribs). I expect it's the same person, and he will probably try to edit war again. The socks are getting past semi-protection by making just enough edits to qualify for autoconfirmation. I've raised a request at WP:RPP for the article to be put under pending changes protection - now that we have that feature it might be worth trying it on this article. Are you able to implement PCP yourself? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocking of User:MacDaid

I hope the blocking of MacDaid was a typo-like mistake. I see no information about this, apart from the "edit"-comment. Nothing on the talk-page or user-page. MacDaid is a very productive and cooperating signature, as far as I can see exactly the kind of editor we want to attract and keep. --Ettrig (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes... what in the world is this? EEng (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Omar al-Bashir Peer Review

Sir,

I am contacting you via the volunteers list to ask for your assistance reviewing this article. al-Bashir, having been recently indicted by the ICC on three counts of genocide, has had his page undergo a flurry of updating and editing and I believe that this article now has the potential to meet the WP:FA criteria. I figured that this article would be of interest to you given your stated focus of political history/theory as well as social science. Thank you in advance for your time, and if for any reason you are unable to participate, I understand. Feel free to contact me at any time and for any reason and I will do my best to respond promptly and in the affirmative. Thank you sir. Cwill151 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you so choose here is a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwill151 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dick Ebersol photo

Hi Steve-

There is currently no picture up for Dick's page. Would you like me to send one to you and add? Let me know, would be happy to. Thanks.

Julianyc (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again- I definitely have a photo you can use... how do we go about this then? Shall I send to you somehow, what kind of file works? Let me know what is the easiest and we can get a photo up there! Thanks.

Julianyc (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve- Don't have all of that info handy, do you need it in order to put a photo up? Let me know, if so, I'll ask around... thanks!

Julianyc (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The photo was taken by an NBC photographer, and NBC holds the rights to it. Will that suffice? Let me know and I can send on over, or I'll try uploading it. Thanks!

Julianyc (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve- Never heard back from you about the above. Let me know, thanks!

Julianyc (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your FAC

I see the Brownlee FAC is short on reviewers. You might try reviewing Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899 (also at FAC) and see if User:Acdixon will do the same for you. Just a thought. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Replying to your message on my talk page, can you look at my suggestions? RIPGC (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC

If you could drop by and comment at the RfC here, regarding date styles, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Connormah^talk 00:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Niagara Parks Butterfly Conservatory

Here's a new article I created. Please help improve it. It's also up for DYK for 24 July. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Decision on clarification issue is stalled

Although you have expressed an opinion on the matter, as has Carcharoth, this question of clarification appears to be stalled. Without a decision on this matter, my appeal cannot proceed, as Sandstein has made this a precondition for progress.

Do you anticipate framing a motion to bring this clarification to a conclusion? Thanks for your attention. Brews ohare (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment

This is a prime example why we get upset over the speed of light issue. [[4]] is a rosey example of hounding and persecution. Kinda funny how he can block when he is knee deep in the. Itas hard to say I'm assuming bad faith when there is multiple statements like [[5]]. In the past Brews advocaters have been blbamed for brews issues but here is what happens when someone doesn't say something. Can you please comment on this? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Need an arbitration hand

Hi. Unfortunately I can't yet edit this page, so I'm asking you for a help in resolving a dispute. I nominated the article for second the time, but the case was closed way too fast (one hour), without even letting anyone to object on such a controversial matter (there are people who are against, it was nominated already so it can be considered as controversial already), and it was closed by the same wikipedian who closed the previous nomination. So I want at least to keep the nomination for another time, so there would enough time to make an objection (I'm myself was late to make it as it was closed already, damn). And it seems that interested persons so immediately took part in it, thus were biased. The previous nominator was warned by me. Dramadeur (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparent SPA, and quacks loudly. Dram -- out of curiosity, given your nom which has been closed as POINTy, and the nature of your five edits, have you ever edited under a prior name or IP address?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you stalking me? Why are you asking it in front of an arbitrary? You should have asked it in my page, it's not relevant to ask it here. Anyway, yes this ip belonged to me, when I had gone trough procedures it was revealed that I need an account to leave my "thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." Dramadeur (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've indef blocked that account. Fences&Windows 13:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Kudos.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

