User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Climate of North America

Hello Steve, I have raised some concerns about the above article at User talk:RyRy5#Climate of North America. As his adopter I would be interested in your input. Thanks, EJF (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Baseball uniform

Just noticed another copyright issue has been raised here and as his adopter I thought you would like to be informed. Thanks George The Dragon (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've seen it, the recent wave of copyright violations on his part is most concerning. I've considered posting a thread on AN, see the administrator opinion of this. Thanks again, and if you spot anything else, please let me know. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my biggest concern is that there don't appear to be any safeguards against it happening at DYK, etc, but that's not really my area. A shame because he appeared to be doing a lot of good article creation and improving, but now somebody is going to have to check every edit. George The Dragon (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The admin who listed the Climate in North America article as a DYK needs to be trouted. I have an idea here, of course, I could post it on AN, but it would, well, involve his adoption being done on an external wiki that I've made, where I can transwiki all the content he works on back/forth. Would also be somewhere he can learn, with the lessons from my adoption program. Thoughts? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)This is certainly going to be tough to handle. It's almost like we recommend he stay out of the mainspace for a while... and I have to admit I've never heard of such a thing that wasn't a part of a block/ban. Adopting, mentoring, and coaching of course can be helpful, but a program here on wikipedia can only go so far. At younger ages, basic elements of plagiarism need to be learned in history and english courses, not from the internet.

Steve, I don't think an AN will really help RyRy, if that is it's goal. If it's neccesary to discuss a potential indef block, then so be it. He might just need to grow up a little bit... in the real world. Your adoption goals are quite admirable, but I'll repeat: I think he needs to just learn this in the regular American school system, no more attempts at wikipedia coaching. I actually think it could be harmful, a continuing notion that whatever form of teaching Wikipedia can offer will solve the issues here, because frankly, I'm not sure they can. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Don't go to AN with this yet. Let him get back online. There are dozens of eyes on this, including several admins. No need to over-dramatize what is already over-traumatized. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the going to AN wasn't for suggesting he be indef blocked. Just to clarify that. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I realized that. I think I was implying that if that needed to be discussed, that would probably be the only reason to escalate this to noticeboard. It's clear from everything you type that you are doing your best to help RyRy, not get him blocked. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the evidence, Steve, bringing him to AN will get him blocked. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that it's the responsibility of the user who nominates the DYK to check for copyright violations, but everyone participating in the process should share it. But anyway, he nominated the article in the knowledge, he knew that he was breaking our policies. Well, I won't rehash here my view on adoption, admin coaching, etc. Cenarium (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I commented on RyRy5's talk page, you may want to know. I hope that it will help him to realize what he's doing. But actually, no need to dramatize too much for the moment. Cenarium (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please answer cmt I left on my talk page. Thank you.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 23:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Something is going fishy here, I think RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 23:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the first advise I could give is: be patient, and don't revert when you're in doubt, but talk. Cenarium (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, I suppose I should give a response here. Am I concerned about all of this? Yes. Greatly. Copying and pasting content, unless it is public domain, is a copyright infringement. Content that is GFDL requires attribution. Even then, you should always reword what is said on the source you find. Additionally, searching through old revisions of articles, and restoring them to the current version, as your own work, is a serious issue. As I see it, an AN thread probably would get RyRy blocked. The suggestion I currently have, is for RyRy to continue his adoption on the adoption wiki, (which I run), and I can transwiki content back and forth, and he can continue his lessons there. While this might not be the best outcome, it's the best one at this stage I believe. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you were concerned and dedicated to help. A lot of people have given time to RyRy5, ad nauseum for some. But the fact is that it cannot solve all the issues, RyRy5 has to 'find the path by himself', and he needs time for this. Cenarium (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of going on a semiwikibreak. Comments? -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• A semi-wikibreak, well, I'm really not so sure on what to do. The recent copyvio's are a real concern. I was thinking perhaps continue the adoption here, and keep the Wikipedia editing to a bare minimum. You could do the article work there, and once they're checked for copyright issues, you could put them on Wikipedia. Sound like plan? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree entirly. But I don't really know where to start. I'll go there now if you want so we can start. Okay? I'v been thinking aslo. Maybe I should create articles there and then when checked, we can add it here. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, that's what I think would be best. Going there now. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve, you left me a "talkback" template yesterday, not sure what you want me to responde to. It seems you've been working an arrangement out? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Spore (video game) consensus

