User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 18

AN/I thread about you

There is a thread on AN/I about holocaust denial that basically involves you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Noise_at_Talk:Holocaust_denial for details. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:DRV/SV/ONS

I have nominated Wikipedia:DRV/SV/ONS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Nathan ^T 00:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

Note that you are the subject of AN/I thread, which can be found here. WilliamH (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:091009 Wilson.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:091009 Wilson.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your log

Hi. You accidentally put your user log into the article name space, so I moved it to your user name space at User:Stevertigo/log. For quick access you might want to put up a link on your user page. Cheers. De728631 (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:091009 Wilson.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:091009 Wilson.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:091009 Wilson.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:091009 Wilson.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:091009 Wilson.jpg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at File talk:091009 Wilson.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:091009 Wilson.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. ( I do not find your fair use rational credible) Die4Dixie (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use tag

Just adding notification here that I have added a disputed fair use tag to the file. (I won't duplicate the discussion at Talk: Joe Wilson here, unless you wish to discuss it here.) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. I see I was supposed to use the following tag for that note ... Now adding below. (excuse noise) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:091009 Wilson.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:091009 Wilson.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

File:091009 Wilson.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:091009 Wilson.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Image

Nothing personal, but I do think it is a violation. I remember that we interacted a couple of years ago, and i'm not unsympathetic. I think the image is great, but I also don't think we can use it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Incubate

Hello,

I noticed you created {{Incubate}} earlier this year. About a week ago, a new project - WP:Article Incubator - launched. The project's goal is to "nurture" articles in danger of deletion (or that already have been deleted). It is my hope that the project will one day be seen as an alternative to speedy deletion for potentially viable articles that currently meet a CSD (primarily A7 or G11).

Your input to the project would certainly be welcome. The main reason I came here, though, if to ask if you'd mind if I retooled {{Incubate}} to make its purpose an alternate to CSD - that is for tagging articles to move into the incubator (at the reviewing admin discretion.) There is no rush, as the project won't be ready for this possibility for a while, but I thought I'd come here now so I can plan accordingly.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Brilliance

It's not actual paranoia. That is, few, if any of these !voters are actually concerned about Wikimedia being sued. I think that many simply thought that they were defending the executive from right-wing attack. That and the fact of what type of folks tend to hang out on Afd and !vote --- deletionists. That is a systemic issue. — goethean ॐ 13:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Arbsig

Template:Arbsig has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• (Currently confined to talk page. Copy there) Actually it was made a few days ago, and has nothing to do with current discussions. Its purpose is to give freedom to Arbcom members - allowing them to work in the wild in an official capacity, instead of being stuck in Committee, on IRC, or private lists. Acting in an official or semi-official capacity naturally means being upfront about who they are and to what degree their actions are motivated by or based in Arbcom concepts. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 03:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification

[1]--Tznkai (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stevertigo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Tznkai, is apparently under the impression that has some special authority to issue unwarranted blocks. See his link, above. His reason, "disruptive editing," are unsubstantiated - and unrelated to the current, long-running WP:ANI discussion. If he wants to make a case, he can do so through a formal channel. Thanks. -Stevertigo (wlog

Decline reason:

Not really seeing how this addresses the reasons for your block. lifebaka++ 04:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block

{{gblock|2=2weeks|1=Disruptive editing: Misuse of wikipedia as a battleground, refusal to abide by content and conduct policy. See also this}}

I have made a section for community review as well. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Invitation_for_review --Tznkai (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm. "Evidence has emerged" has been the first line of a great many less than wonderful things, Tznkai. I wonder if you understand its human historical significance. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 04:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't dare flatter myself with the possibility that anything I do on Wikipedia is of potential historical significance.--Tznkai (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Um. No. I meant the terminology is significant - not your usage of it. And certainly not your current ventures into "oomph"-based administration. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 04:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Q and A

Hi Stevertigo, I got into this on the tail end and I'm curious about your position. It seems that one of the charges is that you have repeatedly introduced unsourced material, been asked for the sources, and haven't given the sources. I haven't noticed that you have denied this. Is it true? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that the context here has supposedly, according to Tznkai and others, jumped from just the issue of how HD is written to now anything else I've been dealing with for a while. The block of course is unjustified as a punitive measure for specific edit disruptions, and that's why Tznkai gives other rationale such as talk page disruptions and how much easier it will be for everyone (else) to carry on a one-sided debate.

Tznkai, to his credit has at least some general philosophical understanding that affords him at least a glimpse:

"The major failures of the other "side" in this conflict I saw were general surliness, impatience, the tendency to use policy as a bludgeon, assumptions of bad faith, and some sloppy rhetoric. If I started blocking for that, no one would be left on the wiki."

