User talk:VirtualSteve/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Contents

Crossair disaster

Hi, thanks for the review on Crossair Flight 498. I have addressed all of your the concerns on the talk page, but two of them I have left notes against and I would like you to respond to these, if you could. If things are OK with you then it's ready to review, if not I can fix it pretty quickly after receiving your input on these points. Thanks in advance, Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Good changes - and left one final suggestion for the point on two pilots head union. Cheers - let me know when you are done.--VS talk 22:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I've changed to specifically say the two pilots who spoke to he media said the crash was an unfortunate coincidence - should clarify that they therefore couldn't be those killed on the flight. Thanks, Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to all editors who assisted in this article. It is well presented and passes the WP:GAC. I note for the record all of the editors that provided 5 or more edits to this article as follows (with the numbers after user names indicating their total edits at time of final GA assessment):user:Blood Red Sandman (20), user:Jreferee (17), user:Plutor (7), user:Gordonw (6).

Editors may wish to cut the following template {{User Good Articles|[[Crossair Flight 498]] assessed as one of the}} and paste to their user page or other suitable location - which will provide the following template:

This user has significantly contributed to Crossair Flight 498 assessed as one of the Good Articles on Wikipedia.





Well done!--VS talk 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the time you took to review the article. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • My pleasure entirely. Keep up the great work!--VS talk 00:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Good Lookin' (film)

I think I got everything. Have a look. (Ibaranoff24 08:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

  • Nearly everything - you need to wikilink pier, memorial and as you are unable to link hang out or girl-down-the-block rewrite or explain the meaning you intend to convey with these words so that the average casual reader can understand what you are trying to say. Again let me know when you have finished these but this time I will be happy to promote to GA.--VS talk 09:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. (Ibaranoff24 10:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
    • Congratulations to all editors who assisted in this article. It is well presented passes the WP:GAC. I note for the record all of the editors which provided 5 or more edits to this article as follows (with the numbers after user names indicating their total edits at time of final GA assessment:User:Ibaranoff24 (34).

Editors may wish to cut the following template {{User Good Articles|[[Hey Good Lookin' (film)]] assessed as one of the}} and paste to their user page or other suitable location - which will provide the following template:

This user has significantly contributed to Hey Good Lookin' (film) assessed as one of the Good Articles on Wikipedia.



Well done!--VS talk 10:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Top Importance

Your participation here would be welcome. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Burnham Park GA

Flag of Chicago
Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Chicago Collaboration of the Week
 Flag of Chicago
List of Chicago Landmarks update is the current Chicago COTW
You were a contributing editor to Burnham Park during its tenure as CHICOTW. It has successfully achieved Good article status thanks in part to your efforts. See its GA review and help us raise it towards the featured article classification level. Recall that during its tenure as CHICOTW we turned a redlink into this. See our CHICOTW Improvement History. Note our good articles.
Flag of Chicago
Good Article
 Flag of Chicago

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Here is a new template I will be using going forward for more notable contributions:

This user has significantly contributed to Burnham Park (Chicago) assessed as one of the Good Articles on Wikipedia.



TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU

I reverted your late comment in this already closed RfA. —AldeBaer 11:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • My bad - didn't see that at all - thanks--VS talk 11:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No prob :-) —AldeBaer 11:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

SMH

Hi VS, thanks for the encouragement, looking back I should have been a bit nicer about it, I just don't like people leaving really negative messages on my talk page, but I'll move on :)
also what do you think of the Royal anthem dispute on the Australia article? would be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 12:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for archiving those old undated mesaages from my talk page, Steve.:) I'm actually back from my break, but I'm leaving that note Tyrenius posted saying I'm on a break until I'm on full strength again. On Sunday I started drafting on your RfA nomination. My dad is having an operation tomorrow and so I'll be busy with my parents for the next few days, but hopefully I'll have it finished by the weekend...I've been browsing through your edits and I found your DYKs etc but do you have any featured content? Doesn't matter at all if you don't, just wondering. When I've finished the nom, I'll let Longhair and Stephen know so they can add co-noms if they wish. Then you can just answer the questions and accept the nomination whenever it is convenient to you. Don't feel under pressure to accept, though, as you can take as long as you wish. Just do it in your own good time and at your convenience. I hope all is well with you, Steve. Take care, Sarah 12:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Sarah - all is well with me - busy at work, and singing (my other full-time hobby), and wiki. Thank you for your kindness, but please first support your dad - I can wait until the following weekend or the following month or two months no worries whatsoever. Besides I would be much happier if I heard you were just concentrating on your dad. I have a singing engagement singing Verdi's "Requiem" in Latin at the Opera House (along with a cast of 1000's) and I am performing a large acting singing part in a complex play written by Nick Enright over the next two months so you look after yourself and your family first. To answer your question - for when that time comes my personal featured content (3 GAs) is here User:VirtualSteve/UserBoxes - under about me on my user page - oh just realised of course I am helping a fair bit to maintain Australia as an FA and I have a featured image - also found in the User:VirtualSteve/Kudos area. And perhaps this is important (?) my major assessment work for other editors GA's is developing here User:VirtualSteve/Assessments. Best wishes to you for your Dad tomorrow.--VS talk 13:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Steve. Don't worry, I have my priorities straight but thanks for your understanding. :) Thanks for the links, I'll check them out and will let you know if I need anymore info. I didn't know you are a singer! That's really cool! Singing at the Opera House? Wow!! I'm very, very impressed with that! Good luck with your performances. Have a great week and thanks for your kind wishes, Sarah 13:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I've been meaning to mention to you, did you know that we are trying to set up an Australian Chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation? There's information and a list of interested people here. Sorry if you already know about it, but I thought it might be worth mentioning. Cheers, Sarah 13:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Albury, New South Wales