If you check the Archive pages, it's long been established in Spore (video game) that reseller release dates are not valid sources of info. Most recent: Talk:Spore (video game)/Archive 6 Discussion, and it's not the first Then: Talk:Spore (video game)/Archive 7 JAF1970 (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And why would I retract my statement? clicketyclick_yaketyyak 02:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• No offense taken. But it seems to me that the reason the article got to the state it was in was because each party figured that the more references their preferred classification had, the more correct it was. They moved from an edit war to a reference war, and it took on ridiculous proportions. I mean, seven references for each word?! Sometimes, articles take on a certain shape as a result of editor disagreements and compromises rather than as a result of considering what would be best for the article. It's like the sexual dimorphism of natural selection. And I think Spore's antlers are way too big and unwieldy . clicketyclick_yaketyyak 02:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I can understand why you didn't want to see it again! But reliable sources are reliable sources. Having seven of them doesn't make the information any more reliable than having two. Reference-warring to determine what merits a mention should be confined to the discussion page. And why does it need a separate section to discuss genre? That is highly unorthodox. Description of the genre belongs in the lead. It is not notable enough to get its own section like "Gameplay" or "Reception". There's just so much wrong with the article that an argument over genres and removing redundant references struck me as the height of silliness. Again, as told you before, I'm just amazed at some of the kinds of cases that get brought to medcab. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 03:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can't those three genres be listed in the lead with three respective references at the end of the sentence? And if it ever becomes an issue with any other editors who come later (which I doubt), can't a little warning box be put on the discussion page about it? This is exactly what I mean by the article being shaped by the involved editors' particular conflicting preferences rather than by what is best for the article. Are we to have a separate section for each thing that the editors come into conflict over so it can be discussed to the extent that satisfies all of them? Sure, it may settle the quibbling but the poor reader will find herself confronted with sixteen sections about conflicting pre-release reports on possible skin tones and shoe sizes of creatures, with two lines apiece of references. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 03:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Okay okay, I'll stop whining to you then, hahah (-; clicketyclick_yaketyyak 03:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Joint (building) mediation case