The only points I would take issue with here are 1) its not just "sloppy rhetoric" - its "sloppy reasoning" 2) its not just "sloppy rhetoric" - its "personal attacks." 3) "If.. no one would be left" - is not accurate. I am one one of many who rarely venture into uncivil/bad-faith territory in using policy or substantiating an argument. 4) "general surliness" translates best into "disingenuousness," "misrepresentation," "ad hominem attacks," and "piling on." 5) The issue of "reliable sources" is a red herring. In the context of the HD debate, the extant source is impeccable and already in the article, and the last-minute proposals to change this source are unethical - journalistically/encyclopedically speaking.

In the context of other edits, "reliable" "sources" (or "unsourced") are likewise a red herring, considering their contexts. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 19:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. From what you wrote, it seems that the main issues do not involve unsourced material. But since you didn't answer my question directly, it is my impression that you have been adding unsourced material without any intention of eventually adding a source, perhaps because the material consists of your ideas and doesn't appear in a source. If this is a red herring, it seems that it would be in your interest to add only sourced material in order to remove this vulnerability and strengthen your position in the future. I also recognize that unsourced material is in a lot of articles, but they seem less likely to involve contentious issues. In articles where there is conflict, it's not surprising that one or both sides strictly enforces Wikipedia policies on the other side. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Bob wrote: "But since you didn't answer my question directly, it is my impression that you have been adding unsourced material without any intention of eventually adding a source, perhaps because the material consists of your ideas and doesn't appear in a source." - This is a leap, isn't it? Your concept that I "have not answered [your] question directly" is itself not accurate in my view, since a "direct" answer must be understood, and understanding requires context. I gave you my sense of the overall context, and it is in that context that the claim of "no reliable sources" is a red herring. And it's one I've dealt with for several years and in numerous different dimensions - since long before the RS policy. Same editors too. It's actually quite interesting how RS has made them lazy about how to deal with sources - the latest arguments are among the most subjective that one could imagine. And the second part, that I am "without any intention of eventually adding a source" is problematic in a number of ways - particularly if such added material is removed out of hand within minutes and the issues therein are removed from the arena of collaboration. Even more particularly if its removed out of hand by people who have notably problematic habits.

I can deal with each RS case separately. But I don't agree that they form a "pattern," so I can't be expected to comment on these overall, and in fact I don't know how I could look at these edits in such a way. Each is different. Also this is not really the place for it. So if there is a general case to be made about me and my alleged "disruptive" "editing" (discussion) "patterns," then there will have to be some formalized complaint made. And here you have to keep in mind that Arbcom has been improving itself of late, in no small measure due to my suggestions. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you expand on your comment, "It's actually quite interesting how RS has made them lazy about how to deal with sources..."? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Re comments at WP:ANI/Stevertigo#Invitation_for_review

Untwirl wrote: "while steve's verbosity can be tedious, his first post to the hd talk page here was replied to with an attack ("Hi Steve, good to see you are back to your usual BS.") and the usual shrieking accusation ("I guess at least we can thank you for being almost clear about your compulsion to side with anti-Semites whenever the chance appears.") the baiting seems excessive to the extreme." - I appreciate this, though "baiting" is not the real issue (I can deal with "baiting" and I have for several years now). The real issue is that people like Slrubenstein who misrepresents my arguments and goes on and on about how long-winded I am, and Jayjg who keeps repeating this mantra of "reliable" sources even after I've quoted an entire paragraph of the current accepted one, are regarded as good editors simply because the nullify discussion with disingenuous rabble, and play a shell game with "reliable" sources. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jpgordon wrote: "It was. Consider it, however, in the context of years of this sort of behavior from Steve. I stepped back because I've little patience with people who say "go fuck yourself" in 1000 seemingly polite words instead of three direct ones." - I'm going to seriously deal with this insipid notion that my arguments boil down to a "fuck you" or else constitute "venomous filth" shortly. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Continued

Slrubenstein wrote: "Looking back what I regret about my statement is that it foreclosed any discussion of what I was hoping people (including Stevertigo) would discuss..." - At first glance it appears that Slrubenstein is trying to apologise for something quite other than mischaracterizing my arguments, misrepresenting my usage of sources as null, and making seriously unacceptable personal attacks. Occasional user Jimbo said it quite well, and this is the yardstick I think we will have to use here: "Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends. -SV

Slrubenstein wrote: "...his claim that, by describing "Holocaust denial" as a variety of claims that deny that Jews were victims of a genocidal campaign by Nazis and their allies, the article in question was also implying that there was no relationship between this genocidal campaign against Jews, and, as Stevertigo put it, "Nazi mass-murders (of humans)." - This is so misconstrued as to appear largely slanderous. I will ask that Slrubenstein clarify this statement: What is your understanding of my argument? I deal with my usage of the word "humans" below. -SV

