User talk:Smee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Smee/Archive/Archive-Mar2007. Sections without timestamps are not archived. All archived sections are listed at the section index.
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smee.
This is the User talk page for Smee, where you can send messages and comments to Smee.
Please click here to leave me a new message.


The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 3, Issue 13 — 26 March 2007

Archives·Newsroom·Tip line·Single-page·Subscribe

Contents

[edit] Darren Roy Mack

Hi Smee, I see that some of your contributions perpetuate the falsehood that Darren Mack was among the FBI Top Ten. But Mack NEVER attained that status. The FBI merely identified him as a "most wanted fugitive", which they sometimes do, as they profile certain fugitives on their main wanted web page. Apparently this is what Nancy Grace must have seen on July 21, 2006, and so then she falsely implied repeatedly that Mack was a Top Ten Fugitive [1]. But you will see that Mack does not have a corresponding FBI Top Ten sequence number, precisely because he never made it on to that very select FBI list. Please note also that the FBI issued a National Press Release on the actual true next Top Tenner in the correct sequence on September 7, 2006, noting that "Ralph B. Phillips is the 483rd person to be placed on the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted Fugitives" list" [2]. #482 was clearly Warren Steed Jeffs on May 6, 2006. And "Michael Paul Astorga was the 481st person to be placed on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted Fugitives” list" [3]. So clearly Mack never made the FBI Top Ten list, despite the Nancy Grace comments. So the Wikipedia pages all now need to be corrected accordingly, as they are in gross error.Steven Russell 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the clarification. You could have, however, phrased this in a more polite manner. In the future, this will encourage other editors to be more polite with you in return. Thanks. Smee 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Hi Smee, sorry for the offense, I CAN be abrupt at times, sorry about that. I tend to just go right for the point at hand. Sorry to belabor it here more, and I don't mean to further offend, but just to clarify, I chose to address this situation to you in particular here simply because it was your reversion that I saw in the history, after another editor had already corrected the article (which in fact had first been written correctly [by me, mostly] to begin with, before the addition of the misinformation). So, chalk it up to minor frustration, I guess. You did not take your reversion rationale to the discussion pages, and in your brief edit notes, you merely referred that editor to the sources, which I then spent lots of time to carefully take a good look at myself, just to see if there was not something else that I might have been missing. It's probably just a pet peeve of mine or something, but maybe you can see it from my point of view as well, given the time and effort I found myself spending chasing after some bad data that had been introduced and then re-introduced yet again, with little commentary, and with no clear indication of what part of the sources was at issue. So, not very productive time spent for me, when I would rather be hunting down more good data to contribute. I hope you understand that it is not personal, I just have a thing about good data versus bad data, especially when I started with the good data that later got corrupted. And then corrupted yet again. It's not a perfect world. So it goes. Not to belabor the point, but some of the errors are still in place tonight, and I'm not sure how much of it you were still planning to work on. For example, on his own page, Mack's photo still resides in an FBI Ten Most Wanted frame template. I'm not sure what other frame to use instead. Thanks for clearing the 2000s page though. And, ahem, speaking of bad data, I misstated the date of the Nancy Grace report above - should be June 21. And just a final note, a bit beyond the scope of discussion here, but you might be interested to know that the Top Ten page initally had a minor end section precisely for individuals such as Mack, who were notorious enough to be misidentified as Top Tenners. I argued for keeping that section, but it got moved to a mere list linked at the top, and then it was removed entirely. So there seems to still be a need for some sort of place to identify the mistaken would-be Top Tenners, as a group (eg., Patty Hearst never made the list). Not sure it warrants an entire article, or even a template, but something creative might be helpful, to deal with the Nancy Graces and the Darren Macks of the world. Just a thought.Steven Russell 04:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Phew, wow you wrote a long post! If you keep me up to date on this subsection/article about those who were publicly wanted by the FBI and yet not on the "list" I would be most interested. I will go ahead and change the infobox now. Thank you for clearing up your initial response, it is most appreciated. A little politeness goes a long way... Smee 04:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Merging Tilman Hausherr

I was browsing through some templates to discuss renaming a category, and saw something which made me think of the AfD on Tilman Hausherr I just commented on. I found this proposed merge template, {{tlp|merge|OTHER PAGE}}. Since this seems to be at the heart of the AfD, to merge or not to merge, perhaps the AfD should be closed and the above template added to Tilman Hausherr instead? Anynobody 07:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • That was the initial "merge" template that was put on the page, and the reason I sent it to AFD instead. Let's see how the AFD plays out. If the result is "Keep", or "No consensus", that means the community does not agree with a "Merge" idea. Smee 07:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't think Tilman Hausherr will be deleted (or merged), however my concern is for someone else and I'll try to explain why without giving anyone the same idea I have. If this sounds unclear please understand why, it's just another reason. Sometimes a rule can seem to be an invitation to ignore rather than obey it because the the rule may not seem to apply in all cases. It's similar to an episode of The Simpsons in which Homer Simpson enters Lisa Simpson into a beauty contest. Toward the end, when the contest promoters are looking for a way to oust her they cite Homer's error in filling out the form as a disqualifier. On part of the form a box carried a title of "DO NOT WRITE IN THIS BOX" in which Homer wrote "O.K.". In that spirit, consider that any mistake could become just another headache and plan accordingly.