The latest activity I saw was this, apart from no shortage of other edits lately. Are we perhaps finished? --Achim (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, finished? I'd say closing it would be a bit premature. How about you have a look at their comments, and make a few edits to add more references? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Like what? With what is there, who can doubt that building joints exist and are sealed and that the products used for that are subject to testing and certification? That is what this article is about. What is not absolutely crystal clear about the contents? Even the fact that concrete shrinks, bedrock knowledge for anyone in construction, has a reference...--Achim (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I just read it again. Everything has an outside reference. The one paragraph the other guy questioned, he obviously did not read the reference for, which was provided. I proved him wrong already. If you disagree, please show me where. What is there to question? The fact a perimeter slab edge joint results in curtain walls? What about the pictures? What about the test standard? What about the products that were tested to that standard and now hold certification listings? The fact that joints move? If there weren't movement, we would not have joints in the first place, would we? Also, we would not have an industry standard for moving test joints before the fire exposure, would we? Explain the existing and cited evidence then? Also explain the comments from everyone who disagreed with the AFD? This guy has a hobby. It is deleting pages and then stonewalling if he's questioned. I have yet to see a specific from him that actually washes. Also, I am the one who answered last. He has edited lots since, a bunch more deletions, of course, but he has not answered what I wrote. I have a feeling he won't. If you now agree that more references are needed, then I address the same question to you that he won't answer: further references for what? Insert fact tags then in locations where the existing evidence, after you have read and understood it, is insufficient. --Achim (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, sorry for taking a long time to reply. Please don't jump down my throat. It was merely a suggestion. I can see from your comments that you appear to work in the field. I think their concern is there is one reference at the bottom of the paragraph, which makes it appear to some, that the reference is only for the last sentence. Might I suggest you add the reference in multiple times? If you're unsure on how to do this, please let me know, and I'll point it out. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Likewise, I don't mean to jump down anyone's throat. By the time I start writing, it's pretty late and it's easier for me to get frustrated. I am indeed not sure about adding the same reference in several times. Isn't that against some regulation or style thingie in here somewhere, thus ensuring that someone else will take issue? How about if you add it in? I have worked in this field for many years and I know one thing, which is that if the references are indeed read and understood, the case is closed right then and there. There is no case, which is why nobody else can come up with any specifics that stick, because those who ask, don't understand it and cannot reply when pressed on these specifics. So, perhaps I need a layman's view? So how about if you stick in the same reference in multiple spots? Actually, the one who should have done it is the guy who wants to delete all the articles on here and then keeps stonewalling. But he won't do it. So, if there is a way to repeat the same information in a way that is deemed kosher on here, then I would appreciate it, if you would do that. Best, --Achim (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's your case of course, but I take note that no reply has been made by Coccyx_Bloccyx to my prose or Elkman's prose. He's done a load of other editing though, so time or remuneration do not appear to be the problem, as he pointed out earlier. Ergo my suggestion that perhaps we are finished, if it would appear that none of us have been able to get a specific and reasonable response from the man. I even liked Fireproeng's suggestion that he insert fact tags where there is something specifically missing, and I can assure you it is only a minority of times when I agree with that guy. In fact, when an article I have created can be questioned at all, he is usually the first one to tag it. But even he left that one alone with all the existing references. Again, I don't oppose more references, but I can't think of anything else to prove that this Pope is indeed catholic. I will be interested to see your perspective on what else is required before this case is done. Best, --Achim (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, seems to be a relatively easy solution here. I can't do it myself, and it's something commonly done. See this or example, a reference used 6 times. For example, if using <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_1stInterstateFire/050488_InterstateFire.htm|title=First Interstate Bank Fire May 4, 1988|publisher=Los Angeles Fire Department|accessdate=2008-05-05|last=|first=}}</ref> multiple times, you would write, <ref name="lafire">{{cite web|url=http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_1stInterstateFire/050488_InterstateFire.htm|title=First Interstate Bank Fire May 4, 1988|publisher=Los Angeles Fire Department|accessdate=2008-05-05|last=|first=}}</ref> and then, for every additional use, you would use <ref name="lafire"/>. Have a go at this. Then let me know how you go. OK? :) Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, this looks like Greek to me right now as I have not done references like that before. I usually just insert links in single brackets and then sometimes others clean that up and put them below. I have not done that before. I might get into it over the weekend, but if anyone else would like to insert that in multiple locations in the article, I'm down with it. Still, let's say that Fireproeng puts in more references (I have no objection to that.), Coccyx_Bloccyx is still likely to tag this based on the established behaviour pattern, even after Fireproeng gets through with the article. What if he inserts references, removes the tags and then that guy retags the article again? That's what he's done so far. Who is to say he won't keep doing that? I'm not sure what will satisfy this guy. He keeps reverting and he cannot provide any specifics. Like who would argue the merits of the article with all the back-up that is already there? A commons gallery, a UL treatise, online certification listings, a real fire report, products for sale, which address specifically this design issue, thousands of manhours worked every year by building trades the world over with guys stuffing joints with rockwool and smearing caulking or spraying paint over top, everyone disagreeing with him on his afd case -- what else does it take??? He wanted to delete it entirely, as appears to be his modus operandi (contrary to the advice of even the deletionist society on here, who tell its members to have solid back-up for deletions) and then stonewall when other question him - and not just with me. Anyone who wants to insert further references - power to you, Go for it. What I want addressed at this point though is closure on the mediation. The guy was questioned by me, then a load of people on the afd case, then by Elkman, then by you. During this process, I found out that others have questioned him on other unrelated articles where he did the same thing. Fireproeng made a very valid suggestion, which is for him to insert fact tags where he thinks they are warranted and then be able to defend them. He can't do that because he does not have a point, which is also why he keeps selectively deleting discussions from his talk page. After all this, he is still not responding. You say you will see what you can do, but the guy has nothing to offer. Otherwise he would have offered it, and what he comes up with is easily defeated on merit because he does not read the references provided or is not capable of understanding them or willing to understand them. This behaviour is a generic issue for that user and I would like to address that. For that to be addressed, this mediation needs to come to a close, I believe, unless you believe you have not exhausted all means available to you to make him answer specifics instead of just stonewalling. --Achim (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• As the article improvement is dragging, I've provided a proposal to move this off center on the Joint(building) Talk page. Fireproeng (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath

Hi Steve! Thanks for trying. It takes two to tango and that guy just clammed up after he was pressed on specifics, which evidence shows is his pattern. See the note on Fireproeng's new talk page: right here. If he chooses to mess with that again, I will seek to have him blocked and I trust I will not be alone in that endeavour. Thanks for your help though! Best regards, --Achim (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU/OC

Hello . The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. With the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. bibliomaniac15 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You will also need to add [[Category:Wikipedians who use StatusBot]] to your userpage in order for SoxBot V to automatically update your online/offline status. If you do not added this text, you will always be listed as "offline" at HAU. Thanks. Useight (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Steven Crossin/Archive 17, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Adoption Wiki

I may not be able to go there for a while until I get used to my new laptop. I am still resetting up my PC which I had to use for my laptop, but it may take a few days, so things could be slower than usual. And about my new signature. It's not my real name. Long story, really. I actually have some other names besides my current one, but don't be alarmed. Comments? -- Ryan Cross (talk ♠ Review) 18:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not alarmed. Contrary to common belief, my name isn't Steve Crossin, either. Don't rush about the adoption wiki. There's no rush. I'll take the time I have while you're busy to attend to this. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's good. And yes I know your not really Steve Crossin. If I have any questions, I will ask them here rather than the Adoption wiki. I'll be able to go to the adoption wiki when i'm back on my PC. --Ryan Cross (talk ♠ Review) 19:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, how did you know I'm not Steve Crossin? I could have been ;) Anyway, I really don't have any questions. I'm having a quiet night here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know you said your not Steve Crossin somewhere, I just can't remember right now. It's a quite afternoon where I live. Anyway, I think my laptop uses Twinkle and it seems to use some other tools I installed. I'm not very interested in my new installations right now.--Ryan Cross (talk ♠ Review) 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now Twinkle is governed by similar rules with it's rollback feature, I'd advise you not to use the "rollback" bit, to be honest. Anyway, just having quiet bottle of wine with Mellie ^_^. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

About that. When I used it, the english wikipedia seems to show as a blank page, but there's actually info on the page, I can't see it. To reload the page, I have to shut down my laptop and reload it. I wouldn't want to use twinkle ever again if this keeps on happening. Even if you tell me it's okay to use it. So, twinkle seems useless for me at this moment. Also, who's Mellie?--Ryan Cross (talk ♠ Review) 19:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the instructions on WP:TWINKLE. Mellie is my wife. ^_^. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look,but like I said, I won't use it until you tell me I'm ready. Nice to know about Mellie. Also, what do you of me getting myself a second adopter? I believe I need all the help I can get.--Ryan Cross (talk ♠ Review) 19:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on who it is, to be honest. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For invaluable advice and helping me with my first set of merges. Umrguy42 (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering. Why do users use db tags while other use Afd tags. Is there a certain time when and when not to use certain tags? --Ryan Cross (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there's a difference. Pages tagged with a {{db-a7}} for example, meet, or are assumed to meet, our Criteria for speedy deletion for articles that don't assert their notability, whereas a {{AFD}} tag is where an article is actually may not meet a speedy delete criteria, therefore is taken to Articles for Deletion for discussion. Hope this helps. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, thank you.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. There's another tag. {{prod}}. It's where a speedy deletion criteria doesn't apply, but when an AFD may not be necessary, Use those with caution. Who was the 2nd adopter you were thinking of? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't decided yet. I actually asked LaraLove a few days ago but she's busy. Do you have any suggestions? BTW, my PC seems to be working again so we can head off to the Adoption Wiki later, not now though. --RyRy5 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think you would be fine with one adopter. As for the adoption wiki, I'm not too sure when, it's late here (5.15am), so I really will need to go to bed in an hour or so. But, really, I think having 2 adopters would just complicate things. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. I guess one would be okay. I remember that I asked User:Pedro yesterday. I guess I should clarify things. --RyRy5 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a good time to ask for you to look over Special:Contributions/RyRy5. I would like to have your opinions on my recent contributions.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:24MultipleIssues