You seem to be online, so I am making you aware of these procedural notes I made at the appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said in another venue, Jehochman is clearly obsessed with the outcome of the appeal but that's not what I'm concerned about right now - my concern is that an editor, any editor, even the worst/best of editors, should be able to make an appeal to the community without difficulty and excess bureaucracy. While J continues to bully editors (be it below, or when he insists appeals should go directly/only to ArbCom), more heat than light emerges. He's advocated in nearly every discussion concerning Brews on the matter [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], he encouraged an admin to misuse their tools [11], he failed to discuss concerns about this behavior [12], and he responds with unrelated+condescending commentary in response to my active concerns [13] [14]. There are plenty of editors who can identify problem conduct that the subject may be exhibiting, and have done so on important occasions (myself included), and that isn't going to change. However, I don't think his participation is beneficial when it goes towards intimidating editors or making them feel that they are being treated unfairly, especially when contrary to what he or Stifle insists, appeals in this are not limited to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. I may have misinterpreted a bit of your response on my talk earlier - I apologise for the occasions where that is apparent. It's sometimes not easy to convey that one is trying to argue for keeping the principles in tact.

Camel's nose

In my experience, one sign of a disruptive editor is that if you give any leniency, they take full advantage of it to resume their agenda. You may need to rethink the matter of Brews, Count Iblis, and Hell in a Bucket. I see no signs of comprehension or compromise. They have an agenda, and are taking full advantage of whatever cover anybody provides. Now Ncmvocalist has gotten into the picture, which inevitably will complicate the dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 10:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

i'm very much interested in what is problematic by the questions Iblis or myself have made. Iblis is always civil from what I've seen, I'm not but in this case I have not cursed at anyone, called them nazis or the like. All Iblis and myself have done is question Jehochmans invovled sts and asked him to step aside from making blocking decisions because he has a clear and announced belief what should happen and does not seem willing to agf in the slightest. I again call upon Jehochman to back up his claims we are disrupting things, I've asked four or five times and he refuses to answer. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

unable to engage with Wikipedia as it is, rather than as he believes it should be

Hi Steve:

The header is your comment about my capacities on WP as stated in the Speed of light appeal. I'd like you to explore this matter further, to see whether you really see things differently than I do.

My view is that I talked about matters beyond the willingness of other editors to continue, so they sought administrative action to terminate discussion. One might sympathize with their view. If so, the question is what to do about it.

I think an effective remedy is a sanction to govern my Talk page behavior. The idea is to propose that when a thread is prolonged beyond endurance, the engaged editors can simply tell me that they are going to invoke this sanction unless I pack it up.

That seems to me to be a perfectly effective approach to the problem. I'd say that I'd be nuts not to accept that motion on the part of the involved editors, and desist.

The remedies proposed instead appear to me to miss the point that this is about behavior control, not about technical exchanges on a particular topic. What is worse, they open the door to a type of generalized harassment that I have experienced before that, frankly, I do not wish to operate under. The "uninvolved administrator" approach simply doesn't work, and leads to crazy actions that cannot be overturned.

What do you think about this? Brews ohare (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that I understand what you're proposing. In crude terms, is it that editors discussing something with you on a talk page can require you to shut up at any time? If so, what would be the effect on subsequent article editing? If your participation in the D of WP:BRD is curtailed, surely that would remove you entirely from the editorial process on whatever issue was under contention? Some elaboration would be helpful, including, for additional clarity, your proposed wording of such a sanction, if you have one. For what it's worth, I do agree that the uninvolved administrator approach is not ideal; I have been sort of waiting for a test case to replace "uninvolved administrators" with "the following X administrators:", who would be chosen in consultation with the parties. Among other advantages, that would provide some amount of accountability (one of the issues with current arbitration enforcement is that it is necessarily the more sanction-happy admins who impose sanctions) as well as a built in appeal route (if X=3, then sanctions issued by one of the admins would be appealable to the other two, for example).