Speaking of headaches, did you get a chance to look at the new RfC proposal? Two different types of violation of one policy, wow. Anynobody 07:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Yea, I took a look at the RFC. I'm amused and a bit confused at your statements above, however. Perhaps you might consider enabling your email and emailing me? You can always remove your email option from your preferences after doing so... Smee 07:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Trust me I had thought about it, enabling e-mail, but opted for this route instead. (It's a catch22 I trust you, but asking you to post your e-mail would be hypocritical and stupid on my part because I'd be asking you to do what I don't want to. It's the server I don't trust, even after I delete it there is still bound to be a record of it in their system somewhere. I realize the chances of somebody getting in there and finding it are very remote, still if it did actually happen I'd hate myself because all I had to do was NOT post it.)

I hadn't even known this was a possible problem until tonights edits [[4]]. I apologize for the non-specific nature of my "warning", I promise that in the unlikely event somebody else figures it out I've thought about several reasons why it's not an issue. This must be what living with the omnipresence of Big Brother is like in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Anynobody 08:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Yea, but you can always create a bogus email account just for that purpose, and then when you know my email give me your other one... Smee 12:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry I hadn't responded to this sooner, I guess I lost track of it on my watchlist. If I knew your e-mail address I wouldn't need to create a bogus account because I'd just e-mail you directly. If you are willing to post your e-mail address I'm willing to mail you. Anynobody 05:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Hrm, sorry, not comfortable with that. I think the only way would be for you to create a bogus email account, which you could use to email me, and then you could remove that email option from your preferences... Other than that, I don't see another option at this point... Smee 05:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

Do you know who still gives free e-mail accounts? I could create a temporary account, post it here or on my talk page, and you could mail it directly thus allowing me to reply from my regular account. I'd feel kinda weird registering an account I don't plan to use for e-mail on Wikipedia, but this way I wouldn't have to. It may seem a bit convoluted, so did this make sense to you? Anynobody 05:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That does make sense. You could try something like hotmail, yahoo, or actually even Gmail might be giving out free accounts these days... Yours, Smee 05:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

Just an fyi, I've tried hotmail a couple of times and got this message:

We are working to fix a temporary problem with our sign-up service. Please try again.

The others won't let me BS my real e-mail address. Anynobody 01:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your creation featured on DYK

Updated DYK query On 21 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gandhi Memorial International Foundation, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

- Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clouds Blur the Rainbow notability

Your frequent reversions constitute a 3RR violation . The 3RR rule applies to all articles. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop this behavior at once. Yakuman

  • This is not a 3RR. Please engage in discussion on the talk page yourself. It takes 2 to edit war, and you are not contributing to any discussion. I will begin dispute resolution myself, in any event. Smee 05:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
    • I have asked for a third opinion to be provided on the article's talk page. In the meantime, I again urge you to participate in discussion on the talk page yourself, in a polite and civil manner, and elaborate on your points. Thank you. Smee 05:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Three reverts is three reverts. Please don't abuse my acts of diplomacy. While a block isn't due yet for this in my opinion, you're doing yourself harm by causing yourself to look like someone who blatantly tosses the rules aside, and your reputation on Wikipedia is far more important than your block history. If you have questions, please feel free to ask, but read the policy first. I have no the interest in an edit war, nor do I enjoy being drawn into debates like this. Take care, and have a good day! Yakuman 05:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Are you saying then that you do not wish to engage in discussion on the talk page and engage in a polite and civil dispute resolution process, and just wish to contend that your version of the article is the correct one? Please engage in discussion on the talk page, and act more politely. Thank you! Smee 05:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

You seem either unable or unwilling to understand your 3RR violation. I have clearly addressed the issues at hand and I don't enjoy being drawn into debates like this. Take care, and have a good day! Yakuman 05:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see statements from uninvolved editors on how there was no violation of 3RR, at Talk:Clouds Blur the Rainbow. Please continue the discussion there, not here. Thanks. Smee 03:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Informal mediation

John196920022001 has declined to continue mediation. I have asked him to be sure he wishes to end informal mediation. If he confirms, do you object to the case being closed since you support the current version, along with the other participant? Please let me know. I apologize this mediation might not be resolved acceptably to all parties. Be well! Vassyana 05:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • No no, you did great, thank you for your efforts, regardless of the outcome! I have no objections to the mediation ending, however I would simply request that it is formally noted that 2 out of the 3 parties participated in your suggestions, John196920022001 did not, and John196920022001 asked to end the mediation. Thanks for your time. Yours, Smee 05:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

A truce has been proposed to keep mediation going and on track. Please review the truce and comment, accept or reject as appropriate. Vassyana 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Done. Smee 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for signing on to the truce. I sincerely hope it will allow us to move forward and build good faith. I asked John to review his draft and update it if needed, so we can move forward from the last step. Be well! Vassyana 13:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message by Raffaella Di Marzio

I'm Raffaella Di Marzio.I've read the wikipedia page about me.