Do we really need this template? We already have a number of templates almost identical, and I don't think we need specific templates for certain TV shows. I was considering TfD'ing it, but then decided to ask you to consider commenting. Best regards, Qst (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Converted all instances of it to {{articleissues}} and had all pages speedied. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

tally

hey Steve, When you update the tally on RfA's it is really nice if you include the count in the edit summary rather than the word "tally." By putting the count there, people who are interested can see it right away without having to look at the RfA itself.Balloonman (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ach, my bad. Will do in future. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 13:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea to me too. Thanks.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lectures

Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Child Psychology

Steve,

Please see the comments left on the CABAL page.

I should be very grateful if you could direct me to to the next stage of the DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

Many thanks,

kip —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 22:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Question(s)

I have some:

1. Why do users put ! in front of vote?
2. What is the difference between wikifying and copy-editing?
3. If say someone asks you "Tell me when your running on WP:RFA" and when your actually running on RfA, you go ask them to participate. Is that canvassing?
4. Did I tag this right? I really only tag if an article is vandalism or an attack article.

I may be offline soon so my response may be delayed.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 05:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Let's go through these.

1. People put ! in front of a vote, I was told, that in some sort of computer code, ! = not. Therefore, !vote= not a vote.
2. Wikifying is placing internal wiki-links into an article. Copy editing is checking for spelling and grammar errors, checking for sentences that could be worded better, etc.
3. Generally, no. It's not canvassing. However. it explicitly depends on whether they requested that you let them know. I'd advise extreme caution here.
4. Without a doubt. That meets the G10 criteria.

Hope that answers it. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thanks. I have more questions, but I can't remember them at the moment. I'll probably ask you tomorrow or so if I don't remember it now.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 06:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. Okay, when you're ready. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of me helping at the help desk?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 06:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Was away again. Er, not at the moment. I'm sorta busy at the moment studying (for a change). Sorry. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 09:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's okay. Study hard. :) Oh, and when you have the time, can you review my last 50 contributions or so? You may notice some copy-editing, oh, and wikifying, oh, right, and some assessing. I just felt I should do some article improvements tonight. It's really the only time when wikipedia is quieter so I don't have to be bothered.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 09:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

3. - I actually am pretty sure this is canvassing... although within the context of it being just one, it might not be considered such. However, Steven is right about proceding there with caution, but you should never go to someone's talk page during your RfA to tell them to participate. The primary reason is that it will most certainly upset other users, maybe to the point that they oppose. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just on this, I asked about this, as I wasn't 100% sure. Personally, I'd advise against this sort of messaging, as, while it may not be obvious canvassing, it could well appear as such. Personally, I wouldn't do it myself. As Gwynand pointed out, some other users might not look on this sort of thing to well. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 13:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Rfa

I would just like to say thanks for the neutral vote in my recent RFA. I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me and gave me a neutral vote have made me make a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/RyRy5

Do you mind reviewing my recent contributions?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 02:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your last 50 edits seem OK to me. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but do you mind going deeper into my contributions? Maybe a few specifics of what I am doing and if anything else I'm doing too often and things like that.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 02:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, well, how much deeper? :P Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 03:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, um, just about the last 500. You can do 250 if it takes to long. :) Also, I left a cmt on my talk page.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 03:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I know we already spoke of this, but what do you think of User:Useight becomeing my co-adopter?RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 07:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd have to speak to him about it. I've not been very active recently, I've been doing a few things, including working on a Featured Picture [1] with Durova. Could be an RFA soon. But, um, I have a different method to him, so I'm not overly sure. As I said, I'll ask him about it. Get him to message me. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