Slrubenstein wrote: "Everyone (to my recollection) who maintained against Stevertigo's arguments, that the lead should continue to be described this way, stated that they held this position because they were following the sources." - We will discuss the behaviour/personal attacks of others shortly. At the moment the focus is on Slrubenstein. - SV

Slrubenstein wrote: "Stevertigo's response is to claim that such editors were instead promoting the view that this genocidal campaign against Jews was totally unrelated to "Nazi mass-murders (of humans)."" - Again, Slrubenstein is twisting what I wrote into something too akin to slander. I meant nothing of what he implies. As anyone knows, the word "human" is often used to indicate a context that transcends ethnicity. In terms like human rights, human nature, human history, human life, the word "human" is universal and universalist, meaning there is no ethnic boundary implied or defined. I understand that Slrubenstein may be confusing me with a Nazi or some other racist, eugenicist, or ethnocentrist, who might consider only themselves "human," or else certain people "not human." But that Slrubenstein confuses me with one of these people is not just a sign of his improper thinking, it reflects itself in his overall argumentation - such that in his reformulations, he is consistently manipulating my arguments into something entirely insidious and utterly different from what I've said. -SV

Slrubenstein wrote: "Now, you may accuse me of assuming the worst of Stevertigo before the facts were in. You may be right, but from my perspective I was responding to six years of sporadic, but similarly patterned, behavior." - I think people see how this works. Slrubenstein points to some history of mine that, according to him, now years later is supposedly justification for not just his "assuming the worst of [someone]" but using extremely pejorative terms in lieu of dealing with a valid, straightforward argument. -SV

Slrubenstein wrote: "I continue to find this remark by Stevertigo, and the use of the parenthetical "of humans," really disturbing. But I would have been glad if Steve could have explained that he meant something else or that he hadn't thought through what he wrote, and regretted it." - Certainly, if Slrubenstein had asked for an explanation, instead of calling my entire history of edits "venemous filth," I might have pointed him to a dictionary definition of "human," which again (for my slower readers) is commonly used as a trans-ethnic conceptualization of people. In the context of The Holocaust, the definitions range from the most exclusive (6 million Jews) to the inclusive (17 million... people). "Humans" in this context covers not just Jews, but Gypsies, Russians/Soviets, Christian Poles, Slavs, Gays, mentals, German dissidents, etc. The definition of The Holocaust to refer only to Jews is based on certain criteria that may best be described as "subjective" if not ethnic. So Slrubenstein and others should not assume that I or anyone is referring to the common, limited, definition in use since the 1960s. My usage of the word "human" simply referred to the wider Holocaust that considers all people - a definition that was common before the 1960s. Slrubenstein knew this, because I had mad this point several times, but he chose to formulate an irrational and slanderous interpretation, and to express himself accordingly. -SV

Slrubenstein wrote: "I would have been glad if other editors examined the remark and either said, "Slrubenstein, you are misreading him" or "Wait a second, what does he mean? That is what I was hoping for, and my comment had the opposite effect, it ended discussion, and I do regret that, I regret it entirely." - Well, what happened is that these "other editors" saw that what Slrubenstein did was cross a serious line of personal attacks. These "other editors" also saw that along with his gross mischaracterization of my arguments, he had demonstrated as much as anyone his incapacity to deal with my arguments. As it was never "other editors'" interest to deal with the subject matter itself objectively anyway, they understood the comment was a defeat to their subjective argument. I simply understood it to be an unacceptable slip, made by someone who was behaving irrationally and thus confusing both mine and his own objective and subjective arguments. So I offered a reprieve, and it was accepted, albeit only tacitly. -SV

Slrubenstein wrote: "The fact remains that there is an issue that is obscured - well, at least from my perspective. One issue is the conflict between Stevertigo and others - take me out of the picture just so we can focus on the substance of the conflict." - Now Slrubenstein wants to be removed from consideration in this issue? I don't agree. I want him to stick around. He contributed more to this debate than anyone, and likewise revealed its true essence as a lack of good faith attack upon me and my editorship. Jayjg's initial comments at the beginning of the initial thread/section likewise show how this entire issue began with a serious lack of good faith" on his part as well as Slrubenstein's. -SV

Slrubenstein wrote: "It is not about personal attacks. In the past few years I have seen virtually every conflict at Wikipedia reduced to one of personal attacks. I think that perhaps this is because ArbCom can only handle behavior policy conflicts, so these are the only conflicts we end up seeing. It may also be because we never developed a mechanism to resolve content policy conflicts, and sometime these conflicts, unresolved, leave people so frustrated that personal attacks erupt." - These are actually substantive insights - insights which echo my own, such that I put together into a proposal to reform dispute resolution four years ago (WP:DRREF). If Slrubenstein had not be so consumed with personal distinctions, he might have considered these concepts earlier and thus may have given support toward solving the underlying problems. -SV

