User talk:Stevietheman/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5

Re: Internet democracy delete debate

Comment: was the new text based around an actual term because my interpretation of your comment is that a concept was made to fit internet democracy. -- Graham  :) | Talk 02:50, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[]

  • Comment: I've updated the delete debate with a response. -- Stevietheman 05:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[]

Semi-direct democracy

Thanks for catching that. I've really got to diversify my boilerplate messages so that mistake is less likely. -- Cyrius|&#9998 07:59, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome  :) -- Stevietheman 14:47, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Handbags

  • I replied to you at the handbag company vfd debate, but thought I would explicitly tell you so here because it is hard to follow changes on vfd. Pcb21| Pete 10:17, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Democracy

I am happy you added rule of law! :-)) /Tuomas 01:17, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

Nice clean up on global warming, Stevie. You are "the man"! --Uncle Ed 14:04, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your cleanup was much more comprehensive. So, no, you're really "the man"!  :) -- Stevietheman 14:46, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Global warming

You have violated the three reverts rule with the Global warming article. Please stop this edit war immediately. David Newton 11:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

William M. Connolley is the culprit you want. He was the one doing wholesale reversions of people's work. I was defending the best interest of the Wikipedia against such rogue efforts. You may want to do more research next time you make an accusation. -- Stevietheman 13:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I left exactly the same message on his user page. You BOTH violated the three revert rule. It takes two to have a revert war. Had you reverted three times and then called in outside help that would help that would have been different. However you reverted the page at 16:18, 16:55 and 18:05 on 15 July and again 06:11 on 16 July. That's four reverts on the same article within a 24 hour period, hence the admonition and my protecting of the page. I did exactly the research required to make the accusation I did. David Newton 16:40, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
OK. I stand corrected, technically speaking. However, sometimes rules enforcement gets in the way of addressing problems. From what I understand, William M. Connolley has a substantial history of POV contributions, and his rogue efforts to erase somebody's work certainly has some kind of rule against that (I would hope).
Further, I admonish you for using such needless authoritarian language against someone who is normally a good player (namely me). -- Stevietheman 17:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
He certainly does seem to rather be the arrogant type. Global warming is NOT undisputed in the scientific community. I have a masters degree in chemistry and I do not consider it to be a proven fact. The problem is that the models do not accurately predict current conditions in many cases, so that leads to the conclusion that there are lots of unaccounted for factors out there. With that situation it is bad science to claim to have a theory that explains everything. David Newton 18:31, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Stevie, I hate to say this but David is right about the three-revert rule. But since you apparently had never heard of it before, you might well bristle at finding out about it so suddenly. Er, David, have you read Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies lately? ;-) --Uncle Ed 14:30, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I knew about the rule. I broke it on purpose. Maybe they should throw me in jail.  :) -- Stevietheman 17:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No, don't be silly. Just take your break and come back when you have more time. --Uncle Ed 20:03, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'Sexual slang' page

I see you've been editing the Sexual slang page. Please see Talk:Sexual slang and comment (on that Talk page, not mine) if necessary. I'd like to standardize the page as much as possible but different people seem to have different ideas. We need to hash them out. (I'm sending this same message to everyone who's made multiple edits to that page in the last few days.) - dcljr 05:23, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Going on break

I'm going on an extended break from the Wikipedia, as I've been spending too much time in here, neglecting other chores that *have* to get done. My monitoring will be restricted to my user page and maybe a few other select articles. I apologize to those I was discussing various matters with in talks, but I really have to bow out for a while. Take care. -- Stevietheman 17:54, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

rv on Sexual Slang: not me!

I recently added a number of slang terms to the Sexual Slang page, which you regularly update. I checked back again today and noticed in the history that you commented "rv to last edit by 68.71.226.203", but the vandal (who modified the page after me and before you) is, in fact, 218.79.107.46. I'm fairly new to wiki, so I don't know what the policy is for reporting and banning vandals, but in any case I'd rather not be blamed for something I didn't do. --68.71.226.203 21:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What I said in my comment is that I was reverting to the last edit by you (68.71.226.203). That isn't blaming you, but rather saying that your edit was the last one that was acceptable. Re: vandalism, see Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. I had noticed that the 218.79.107.46 user only posted once, so I didn't bother reporting. Now, if he had continued vandalizing in an out-of-control manner, that would be another story. -- Stevietheman 22:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for clarifying that, and apologies for my newbie misunderstanding. :-) 68.71.226.203 23:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Stopthebus18

Seems to have been improving his behaviour *slightly* over time. After some talking, he tidied up his user page at least, and you're not mentioned on it anymore. I worry whether he'll ever make a good wikipedian, but we'll keep talking with him, and see what happens.