He's been notified. Steve, it's not like your not doing good as I am asking for another adopter if your wondering. You've been great so far. I just wanted some extra help when your not here or something. You understand, right? --RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 07:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I understand. I'm usually around, just I'm slightly busy with a few things at the moment. Trying to write a DYK too. Haven't thought of the topic yet. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's good to hear. :) Well, I do have some experience in DYK. Do you need any help? RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 07:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I should be fine, I'm just really looking for a topic. I'm working towards a triple crown. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll be offline soon. It's 1:00 AM here in Nevada. I suppose I should copy-edit some baseball articles before leaving.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 08:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, okay. Bye. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 08:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of my last (about) 25 contributions? --RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 08:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems all fine to me. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 08:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I guess I'll talk to you later. Regards, RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 08:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• RyRy, you don't need another "official" adopter, I'm really not sure why you are asking. First of all, when it comes to adopters, I'm really not sure I've seen someone more active or doing a better job than Steve. Second, RyRy, you have several editors that watch your talk and follow your contribs, who often comment to you and are also willing to answer questions. When Steve is not around, you can come to me or tons of other editors for questions, discussion, etc. No need to have more official adopters. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but others (besides my adopter) don't have special programs to help the adoption process. For example, Steve here has User:Steve Crossin/Adoption. User:Useight also has a similar talk program, but I do think I will be more active in Steve's program but more help would be useful. I know many editors are out there to help, but having certain editors could be useful since they know you fairly well. If I ask a random editor for example for help, they probably don't know much about me or my contributions. I know Steve knows my average contributions and Useight is starting to know too. It may be a little confusing, but I think we can make up a good, orginized adoption process. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I really just disagree RyRy. I think one your goals on wikipedia is learning to be more comfortable on your own, which of course will take time, but it can't be forced. Formalizing everything in such a manner can actually hurt more than help. One adopter, when he is doing is job, is more than enough. If in the future, you want an admin coach, Useight will be a great choice. You have had so much community commentary over you and I think the reason everyone is so glad to help is you do everything in good faith. You act like you really want to get better. But you need to just relax. Come to wikipedia, edit, discuss, collaborate. Don't worry so much about official adopting and coaching and reviewing every last edit you make. I think getting comfortable editing in this way is what will really help you move along. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding what you said, I will consider not getting a second adopter. I do think that Useight would be a good admin coach in the future. I appreciate your comments. It may help me a bit here on wikipedia. I'm starting to feel more comfortable with my edits, probably when users review most of the time, but I'm not very worried about my contribution if their non-constructive as much as before. Maybe, I should ask Useight for a question, review, etc. if Steve is offline, which has been occuring these past few days. Comments? It would be greatly appreciated. Note that I am most likely to not get adopted be another adopter.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 01:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think I agree with everything you just said, it seems you have a pretty good understanding of what I am getting at. A little while ago, I sort of thought-out-loud to Keeper76 about maybe having some possibly formal coaching. He was busy at the time, but said he'd keep an eye on me. The relationship I've had with Keeper in regards to my editing has been very useful since then. Whenever I am going into an area I am unsure about, or making a difficult agument on a talk page, I usually like to drop him a line and ask if he can keep an eye, comment on it. In hindsight, I'm quite glad I avoided any formal coaching. While Keeper helps me, I'm also not using him as a total crutch. I don't expect him to be responsible for me passing an RfA, or being a great editor. I want to do well on my own, learn the social nuances of wikipedia, learn how to contribute and interact on article talk as best as I can. I ask questions all the time, to Keeper and many others, and love to interact in that informal way. These interactions are a lesson in themselves.... how to act without following a step by step instructions. As a final statement: yes, of course it would be a great idea to go to Useight all the time for questions. Maybe try that first. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I think for now it would be good to stick with the adoption of Steve and me. Useight will be the admin I talk to if Steve is offline, or if I need admin advice. I need to do some thinking though but it will probably be just Steve and me. About Keeper, he was actually one of those people I ask for advice. Recently, he said that he will not help me anymore. He said he doesn't trust me and my editing anymore due to my copyvio articles, especially the copyvio of baseball uniform he gave me a barnstar for doing. I was very sorry to hear that he couldn't trust me anymore... RyRy5 (talk ♠ copy-edit) 02:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ryan, feel free to ask me about admin stuff too. While I'm not an admin here, I still know a fair bit about admin stuff, I'm also an admin on another wiki. I've been busy recently, thats why I haven't been online much at the moment. This is my public account by the way, as I'm not at home. Anyway, feel free to ask me any questions. Steve Public (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As requested