Slrubenstein wrote: "My point is that at the root is a content conflict, a conflict over substance, and we need to start examining these conflicts and talking about them and not just ignoring them until someone makes personal attacks." - We don't yet have a formal editorial committee, and so we rely on editors of tact and civility to manage content proposals with fairness and consideration. Slrubenstein has in the past demonstrated that he was almost without peer in this area, and I respect him for it. However, of late Slrubenstein has been acting irrationally, growing accustomed to making personal attacks, and I can't help but think that personal issues in his life have been negatively affecting his perspective, along with his editing here. -SV

Slrubenstein wrote: "In my view, the conflict between Stevertigo and the others was a conflict between someone who was advocating the inclusion of a point of view without providing sources, and the others were advocating keeping a point of view because they had sources." - This is not accurate. The source I provided was reliable, already in the article, and already used for the same purpose I advocated of defining the core concept ("The Holocaust"). I simply read the source, found that its definition was quite sophisticated, and then advocated that its use in the article be proper - with adequate fidelity to the source in its essential variance, and not simply deferring to a common definition that itself represents an unnecessary oversimplification of the one given in the source. -SV

Slrubenstein wrote: "When I see someone advocate a perspective but who refuses to provide sources, I think I have a reason to suspect that s/he is pushing his or her personal point of view (thus violating both NPOV and NOR). When people insist on the inclusion of a perspective because they have sources, I see no cause to suspect them of either. Now, this is my interpretation of the conflict between Stevertigo and the others. If I am right, it is an asymmetrical conflict, meaning, one side is violating policy, the other side is not. I think this is getting lost in the discussion." - Again, I provided the same source, and even quoted a section of it. Slrubenstein simply acted as if I had not, and the fact that he still does, and further bases his entire defense on it, is the real issue here. Why Slrubenstein, did you simply ignore my repeated references to this same source that was already in the article, and thus presumably was "reliable"? Barring irrational behaviour, I can find no other reason for this other than disingenous argumentation. -SV

Slrubenstein wrote: "Maybe I am wrong, but this discussion would be more productive if admins involved here went over the discussion (bracketing me for the moment) to see what the conflict was at root about. Is there evidence that Stevertigo provided sources for his claims? Is there evidence that others failed to provide sources for their claims? Let's sort this out." - And we will. The first order of business is simple. I demand a direct personal apology from Slrubenstein. I also request he retract his irrational/slanderous characterization of my arguments, by providing a rational one. Regards, -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 01:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Steve, the discussion in which you used the CGH source is not the source of this issue. It also very much helps if you don't characterize a person's comments as irrational or slanderous without proving so without a shadow of a doubt. Otherwise you'll find that people won't listen to you much, I fear. lifebaka++ 04:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

lifebaka wrote: "the discussion in which you used the CGH source is not the source of this issue." - No, it actually is. Your and others' attempt to characterize this issue as one that transcends the recent discussions over the last several weeks is not only ill-conceived, but it ignores actual evidence of which you and others claim such deep concern for. The entire above exchange between me and Slrubenstein shows that the recent complaints are null and void. I understand that you are far from being a main culprit in this, but if you can deliver a message to your co-complainers, let it be this: file a formal case or please shut up. -SV

lifebaka wrote: "It also very much helps if you don't characterize a person's comments as irrational or slanderous without proving so without a shadow of a doubt." - Understand me, Slrubenstein suggested openly that I am an "anti-Semite" (and not the first time) and that my editing and comment here constitutes "venemous filth," which I translate to mean "hate-speech." While certain people here may live in countries with only quasi-sensible concepts of justice, and thus may suggest that I must somehow provide proof of my 'non-anti-Semitism,' I actually live somewhere where the person making the charge is responsible for it. I can, and do, call it 'slander' for a very good reason. -SV

lifebaka wrote: "Otherwise you'll find that people won't listen to you much, I fear." - I'm not worried about that - much of your case rests upon this avoidance you mention, and I need only keep my explanations earnest and composed. Well, composed anyway - this shit gets old. -SV

Correction: On the HD talk page, my statement "That Wikipedia should endorse only one particular meaning of "denial" and reject another meaning" should have referred not to variance in "denial" but to variance in the term "The Holocaust." As such it should have read "That Wikipedia should endorse only one particular meaning of "The Holocaust" and reject another meaning - one that gives some small regard to 11 million more people - is of course getting into issues of our own scholarship and editorial capacity." -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 07:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