Please, contact me at this email: rdm@dimarzio.it

Thank you

RDM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.48.82.152 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] pic

Nothing yet... I'll mail them again. - Denny 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Sounds good. Smee 21:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] For enduring PAs and nonsense

The Optimist's Star
For putting up with so much on the scientology series but still believing there is light at the end of the tunnel, I recognize Smee's efforts with The Optimist's Star Award. Kind regards, Orsini 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much! An unexpected barnstar is always the perfect impetus to endure an push on writing good new articles :) Thanks again. Yours, Smee 01:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Kuddos...Smee, you are a class act! I second the motion on this one. You truly are a role model.:-)PEACETalkAbout 04:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you, it's a rough world in here... Smee 05:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Orsini and TalkAbout comments are pretty much how I feel. It looks like you just want to present all of the facts and have drawn an amazing amount of anal leakage from those who don't. (I apologize if that is disgusting, but what I've seen in the past two days transcends mere "shit" or even "bullshit" and it disgusts me when people intentionally misrepresent others.) Anynobody 07:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh, thank you. I try to draw on as much sourced citations as I can. I guess that's why I like creating new articles - the search for new citations... Smee 07:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] On the edge

Any serious article on a book is going to mention if the author has a relationship with his topic. In fact, if someone writes a book on people and groups they were involved with it is irresponsible not to mention that. Wohlforth isn't just writing about Healy in an abstract way, he knew Healy personally and Healy purged him from the leadership of the Workers League. If you prefer we can just quote Pitt calling Wohlforth and Tourish "embittered former members". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.158.148.14 (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

  • The review is already cited in great detail below. If you feel you must, please go to the 2 authors article pages instead. I notice there is no page on Tourish. That should be created before info is elaborated in the book article. Smee 03:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 24 March 2007, a fact from the article Tom Short, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 18:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks again for your time and effort on the DYK project! Smee 18:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
The Wizard Shazam Barnstar
For accomplishments as a mentor to a new Wikipedian.
  • Thank you so much! Perhaps I shall consider taking up mentoring more often... Yours, Smee 04:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Are there a lot people like him roaming from campus to campus? He looks very much like a guy who told me I was going to hell for ignoring him at ASU in 1997. Anynobody 06:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
No idea, but that's probably better fit for that article's talk page... Smee 06:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
Nah, no need to bother anyone editing over there. I had forgotten it until I saw the article though, so thanks for the memories. :) Anynobody 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
No worries mate. Smee 07:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Curiosity

One of the things that has always had me curious is where the name "Smeelgova" (now "Smee") comes from? Sm1969 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge your curious feelings. Smee 04:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
Smee if you don't want to say what it means that's totally acceptable, but could you please just say so in the interest of civility? I hate to come off as a nit-picker but your answer is what I'd expect from Justanother, (I mean no offense it's just that you're better than this). Unless you're just kidding around and planned on saying something more later. In that case, please accept my apologies for messing it up.
Sm1969 your question was a fair one, however in my experience people will post what they want known about themselves on their user page. I'm not telling you to stop asking of course, just keep in mind that they will most likely not want to tell you unless you've established good relations. Anynobody 06:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
No, Anynobody, thanks for this, that's alright. Let me clarify: I don't want to say what it means. That is all, no more, no less. Sorry if the previous statement was ambiguous, but you are correct, I had planned on elaborating more later. Thank you. Yours, Smee 06:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] park

You're welcome, I'm sure, but I just put the park in a refined category. Hmains 03:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I know, just nice to know someone noticed. Smee 03:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Offense?

I'm terribly sorry to bother you so much, but could you make sure I'm not coming off like a jerk on this talk page. I just feel that your wonderful attitude about criticism probably works both ways. Anynobody 06:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I scanned the discussion and it looks like you are doing your best to remain polite and efficacious at the same time. Smee 06:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Smee. I am indeed doing my best, but don't be afraid to tell me if you think I messed up (anytime). Anynobody 06:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Same here, by the way.  :) Smee 06:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Legal Threat?