You requested to keep you informed of any postings at WP:AE. See Wikipedia:AE#Sylviecyn ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mary Shelley History of a Six Weeks' Tour sources

• Colbert, Benjamin. "Contemporary Notice of the Shelleys' History of a Six Weeks' Tour: Two New Early Reviews". Keats-Shelley Journal 48 (1999): 22-29.

• Foster, Shirley. Across New Worlds: Nineteenth-Century Women Travellers and their Writings. New York: Harvester/Wheatsheaf, 1990.

• Labbe, Jacqueline M. "A Family Romance: Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Godwin, and Travel". Genre 25 (1992): 211-28.

• Moskal, Jeanne. "'To speak in Sanchean phrase': Cervantes and the Politics of Mary Shelley's History of a Six Weeks' Tour". Mary Shelley in Her Times. Ed. Betty T. Bennett and Stuart Curran. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.

• Moskal, Jeanne. "Travel writing". The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley. Ed. Esther Schor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

• Nitchie, Elizabeth. "Mary Shelley, Traveller". Keats-Shelley Journal 10 (1961): 22-90.

• Schor, Esther H. "Mary Shelley in Transit". The Other Mary Shelley. Eds. Audrey A. Fisch, Anne K. Mellor, and Esther H. Schor. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

These should be pretty accessible. Let me know if you need help getting them. Awadewit (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My ban ends in a week.

So I shouldn't comment, per your request until then. But given it was self-imposed, and from due regard for your work, could you indicate the page where my comment is required? I have lost it. RegardsNishidani (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Regarding this edit, I would just like to tell you that I am not really his adoptee. I am his admin trainee. Cheers, Razorflame 15:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

sandbox

my adopter told me to revert a edit in your sandbox. Wikipedia is awesome 20:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

it is BG7. Wikipedia is awesome 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Feb

Feb? That's 9 months from now. Is that a typo? There's no need for you to wait that long. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Malinaccier (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission

Would you mind adding me to the list of involved parties there please? Thank you. PatW (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)  Done, finally, though not without difficulty. Cellphone editing is not easy. ;) Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 08:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Er, What?

Hi Steve,

Let me clear some things up.

1. I never knowingly told Wikieditor to do anything to your sandbox - unless there was a link I missed in the adoption programme
2. Adoption Programme. I have not yet finished customising it. It will be nothing like yours/tiptoey's/hersfold's. I am not always around to do it though. If it was going to stay as it was, then I would have asked - but it wasn't isn't. I only lanuched it early as I took on some adoptees whilst there was a backlog.
3. And I would like to ask you not to move things in my userspace. I requestfully ask that all your moves/edits are changed back to where they are. I will work through redlinks when I can. I also ask that you delete the redirects.

If you want any more clearing up, please ask.

I also think it may be better to respond here, to keep it in one place. I feel this may become quite deep!

Thanks,

BlueGoblin^7even 09:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first of all. I know the sandbox edit was an honest mistake on your part. However, when copying content in future, please be more careful to check it, and make appropriate changes. Your adoptee reverted my sandbox, the very sandbox that my bot uses for one of it's tasks. If my bot was running when the sandbox was reverted, my bot would have malfunctioned, big time. Second of all, about the copying of the program, it's GFDL, so I can't stop you copying it. I would have just appreciated a note about it, either way. As for deleting the redirects, that's something only an admin can do, and that's something I am not. I moved the pages to fix the red links, to make it easier. If you want that reversed, it is fully up to you, but as well, you will need to do that. Sorry if I've caused you trouble, just please take more care in future. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should I have to revert what you did? Please revert or I will take further action. It's my userspace. BlueGoblin^7even 12:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no "further action" to take. Don't make idle threats. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please dont threaten me, its impolite. Give me the links and I will revert, I don't appreciate being threatened, at all. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making threats. I'm simply saying that why should I have to undo what someone else has done. And get the redirects CSD'd. And I can and will take it further. If I started moving things in your userspace I expect you would get very jumpy.