---

EyeSerene wrote: "TH...is most often defined to refer to the genocide of the European Jews, but the term can also be legitimately widened to refer to all Nazi atrocities..." - Correct. Therre are a couple other relevant points in the source as well. -SV

EyeSerene wrote: "HD...in all sources uncovered so far, exclusively refers to the downplaying of the genocide of Jewish people." - That there are no such examples of non-Jews referenced in HD texts is understood. -SV

EyeSerene wrote: "No sources have been discovered that widen this term [HD] to encompass the Nazis' other victims. Steve was connecting the two, using the valid argument about "The Holocaust" to come to a novel conclusion unsupported by the sources about... HD" - This is the only part that's not accurate. While my initial queries dealt with the idea that "HD" might have more generalized meaning, I understood that there are no such examples of non-Jews referenced in HD texts. Not an problem - that some people are negatively fixated on just Jews and noone else is understood. Though there are circular issues here regarding the term's 'coined specific purpose,' these are less important than the main issue. The main issue, again, is that 1) any article must not just state the core concepts, (WP:LEDE) but define any special definitive variance in its core concepts - particularly 2) if the variance is subjective, and likewise if the common mainstrem definition is only assumed. Slrubenstein's arguments against [1] is a fallacy of definition and relation (which I lampooned as being valid only in entirely different cases where the term/definition is idiomatic/metaphorical and has no connecting relevance to its apparent composition: ie. ) and in fact that argument itself appears to me to be just a red herring in lieu of having an argument agaisnt [2], which is his actual target, even though the CGH source supports this point. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 17:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: "cloak confirmation"

Template

A template you created, Template:Divine presence, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock 2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stevertigo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Per recommendation of Arbcom, I am requesting a limited-scope unblock to participate in discussions at ANI and ANI/Stevertigo, and to open a dispute resolution matter regarding the propriety of this block itself. I will of course refrain from making any edits outside of any scope agreed-to between responding admins and myself for the duration of the current block, expiring 03:52, 8 October 2009. Regards, Stevertigo (wlog

Decline reason:

This does not address the actual reason for your block, see WP:GAB. An unblock request, not ANI, is the proper forum in which to present arguments about the propriety of your block. Per FayssalF below, the reference to a "recommendation of Arbcom" appears to be unfounded.  Sandstein  19:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please link to the "recommendation of Arbcom" to which you refer. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This was a private communication initiated by my post to arbcom-l. John Vandenberg (also FayssalF) responding. Please contact directly. I won't quote anything private without permission. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 15:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing private in the responses you received from John and myself. You were basically told that routine blocks and unblocks can be dealt with by the community of admins. You were also told that usually ArbCom doesn't accept those kind of requests because the time taken to submit and hear a case usually exceeds the length of the block. Please feel free to release the content of the responses you received if that would be helpful. Regards. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

John Vandenberg (Arbcom) wrote me in email: ".. put together a cogent {{unblock}} request that specifically allows you to pursue dispute resolution at your earliest convenience, if that is your desire." - Does this answer your reasons for the decline? I suppose now I'm supposed to use yet another obtusely large "unblock" template? -SV

Taking apart Sandstein 's decline comment:

1. Sandstein wrote: "This does not address the actual reason for your block, see WP:GAB." - The actual reason for the block listed above is WP:DISRUPT. The claimed evidence of this is at ANI/Stevertigo. The claim is unsubstantiated. I can substantiate this counter-claim of insubstantiality, but after seven years of editing here, am not convinced this talk page is the proper place. -SV
2. Sandstein wrote: "An unblock request, not ANI, is the proper forum in which to present arguments about the propriety of your block." - I disagree, and the reason is simply that blocked user talk pages are not notable to a general audience, wherein a general perspective can be found. Note that several people at the ANI expressed disgust for the ANI itself, its basis, and its usage as "reason" to block me. If you can, please cite the policy where it says these discussions belong on user talk pages, and any Arbcom case wherein this policy has been supported. -SV
3. Sandstein wrote: "Per FayssalF below, the reference to a "recommendation of Arbcom" appears to be unfounded." - See above quote. I took this as a recommendation. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 20:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you intended to refer to Sandstein? When you parse comments, if you miss the name the rest is somewhat suspect :-P Nathan ^T 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. The magic of wiki. And don't read too much into names: An unblock request refusal, by any other name, is it not just as..? -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 20:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Do not remove declined unblock requests from view, or you may be blocked from using this talk page.  Sandstein  07:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - I simply understood the first block rejection to be premature, given later explanations above. Why then did you remove the new one? Was it to give the impression that you were rejecting the new request without consideration? As if you could? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stevertigo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Per recommendation of Arbcom (quoted above), I am requesting a limited-scope unblock to participate in discussions at ANI and ANI/Stevertigo, and to open a dispute resolution matter regarding the propriety of this block itself. I will of course refrain from making any edits outside of any scope agreed-to between responding admins and myself for the duration of the current block, expiring 03:52, 8 October 2009. Regards -Stevertigo (w