I hope this news makes you a bit happier. :-)

Kim Bruning 21:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it's somewhat of a relief. Thank you very much for your assistance here. -- Stevietheman 22:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Template:List of programming languages

Check the talk page for this template. We're very interested in making a well-organized list of programming languages. This doesn't mean one that only lists today's most popular languages ... we're making an encyclopedia here, not a guide to what's fashionable. If you're concerned about disorganization, please consider contributing to the organization effort now taking place on the talk page. Thanks! --FOo 20:52, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've already offered my ideas. Go with that or do something else... just make sure that you end up with a solid rule for inclusion so that the list makes sense. By the way, what's "fashionable" is actually what's in use today--why would most programmers be looking up info on dead or very low-use languages? -- Stevietheman 04:57, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV problem on liberal democracy

We also had problems with pov dispute on Liberal democracy caused by the same individual who put up the POV notice on Democracy. Do you think it's apropriate to have a POV message up on this site (I think we should just revert again and invite some justification for changes from this individual)? Barnaby dawson 14:35, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added a comment to the talk. Having a POV message for that article is ridiculous. -- Stevietheman 14:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Demarchy

Since you're interested in Democracy please check this article. One Salient Oversight 22:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good article. I left a question in the talk re: how accountability would work in such a system. -- Stevietheman 23:11, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anarchy

Though it has a rather large section treating the term itself, most of Anarchy actually is a list of links to pages treating anarchy (such as the main page, which is at anarchism) and things named anarchy. The layout is kludgy and a lot wordier than most dab pages but it's still the main focus and probably should bear the dab msg. (I don't really mind one or the other—if the page didnt have the dab message when I got to it today I probably wouldn't have seen it that way myself, but it could be useful in keeping people from duplicating anarchism.) —Muke Tever 02:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. I was too hasty with that change. -- Stevietheman 02:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IDL

Have you got the "ruling" on whether IDL was to mean RSI's language or not? Thanks Dysprosia 10:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nope... never heard back from anyone. Nevertheless, the fact remains that IDL holds both meanings, and I'm confident that Interface Description Language is far more predominant. -- Stevietheman 01:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Direct democracy

I've tried to resolve this last dispute peacefully by integrating as much of the new material as possible into the old article. I've discussed it on User talk:Sneitzke and on the discussion page of direct democracy. I didn't include the new pros and cons section which seemed rather POV. But the sections included are very substantial additions. Hope you agree with these changes :) Barnaby dawson 11:11, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a lot better than before, but it and the moved history article still need a good degree of formatting cleanup work and removing of the self-advertising links to Sneitzke's site. -- Stevietheman 14:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Speed school

Hey, nice to see someone else from Speed School here! I was there from 99 until 04. CryptoDerk 01:52, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Democracy

I rest my case --Gangulf 20:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Democracy (varieties) link didn't appear in the Democracy article accept in the See also section. Just because it's included in a linked article doesn't mean it should be removed from Democracy. If that were the rule, all kinds of useful cross-links would disappear. -- Stevietheman 20:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:U.S. Southern Wikipedians' notice board

Hey! I've created this new notice board specifically for articles related to people from the U.S. South. If you are interested in contributing, leave a message on the page and add articles you feel need to be reviewed, contributed to, or started. Mike H 21:01, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Internet Forum

I will be expanding the list on the internet forum page. There will be pages where articles have not yet been writted. However, having these links will increase the chances of new articles being written for them.

For example, take a look at the Smooth jazz page. As you see that there are many links with unwritten articles. But having those links will definately increase the chances of those pages getting articles. -- Andros 1337 22:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that their notability cannot be tested unless they have articles. It's now a long list of forums w/o articles, many of which I've never heard of before. I don't like it, but I'll let it sit for a while and see if articles get written. After a couple months, I do admit I will be tempted to remove the non-article links. -- Stevietheman 16:18, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Liquid democracy

Hi, dunno if you saw my comments on this on WP:RfD, but you might want to take a gander if you haven't. Thanks! Noel 02:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Internet forum

Not all of the list of internet forum providers link should have been removed; Ezboard is ranked no. 357 on Alexa. WhisperToMe 01:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy birthday, Steve! Best wishes. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 01:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, 38yo now. Thank goodness I have Dick Clark Syndrome. LOL -- Stevietheman 01:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)