User talk:Stevenscollege

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hi Stevenscollege. Welcome to Wikipedia, the collaborative encyclopaedia that anyone can edit! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We'll certainly be looking forward for your contributions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.

A bit late, but better than no welcoming message :) Sarg 14:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hughes Medal

Can you please give a source for 2005 prize winner? --Pjacobi 22:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just seen it. --Pjacobi 22:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jake

Let me know if you're getting close to breaking 3RR - that vandal doesn't look like they intend to stop. Dev920 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

defamer.com is not a reliable source—do not restore without one. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi - can we discuss the edit problem we have with the Jack Gyllenhaal page at Talk:Jake_Gyllenhaal

Regards --Charlesknight 23:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your job, really. --§Ariel 16:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi mate, I've got to go away for the next two weeks, and net access is going to be patchy. Can you keep an eye on Jake's external links? - some user called desertsky keeps deleting IHJ, even though I've explained it meets WP:EL! Dev920 11:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've only taken a brief look at the history, becaause I don't have much time, but it looks like you're doing a marvellous job. Thanks, I'll be back on Saturday, ready to take over if you're getting a bit worn...Dev920 15:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I return! Miss me? Dev920 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, some odd things going on over thereover his proposed projects, and IMDB's no help.
I guess one day someone should go through Jake's page and turn it into brilliant prose. One day... Dev920 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits to James Blunt

Hello, I appreciate your contributions to the James Blunt article, however the text added seems to have been taken from http://www.james-blunt.us/. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite your contribution in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Bruce 11:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Brendan Loy

Hi, let me clarify my statement and address your response:

retrieved from Talk:Brendan Loy
You've made your point--you think the article should be deleted. You even put it up for deletion. Feel free to do it again, if you're so inclined. But just filling up this talk page with declarations of your disgust, and posting removed article vandalism is bordering on disruptive. -- Scientizzle 00:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
How do I get other people to join me if they dont know what I think? I havnt touched the main article, I feel I have raised valid points on this page. Who is being disrupted? why cant you just ignore me, as I said the main article has not been touched and I make my points on the talk page.Stevenscollege 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

First, my statement was in regard to the half-dozen or so separate comments along the lines of "This article truly is a joke" and such. I've no problem with your dislike of the article, and I appreciate that you have not vandalized it as some others have. But posting on the talk page every couple of days that the article's "continued existence is an affront to Wikipedia" and reposting reverted main article vandalism is, in my opinion, mildly disrupive. Here's why:

  1. It's pretty pointless...there are mechanisms through which Wikipedia articless are deleted, use those. Nominate the article for deletion again. Screeds against the article on the talk page, as CambridgeBayWeather alluded to, will have negligable effect on the AfD process.
  2. Reposting the vandalism I find distateful because
    1. It seemingly gives credibility to what was blatant article vandalism
    2. It's misleading, claiming that I'm somehow Loy's "closest friend"
    3. It's unnecessarily derisive of someone not even involved, Loy's wife
  3. You've made your case, now you're beating a dead horse. Before my recent response you had five separate comments (excluding responses to others' comments) expressing your opinion that the article should be deleted. It's only contributing to the clutter of the talk page.
  4. It's contrary to the whole design of talk pages. WP:TPG states, "Article talk pages should be used for ways to improve an article, not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article" and "Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research". You've not offered any constructive criticism, only calls for deletion.
    1. As an example, if anoyone were to repeatedly post on, say, Talk:Jake Gyllenhaal statements such as "This article truly is a joke" and "This articles continued existence is an affront to Wikipedia...promotion on a galactic scale, no attempt at neutrality" it would be similarly disruptive and unhelpful. (Please ignore the obvious response that Gyllenhaal has distinct celebrity status--insert any case of relatively minor notability in place of Gyllenhaal.) The point is, a good Wikipedia editor, in my opinion (and concerning any article), should help make said article better, properly nominate it for deletion, or leave it alone.
  5. While not explicitly stated on WP:POINT, I think it's understandably implicit that repeatedly voicing disatisfaction with the result of your AfD nomination is not a good-faith activity. Re-nominate it and move on.

I hope that clarifies my statement. Feel free to contact me at any time. Best of luck editing--I hope we can all move on from this melodrama soon. -- Scientizzle 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for getting back to me. Best of luck on your work at Jake Gyllenhaal. I'll see if I can find some time to peer review it, too... -- Scientizzle 22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Jake

Anytime, I'll be there if you intend to do a FAC one day

(The Bread 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] I'm back.

Hi, I'm back. Thanks for your note. School's putting on the pressure though, so I can't edit as much as before. Can try though. :D Dev920 10:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For your tireless work in fixing mistakes, referencing, and removing the constant trickle of fangirliness on Jake Gyllenhaal, now GA, I award you this barnstar! Dev920 10:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your support at FAC man. :D Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 08:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you on WFT? I find it strangely coinincidental you start editing Maggie Gyllenhaal shortly after I announce she's my next article on WFT... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant. Glad to have you on board. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Really, email me about it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick Banting and the discovery of insulin

Why did you remove the part about dr. Nicolae Paulescu? That was or still is a controversy and is not fair to hide it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.138.195.202 (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Featured article review Austin Nichols

Austin Nichols has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. – Ilse@ 21:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jake Gyllenhaal sources

I'd take up a 3RR complaint with you but I don't have the energy. Would have been nice if you went to talk instead of reverting over and over. People is a fact-checked magazine and Jake and Reese are no longer just a rumor. I was trying to pre-empt unsourced, poorly written additions of this story to the article. But since you insist on removing it over and over, I'll let you deal with that tide. Have fun. Melty girl 23:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)