Decline reason:

I see no evidence that indicates unblocking you for this purpose will be in any way helpful. Rather, it appears that this would inevitably lead to conflict. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"Conflict"

The purpose of a block is not to nullify "conflict." In fact it creates more conflict —particularly when used abusively and without justification. That you fail to offer any credible justification is a seriously conflicted issue. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

it's a two week block. It ends on 10/8. Stop pushing holocaust denial nonsense, and I'm sure you'll do just fine. Hiberniantears (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Um. That statement "pushing holocaust denial nonsense" is a characterization of my argument, and an incorrect one. It is so incorrect in fact that its a slander. I ask that you rephrase that statement and rethink your characterizations - particularly the ones that border on slander. It doesn't matter that you are just repeating what others have said.

And if you are not actually capable of understanding the nuances of an editorial dispute, you can go do something else more fitting your abilities. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It honestly looks to me like you're accurately recognizing the broader definition of "Holocaust" and then incorrectly attempting to incorporate that broader meaning into the Holocaust denial article. "Holocaust denial" specifically applies to denial of a holocaust, that being the holocaust of Jews by the Nazi's. Obviously, there can be denial of other holocausts, but these would not be defined at this time under HD because.

So you have a valid idea, but one which was better suited to the talk page of the HD article for discussion on whether whether the semantics add value, and if they do, where might they be most useful in the article. Just because an idea is good does not mean it is the best course of action. In this case you had a good idea that would serve best as a thought exercise. Objective views of history require all views and nuances to be considered. Your nuance was considered, and various problems were identified. You certainly took a good deal of grief for it right off the bat, but this seems to be related to your taking an overly hostile stance towards other editors. Your ideas will gain a better chance at receiving an objective analysis if you're less aggressive. I speak from experience as someone who has blown my share of talk page discussions by losing my temper. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears wrote: "It honestly looks to me like you're accurately recognizing the broader definition of "Holocaust" and then incorrectly attempting to incorporate that broader meaning into the Holocaust denial article." - The first part is accurate. The second part is not. Replace the second part with 'define in the Holocaust denial article what the scope of "The Holocaust" is in the context of "Holocaust denial," and why.' That's it. It's not too difficult to understand is it? Why then the resistance, mal-characterizations, personal attacks/slanders, the rigourous hand-waving referendum at ANI, the reference to unrelated articles and edit/diffs from 2003 (six years ago), and so forth?

What's interesting about your comment here is that your characterization about my argument and your placing onus on my allegedly "hostile stance" and interactions with other editors are inaccurate (note that no personal attacks at either Talk:Holocaust denial or WP:ANI/Stevertigo come from me), yet still your observations about objectivity appear rather acute. You again, are incorrect, however in stating that my "nuance was considered." It was not, and the mis-characterizations (personal attacks too) are telling in that regard. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of "unsourced OR"

Just a question. When your block is over, will you change anything in the way you edit with respect to unsourced OR? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your terminology "unsourced OR," picked up by osmosis perhaps, is inaccurate, and probably also an oxymoron: Something can be "unsourced and "not-OR" - in fact most of the material on Wikipedia still falls into this category. An addition can also qualify as "sourced OR," and perhaps it may be difficult for most people to tell which fall into this category. That's to say nothing of the subjective aspects of claiming that someone's editing is "OR" - it may in fact just be "unsourced." The spectrum isn't always sourced fact to unsourced OR - sometimes its unsourced competence to sourced garbage[2]. I know it doesn't come from you, but "unsourced OR," with all other possible meanings eliminated, must be just a confused pejorative. Restate your question please. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that seemed pretty evasive. I presume that you don't intend to change and I won't pursue it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't being evasive. If someone asked you a question about whether you are going to continue doing something improper (have you stopped beating your wife?), you can answer it either evasively (in a way that ignores its meaning) or strictly (in a way that explores its exact meaning). I chose the latter, and asked you to rephrase the question in a way that does not rest on a misconceived accusation. You know very well that I did provide sources. You also know that my arguments were editorial and advocated a neutral (conceptual) context - one supported by the source. I am not promoting an originalistic view, nor a reinterpretation of the "denial" concept. I am however saying something very straightforward about WP:LEDE: To use a very simple metaphor, if some software program is limited to just the Win32 platform, we should say so in the article lede - we cannot assume it's unnecessary to disambiguate from Mac or Linux. WP:OWN is also sometimes relevant: If the software is Microsoft property, we need to say it's owned by Microsoft.