As I have said, I am still in the process of creating my programme - but I have limited time due to GCSE examinations at this time, and I figured that mainspace edits would be more beneficial to the encyclopedia, than an adoption programme that is already very good.

Thank you.

BlueGoblin^7even 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you made edits in my userspace, in good faith, yes, I would ask you about them, instead of threatening action. I didn't save the links, so I will require them. As for CSDing the redirects, I cannot do it myself. It's in your userspace, so you actually have to tag them. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify. This is not my fault. This wouldn't have happened if your adoptee didn't edit my sandbox, and that wouldn't have happened if you had fixed the link. So, please. Don't yell at me for this. I looked at the red links, looked at the issue, and saw a solution. You should be, well, thanking me, rather than threatening me. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Go to Special:PrefixIndex/User:Bluegoblin7/Adoption. That should do it. Where does it say "edit your sandbox". I never told him too. And all it takes is discussion. If you saw a problem, you should have asked me about it.

Thankyou.

BlueGoblin^7even 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bluegoblin7, there really isn't any "further action" that needs to be taken here. Please, stop threatening and making demands. People will be a lot more willing to listen if you'd change your attitude. And a side note, it isn't actually your userspace – It is everybodys. If you don't want certain pages edited by others, perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Anyhow, I'm not sure that you two continuing to discuss this will help. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Let's just move on here. Bluegoblin, I hope the lessons, however you are going to use them, help your adoptees. Please be sure to change the links, so they don't link to my userspace, where it can cause technical issues. This is the edit that alerted me, just so you know. Best of luck, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

From User:Bluegoblin7/Adoption/Vandalism 1.1

“ How to revert

This part of the lesson is designed for use with Internet Explorer only. If you use another browser, please let Steve know.

"So that we don't risk messing up any articles, or having things not work, we'll be doing these tests in my sandbox, at User:Steve Crossin/Sandbox"

”

It was in the lesson. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should I have to waste my valuable edit time Yes i know you're going to tell me i'm wasting it now, but never mind by reverting someone else's mess? And I know it's not my space. I have a blog for that. Thus why i put it in italics.

Steve;, thank you for pointing that out. I will change it now if you haven't already. By the way, there is also something relating to Hersfold in there, about his page being vandalised.

BlueGoblin^7even 14:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What is with your talk page format?

Why did you change the indentation on my talk comments? I understand that you may have a talk page preference, but there are actually solid reasons for indentation being used. I'm not really miffed, but I'd prefer if you'd leave my responses indented as I had them, I do it for a reason so it is clear who the primary editor I am responding to is. I guess I'm not sure it is you who is doing it... but do you have a reason why this is done on here? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 11:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it was generally me. I generally find it a poor look to see things like,

Hello

Hello

etc, on a talk page. It looks quite unattractive in my opinion. You are free to check the diffs, I haven't changed any of your comments, just the formatting to look better. In future, I'll keep note, just please note I do prefer bullets rather than colons, just for appearance sake. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand why you did it, as you say "It looks quite unattractive", which I guess I agree with, but the point is it is just more functional. When I looked back on that thread now I think it looks much worse, it looks like everyone is just making a general comment out to this talk page. I was directing my comments at RyRy specifically. This is just a talk page, I understand, but making changes like this to say ANI or RfA or wherever wouldn't be done, because in the end it actually changes the meaning of the conversation. Just my two cents. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to conclude my thoughts, I didn't post this to make you go back and change that specific threat, or to display outrage that you are doing this... I agree it is really no big deal. I guess I just want you to be aware that if you do change another editor's indentation, which some editors believe are part of their commenting in relation to who they are speaking to, they might not think it's no big deal. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your thoughts, I'll keep this in mind in future. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed something... have you stopped indenting per ":" on talk pages altogether? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I geneally avoid using : when possible. I use it rarely, but not often. Just a personal preference. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. How long have you been using that practice? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's been generally since my adoption ended, its purely how I like it to look. I just feel bullets look better than something like,

Hello :) Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 13:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)