So I'm certainly open to alternative approaches. But I remain concerned that your view of Wikipedia is in many respects at odds with what Wikipedia actually is. One of the things that persuaded me of that actually has nothing to do with physics: in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator abuse on Wikipedia proposed a course of action that, in my view, is so far outside of Wikipedia's role that I had to reread it several times to make sure I was understanding it right.

You've provided your real life identity and credentials, which I admire (I've emulated this approach so far as I am able, but I basically don't have any credentials). If everybody did that, then perhaps it would be more feasible for people to throw their own analyses into articles, subject to the review and critique of others - sort of the way things work in genuine scholarship. Wikipedia is not genuine scholarship, and as long as we have anonymous nobodies editing articles, a strict reliance on secondary sources is vital if for no other reason than as a dispute resolution mechanism, and an easy means to end debate when anonymous nobodies (or, for that matter, nobodies who are open about their identities, a category in which I place myself) add patent nonsense to articles. Steve Smith (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Steve: You have understood me correctly: for example, in the Centrifugal force article, DVdm and Balckburne could say simply (as they did): We think that your contribution is WP:OR and we don't want to discuss it. If you do, we will exercise the existing remedy and ask that you be banned from this article for a week (or whatever the penalty is). I would be shut out of all discussion simply because they felt that way, whether they had any reason or not.

I would prefer that approach because my experience is that this is what happens anyway, only after a prolonged ArbCom or AN/I hearing that never gets anything straight anyhow.

I get the idea that you think I am intruding my own analyses into WP. Perhaps you think the Speed of light and the Centrifugal force pages are examples of this. I don't think so. I think the dropping bird, for example, is not one that I've found in a text, but it is so very, very obviously an illustration of the principles cited that some editors called it wordy, some called it obvious and some called it tedious. DVdm and Blackburne called it WP:OR. Obviously they are all wet. However, to avoid this kind of stupid back and forth I am proposing that I just get cut off at the knees rather than let me indulge my fantasies that the obvious can be driven home if only the right question or the right words or the right source be found.

It may be that DVdm and Blackburne will follow me about and shut me up whenever I appear. If that happens, of course I will simply depart WP altogether. I am on the verge of that anyway. Brews ohare (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Matthew McCauley

I'm looking to maybe do an expansion of Matthew McCauley maybe sometime before the end of this year - do you possibly have any sources that could help out? I'm ultimately looking to achieve GA status (if possible) - but I don't really have any sufficient sources. Out of curiosity, what is your current FA drive? Could McCauley be the first Edmonton mayor to make FA? :) McDougall could also be another to consider improvements, I'll see what I can do. BTW, Bryan Anderson (politician) is currently at AfD, FWIW. comments added 00:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Connor mah 18:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible evasion of ban by User:NYScholar

I have started a thread at Possible evasion of ban by User:NYScholar, which you may be interested in. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus building

I know I'm not seen as the most co-operative Wikipedian. However, I'm beginning to wonder if there's any possibility of exploring common ground and seeing if there's any way to build coalition behind some modest agreements. I've set out my thoughts at User:Scott MacDonald/Pragmatic BLP. I'm thinking to invite some thinking people who radically disagree with me, and see what's possible. Do you think this has any merit?--Scott Mac 10:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You're so unpredictable

;-)

Best of luck wherever life is taking you. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My first thought is "congratulations on your escape". :-) Really, I'm sorry to see you go, but respect your decision. Do more good stuff for Wikipedia when you can! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the time and effort you spent with ArbCom this past year. Cla68 (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not leaving the project for good, are you? :( /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Independent Greens of Virginia