The only thing "evasive" here has been others' approach toward these basic arguments. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend to accuse you with that question, but only inquire about your position. If you felt that you didn't do anything wrong before, you could have simply answered that you didn't believe that you did anything wrong before and you would not change the way you edit after you were unblocked. Would that correctly describe your position? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarify please: I above was dealing with the current dispute at Talk:Holocaust denial. WP:ANI/Stevertigo has veered off a bit into other, more general accusations about my editing. Which are you referring to? The latter accusations have little basis - you've seen Slrubenstein trying to submit diffs from 7 years ago - and the former accusations about the discussions at Holocaust denial are often inaccurately and pejoratively conceptualized. Please clarify which context you are referring to, and what premises your inquiries are based on - improper editing, no sources, "disruptive editing," etc). You could also source your premises, for example to Slrubenstien: So your question would be "Slrubenstein has accused you of disruptive editing. Do you plan on continuing to engage in disruptive editing?" -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like more evasion. My question was pretty simple and direct. I don't think your responses are in your best interest. This is my final reply here. Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bob, you asked: "When your block is over, will you change anything in the way you edit with respect to unsourced OR?" - In one way I could treat this like a retiring baseball player being asked by a reporter "what are you going to do when you are retired?" "I'm going to Disneyland" might be the proper response. In another way, I could answer it the way I did which was to break it down and ask you for clarification. A baseball player would say "what do you mean?" The reporter could then say he was evading the question, or else he could focus on a certain context, perhaps timeframe: "I mean, what are your plans for the next few months?" and "I mean, do you have any plans to stay connected with baseball?" are acceptable reformulations. In this case, your question had a timeframe, and a context: "When your [ban for steroid abuse] is over, will you change anything in the way you [play ball] with respect to [illegal substances]?" I've neither violated RS nor NOR, nor was the block actually appropriate, so what's to say?

I appreciate what appears to be a rather fair handed approach on your part, but I have to deal directly with the premises behind any allegations, and any similarity between those and the premises behind any such questions. Regards,

-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

ani

hi steve. while i don't know your history, i know you've been here a long time. I apologize in advance if advice from a newbie comes across as ill-conceived, but here goes: disengage. full stop. you know better than anyone how the atmosphere has disintegrated here and you may have many editors nursing grudges. I see it as your own best interest to work on something else for a while, and then come back to the hd issue later if necessary by starting an rfc and not responding back and forth. If you feed into this "What does disruptive mean?" effort, you may find yourself shot in the foot. I, for one, agree with you 100% about slr's incivility at your first posting on the hd talk page, but pursuing it at this time will only be seen by others as inflaming an old dispute (ie:disruptive, drah-mas, etc). you have support, it's down for posterity, so, please, work on other things and don't feed the flames. thanks for your time. untwirl(talk) 20:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, I've done that before, and it did not work. It's not a simple matter of breaking up a schoolyard fight - there are issues here that negatively influence editing, collaboration, and consensus. And if my own best interest was the main issue, I wouldn't have gotten Civil and Arbcom started. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

i don't see it as a schoolyard fight, i see several editors who'd probably like to see you banned. to put it bluntly, you might be inadvertently inviting everyone you've ever pissed off to flock like vultures and finish you off, regardless of how many good points you have. wait. attempt to resolve the dispute on slr's talk page. if that fails, prepare a 'concisely worded rfcu. a cast off ani page is not the place. don't you agree? untwirl(talk) 02:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the whole point. If these editors want me "banned" or sanctioned in some other way they can attempt to do so simply via continuing with the ANI process and then going to RFAR. If there is some actual substantive basis for such sanctions, they can get the job accomplished. And they can do it particularly easily if they have what? In a fair arbitration environment, they need only a certain degree of substantive basis. "Clout," such that might come from personal connections or status or other non-editorial-related substance, has no bearing except in unfair environments. They need to make a substantive case, that is, if they still have a case.