Your comment on my talk page rather confused me for a moment there. No, my comment in Tom Cruise: Unatuthorized's Talk page was NOT an allusion to a legal threat of mine, or anyone else's. It was a joking comment made in allusion to the fact that Tom Cruise has -already- served the authors with information about the upcoming legal threat surrounding this book, and that when it does happen, it will surely be documented in the article, and help to beef out what is otherwise a rather slim stub. Raeft 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh! My apologies, in the harsh world that can be Wikipedia, I misinterpreted you. I'm sorry. Smee 04:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
  • It is quite alright, thank you for the barnstar, I will put it up later when I make a userpage. I must say, it will be good to work with you on Wikiproject: SCN. It's been slightly dead I've seen, and there are so many articles which could be better. Talk to you later. Raeft 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Smee 23:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Elli Perkins

Updated DYK query On 28 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elli Perkins, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 16:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you and a ?

I had planned on waiting for my RfA to expire before I mentioned the subject, but now I have to anyway so let me first say thank you. Don't take this as a negative, but your recommendation did more to give me second thoughts than any opposing view ever could. I care much more about disappointing those who believe in me than I do those who don't. I didn't expect a recommendation like yours in my planning for this. (I hope you understand that my failure to mention my RfA to you isn't because I don't value your opinion, but because I didn't want to give the impression I was trying to WP:CANVASS my way in.

The deleted RfC about Justanother has come up as you may or may not know. I tried to give an outline without going into names, but it's starting to look like that is going to be insufficient. Frankly I'm not ashamed of anything you or I did regarding it, but I really do think Bishonen made a mistake deleting it. I didn't/don't want any trouble for her. Extending the privacy option to you kept the subject on Justanother and myself without implying wrongdoing on anyone else's part. I've already asked her to weigh in on the RfA or allow me to reveal her identity myself. I'm assuming you probably don't mind if I mention your actual identity, but I prefer not to assume :) How would you prefer to handle this? Anynobody 03:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I trust your judgement with this, good luck, you are getting some positive, honest feedback - and it looks like even those voting "oppose" want you to try again in a few months if you keep up your kind and polite attitude towards others. Smee 06:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree, if nothing else I figured this would be a good way to get criticism. Which is why I went ahead, if that was the worst that could happen I couldn't lose so it would have been foolish not to. Right now I'm not dying to be an admin, I'm just saying we need more and I detest nominating others for work I could do. I'd nominate you if you're willing by the way.

  • If my revealing your name would in any way cause you negative feelings I'd rather just shut down the request because I also don't want that for Bishonen either, deleting an active RfC under those circumstances is at least a violation of WP:AGF at worst an extended middle finger to WP:DR.

I get the feeling that you may not want me to, but you also want me to do what I have to do. I honestly don't have to yet. Knowing that, what do you think? Anynobody 06:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Anynobody, this is all a matter of GFDL record anyway, so unless an Admin goes and deletes the record of all of the past discussion pages and associated material, or a particular article or Wikipedia page is deleted, there is nothing to hide anyway. Therefore, might as well mention whatever you wish to mention, because it is all searchable in any event. Better they hear it from yourself in an open, honest and forthright manner, than from someone else... Good luck! Smee 07:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I can't tell you how relieved I am that you really understand that nothing we say is truly "private" here, I know perfectly well anybody could easily have found out your username even though I didn't mention it. Have you ever thought about trying for admin if you were nominated? Anynobody 00:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I would not ever nominate myself for the position. If I was nominated, it would be interesting to see what would happen, but I am not sure that right now is the right time. Perhaps later... Smee 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] a stand for the possibility of the creation of a new article

A difficult choice. Perhaps "est's legacy" or "History of Erhardism" ... -- Pedant17 09:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I like your subsection title. Any other article-name ideas? Smee 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] ANI

ANI --Justanother 14:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

this link will get you there. I made this point there too, for a guy who wishes you'd leave him alone he goes out of his way NOT to leave you alone. Anynobody 06:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on Justanother?

The WP:RFC may be on soon check this out Justanothers abuse of Wikipedia Backfires.

I self nominated on WP:RFA and he turned up and did me the favor of being himself. When he tried to make an issue out of something on my user page, they suggested a WP:RFC. Are you still interested? Anynobody 08:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes. Smee 23:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Sorry that it was a copy/paste edit form (I know you know about the RfA). Anynobody 01:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. You're currently on your third revert of this page. It's not helping anyone for a WikiProject to be the subject of an edit war. -- ChrisO 23:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the warning. I will not revert again. Smee 23:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Reverts

Please STOP reverting my edits. Lsi john 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Please take this to the individual article's discussion page. However, I am working on a new article at this point in time, and am not concentrating on those articles, at any rate. Smee 05:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I challenge you to make it an UNbiased article which highlights BOTH sides. From what I have seen so far, that may be quite a challenge for you. Best of luck. Lsi john 05:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you. However, there are no "sides", merely what can be found in reputable secondary sources... Smee 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/m/e/User_talk%7ESmee_f46a.html"