You have a previous edit on this article or its discussion, so FYI: Talk:Independent Greens of Virginia#Material by editor "PonchoChet". Let's try to make the article better. -Colfer2 (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steve Smith,
in case you are passing by, please check your upload File:Don Iveson cropped.JPG as it has been tagged for deletion due to missing source and permission. --Túrelio (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 10, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 10, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Herbert Greenfield (1869–1949) was a Canadian politician who served as the fourth Premier of Alberta from 1921 until 1925. Born in Winchester, England, he emigrated to Canada in his late twenties, settling first in Ontario and then in Alberta, where he farmed. He soon became involved in the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA), a farmers' lobby organization that was in the process of becoming a political party, eventually becoming the organization's first vice president. Though he did not run in the 1921 provincial election, the first in which the UFA fielded candidates, Greenfield was the party's eventual choice to serve as Premier when the UFA won a majority of the seats that year. Like most of the UFA caucus, Greenfield had no experience in government and he struggled in the position. Despite this, his time as Premier saw the eventual elimination of the provincial deficit, substantial progress in negotiating the transfer of natural resource rights from the federal government, and the creation of the Alberta Wheat Pool. By 1924, many UFA Members of the Legislative Assembly wanted to see Greenfield leave office, both because they were frustrated with his failings and because they thought it likely that a Greenfield-led government would be defeated in the next election. In 1925, they persuaded Greenfield to resign in favor of John E. Brownlee. He died in 1949 at the age of 79. (more...)

Deletion review for Michael Crook

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Michael Crook. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Afterthetruth (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Overdue

		The Featured Article Medal
		Steve, given the number of featured articles you have created. This appears to be overdue. Well done. MrMedal (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance (2)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on July 1, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 1, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

John Edward Brownlee served as Attorney-General of the province of Alberta in western Canada from 1921 until 1926, in the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) government of Herbert Greenfield. As Brownlee was the only lawyer in a caucus formed almost entirely of farmers, his role extended beyond the traditional expectations of an attorney-general; he became the government's de facto leader in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. Brownlee quickly became identified with the government's conservative faction. He opposed radical changes to the structure of government and urged thrift in public spending. As part of the government's attempts to balance its budget, Brownlee favoured selling its money-losing railways and concluding an agreement with the federal government to give Alberta control over its natural resources; he was unsuccessful at both while Attorney-General. UFA Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) began to see Brownlee as a better leader than the indecisive Greenfield. A group of them attempted to force Greenfield to resign in Brownlee's favour. Though Brownlee opposed these attempts, he was eventually persuaded to accept the premiership if Greenfield willingly relinquished it. Brownlee became premier on November 23, 1925. (more...)

Great stuff, on all the Brownlee articles. I'd suggest you might even consider nominating the four articles you've written for Wikipedia:Featured topics. While somewhat pointless, it's a way to acknowledge that indeed a whole series of related articles are up to such a high standard. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Congrats on yet another featured article! DemonicPartyHat^(contact) 07:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1

Hi Steve, as someone who has previously been involved in this article, I would appreciate comments on the prose, timriley is about to check verifiability of sourcing. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Steve Smith. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Recovery of Jana Irrova article

I saw you removed in two times the article on Jana Irrova for the "lack of significance" which looks strange to me. Just look to this document. Can you please send me the backup of the article. I would like to review it for a possible reposting once we clean the issues. Many thanks. HectorBalzac (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Nice to see you back again. – Connormah (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Was waiting for this :) - don't really have time to death with the GA stuff now, school is making me crazy busy. – Connormah (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh good! I won't be the only one writing Alberta-related GAs and FAs anymore! Welcome back! Reso lute 03:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So, how long until our (ugh) new premier Alison Redford's article gets some upgrades? ;) – Connormah (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Charles Stewart (Canadian politician)