So even if, as you say, "everybody [I've] ever pissed off [] flock[s] like vultures to finish [me] off," it doesn't matter how many they are or how much "clout" they have if they don't have the actual substantive basis to do so. And if they do "finish [me] off" without actual substantive basis, others will see this lack of substance, and all they would be demonstrating is that their patterns of action have certain unlikable resemblance to that of 'big ugly carrion-eating birds.' So, I'm not unclear about where I am at and where they are at, and if they are now much clearer on the concept, that's great. But we are also going to correct about three basic issues with this case: personal attacks and slanders, mischaracterizations of my arguments for political ends, the usage of blocks based in dubious policy.-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we all have to be careful that combative discussions on Wikipedia don't adversely affect our personalities, especially if they occur over a long period of time. Best wishes, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. But unfortunately, the lines have been crossed and they have to be dealt with. Keep in mind that I'm not just demonstrating the invalidity of the slanders, but the obtuseness of others who gave little weight to those at all, and instead focused on alleged "patterns" of "disruptive editing" -- which to date remain unsubstantiated. That my hands smell like fish afterwards does not mean its unnecessary to liberally and accurately dish out the trout. I do it fairly, too. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I'm going to put it bluntly. Wikipedia's a fucked up place. It's so fucked up, that there is no fixing it. Our "leader" has a bold-faced lie on his userpage. Perfectly reasonable userpages are deleted all the time. Good editors are blocked and banned because they pissed off the wrong person.

I tried what you're doing Steve. I tried to "fix the great wrongs". And I got blocked. A few times. I've pissed off so many people I can't take a shit without CU's making sure the crap is all coming from the same ass. As I said before, wikipedia can't be fixed. So either live with it, or you can try to be the great hero and get banned. Unfortunately, you seem to think that getting blocked and banned will make you a martyr. Not so. Wikipedians like to jump on the bandwagon. Once you have a single block on your record, any and every wikipedian will gladly believe the worst about you. So go ahead, get yourself banned. I'll know the truth, maybe a few others. But once you've been gone a few weeks, even we'll forget you ever existed.

Or you can drop it, let the untouchables go, and stick around. Who knows, maybe someday there'll be enough people like us to actually fix this place. - Drew Smith What I've done 10:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

...says the guy who finally admitted fabricating an image to use a reference. Not quite the way to go about fixing the "great wrongs". Tan | 39 14:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

*cough* Nice, Tan.

Drew pretty much has it right, though he phrases things a bit more cynically than I would have. You need to let bygones be bygones, because continuing to harp on the "wrongs" you feel have been committed against you is only going to make enemies for you, regardless of whether or not the wrongs are real. There are already plenty of people who don't like you, and it won't do you any good to give them a reason to block you more permanently. I suggest going with how the (broken) system works, not because the system is right, but because you won't be able to fix the system from the outside. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WH/media war

Stevertigo, as you may have noticed, in response to your suggestion w/r an omnibus article about U.S. Presidents and the media, I have gone and sandboxed some vague idea as to the barest skeleton of one at Talk:2009 White House criticism of Fox News/U.S. Presidents and the media. Could you offer your help or constructive criticisms?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 07:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

salvation

The June version does seem conceptually organized along the lines you mention and I supported in my most recent comment on Talk.

However, the first paragraph of the lead is vague if not turgid -- too many concepts crammed in too far in advance of their definitions in context. I think the lead should start simple and literally "lead" the WP user further into the details of the article.

Also, be cautious about what WP calls "weasel" words, such as unsupported "most".

I'm not sure how to resolve this issue. Perhaps you could start by reinserting the part of the June version that describes the four types. Then see if it lasts and if so, start politicking for consensus to rewrite a few weeks later? Martindo (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RDBMS

Template:RDBMS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Seriesdraft

Template:Seriesdraft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back.

And good luck in the future. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of GAFL

The article GAFL has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

All content is non-English. Soft redirect suggests checking the internet slang appendix, but there is no listing for GAFL on that appendix.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianga (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ships in the day

I must miss your visit to my berg as I am out of town working a gig. Enjoy yourself! Binksternet (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of PBS idents

The article PBS idents has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

encyclopedic consisting of primarily of original research

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of PBS idents

I have nominated PBS idents, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (3rd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RadioFan (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gafl

A tag has been placed on Gafl, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Mononomic (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, please disregard this. That "speedy delete" button looks all to appealing when you can't find any text on the page. I've removed it; sorry for the confusion. Mononomic (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Google Watch

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Google Watch. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Afr'an

I have nominated Afr'an (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

List of former Jews

I dont think this is canvassing, but i thought you should know that this article is up for afd. obviously, since you created it, you would probably vote to keep, and your vote may not have any weight, but i thought you may want to view or comment. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of former Jews

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of former Jews. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama articles amendment

Hello. I've requested an amendment to the Obama articles arbitration case, which would see the expiration of your edit restriction if successful. Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 01:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Stevertigo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Judith Donath - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Dan Smith (author) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Kamal Kharazi - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:American mythos

Template:American mythos has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

File upload without licence

Hi. Could you add the license to the files that you have uploaded to meta. Thanks.Crochet.david (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to please update your submitted skin screenshot

Hey mate, was just browsing Gallery of user styles and the screenshot of the skin, Skinori Bluedi, you submitted is missing. Can you update it? Thanks! --SomaticJourney (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Online databases

Template:Online databases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Nurg (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)