This is a note to let the main editors of Charles Stewart (Canadian politician) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 30, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 30, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Charles Stewart (1868–1946) was a Canadian politician who served as the third Premier of Alberta from 1917 until 1921. As Premier, Stewart tried to hold together his Liberal Party, which was divided by the Conscription Crisis of 1917. He endeavored to enforce prohibition, which had been enshrined in law by a referendum during Sifton's premiership, but found that the law was not widely enough supported to be effectively policed. His government took over several of the province's financially troubled railroads, and guaranteed bonds sold to fund irrigation projects. Several of these policies were the result of lobbying by the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA), with which Stewart enjoyed good relations; even so, the UFA was politicized during Stewart's premiership and ran candidates in the 1921 election. Unable to match the UFA's appeal to rural voters, Stewart's government was defeated at the polls and he resigned as premier. After leaving provincial politics, Stewart was invited to join the federal cabinet of William Lyon Mackenzie King, in which he served as Minister of the Interior and Mines. He served in King's cabinet until 1930, when the King government was defeated; in 1935, so too was Stewart. He died in December 1946 in Ottawa. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Steve Smith,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Steve Smith,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.115.210 (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Princess Theatre (Edmonton)

Thanks for taking the time to rate Princess Theatre (Edmonton)! As someone with an interest in this subject, I was wondering whether you could elucidate what specific areas you thought needed improvement in order to reach GA or A status, as I will be working on the article in the future.

When gathering the original material, I took great pains to make sure the images used were properly licensed, and that the facts were properly cited and verifiable, and I see that even since publishing last night, several edits have been made to clean up minor details of style such as caption and heading formatting.

Thanks again for your help,

--Rawlangs (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Albert Fee

Would you happen to have The social credit movement in Alberta (1959), by John A. Irving [15]? I have a strange urge to possibly expand the article on Fee and this seems to be the only bio out there. – Connormah (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you happen to have a copier handy? Maybe you could copy/scan the pages it and send them to me? I'm really busy with school now so I probably can't come and pick it up. Let me know what works best (by the way, does the include a date of death?). Thanks! – Connormah (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. No DOD I guess rules out my assumption of a 1957 death date based on an obituary listing...I'll have to check that obit out to see if it is him along with gather some more sources from the Legislature Library/Edmonton Archives for this, I guess. You can send the to cmahh@shaw.ca. Thanks so much. – Connormah (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Does the book happen to reference Isaac McCune, Herbert Ingrey or Herbert Ash (all 1935 Socred elected MLAs) also? I'd also possibly be interested if there's any bios on these too if I decide to do some writing. Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you also scan the Ingrey pages as well? Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If you like correcting prose......

Welcome back - FAC is suffering from lack of prose-groomers, so any finessing of wordcraft of any FAC that piques your interest to read will be much appreciated. I only notice as you've slotted in yer FAC after mine. Interesting user page dialogue..... (chuckle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Steve Smith. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecking Bankers' Toadies incident

Hi, could you email me some scans, particularly of Elliot and Barr (perhaps some of Mallory, too) so I can perform spotchecks on this article? I read it through and it seems like excellent writing, but I'm no expert at that and thus feel unqualified in supporting without doing my part; namely, aformentioned spotchecks. Thank you, Clay^Clay _Clay 05:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, how about Barr 109-110; Elliott 198, 274, and 276; and Mallory 82-83? I'll send you my email address through email. Clay^Clay _Clay 06:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Diego von Bergen/GA1

Hi, no comments since 8 April. Do you plan to continue this review? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If Steve can't finish, or doesn't respond in a day or two, ping me. I'll pick up the review in his stead. Reso lute 20:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hi Steve:

You're probably busy with your day job, but I was wondering if I could get your feedback on the Alexa McDonough article. I've listed this article for peer review because the article is stable, seems to be stuck at B-level, and I would like to get it to at least a Good-level article, in preparation for a Feature-level article. Looking for comments on tone, style, and anything else that needs fixing. Thanks, Abebenjoe (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It is regarding unvanishing ScienceApologist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:LYNCH listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:LYNCH. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:LYNCH redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying you as I noticed your excellent work on the Featured Quality article, Accurate News and Information Act. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Alberta Liberal Party/meta/shortname

A tag has been placed on Template:Alberta Liberal Party/meta/shortname requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.