Hi Steve, just touching base about the Albury article. I was planning to get over to the library in Albury on the weekend and do some research on the history and geography of the city. However, my brother invited me down to go to the MCG to see the Hawthorn-St Kilda game (the worst game of football I have ever seen!) so I didn't get there. I am still chipping away when I get a flash of inspiration and with any luck I will get over to Albury on Saturday. Trust you had a great weekend. Cheers, Mattinbgn/ talk 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • G'day Matt. I had a great weekend - although I'd be happier if the Blues actually won another game soon. I did watch some bits of the game you went to and can understand your point. Still the upgraded G is a marvel to be at - that and a beer and a pie and you can get a little closer to Nirvana. As you know I have been trying to chip away at GA's (amongst real life work and play) and hopefully WW will get assessed soon. I didn't have as much time as I'd like to work on Albury but expect a bit of time on Saturday to really knuckle into some parts. On library books - you may just like the drive over to Albury but have you thought of inter/intra regional library loans - where your look up a book/s with your friendly local librarian and they ship it/them to you for a modest fee (three or four bucks)? Cheers to you too!--VS talk 00:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Theatre GA on hold

Thanks for the help cleaning up Chicago Theatre. If you get a chance check out Magnificent Mile before the WP:CHICOTW ends tonight. It is discouraging when no one else edits. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

CHICOTW

Flag of Chicago
Chicago Collaboration of the Week
 Flag of Chicago
Last week you helped edit the Chicago COTW, but did not vote. Thank you for your help! Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. This week Rookery (Chicago landmark) has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.
Flag of Chicago
Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago
 Flag of Chicago

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Theatre GA

Flag of Chicago
Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Chicago Collaboration of the Week
 Flag of Chicago
List of Chicago Landmarks update is the current Chicago COTW
You were a contributing editor to Chicago Theatre during its tenure as CHICOTW. It has successfully achieved Good article status thanks in part to your efforts. See its GA review and help us raise it towards the featured article classification level. Recall that during its tenure as CHICOTW we achieved the following Improvement. See our CHICOTW Improvement History. Note our good articles.
Flag of Chicago
Good Article
 Flag of Chicago
This user has significantly contributed to Chicago Theatre assessed as one of the Good Articles on Wikipedia.

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

FINSIA

Hi, I see you added a speedy deletion tag to this article. However, only the latest edits transformed this stub into an advertisement. I missed it at first myself. When you speedy tag an article, please check the history just in case :) (and leave a message to the authors, so they know why the article got deleted) -- lucasbfr talk 16:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Editorial assistance

I apologize for not properly recognizing you earlier. I am just getting familiar with this type of userbox. You may want to place the following on your user page:

This user helped promote the article Burnham Park (Chicago) to good article status.
This user helped promote the article Union Stock Yards to good article status.
This user helped promote the article Chicago Theatre to good article status.

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks Tony - no need to apologize - I feel more than recognized. Cheers!--VS talk 21:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Appin

Hi I think you need to keep an eye on the Appin article that you created, it has been vandalised about 5 million times since since then. Thanks AdamJWC 13:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the note - yes I will monitor the page through my watchlist.--VS talk 02:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago movies

Would you feel comfortable generating two lists to perform this split. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your note - Yep I can handle this split for Chicago Group - will start this Saturday. Cheers!--VS talk 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Tony - this job is completed. Old category has been tagged for deletion. Cheers.--VS talk 01:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow that was fast. Thank you very much. There is one other category that is a problem. I apologize in advance if I am keeping you from volunteering in a more enjoyable way as everyone essentially chooses how to volunteer. However, we have attempted to systematically set up categories for the bot to tag with {{ChicagoWikiProject}}. Category:Second City alumni is confounding us because Second City has branched out and has many notable alumni of remote offshoots like Mike Myers. I guess subcats might be useful by city. I have not investigated whether there are a significant number of Mike Myers types, but the problem came up today because he was tagged yesterday with our tag.
    • My pleasure Tony. Not exactly sure what you are asking me in relation to Category:Second City alumni but I note the general consensus on the category for discussion point is to keep at this stage. I have added my comment there also. If I can help directly with anything please just ask - if time permits I will always help where I can.--VS talk 02:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • You will be getting my continued assistance - I expect to complete 3-5 articles at least. Cheers!--VS talk 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

104.7 Canberra merged with FM104.7 page

Hi,

I'm not sure how you merge one page with another but I wanted to find out if it is possible for you to change the title of a page? The reason I ask is because the page titled "104.7" was actually correct whereas the one titled "FM 104.7" is out of date. The station changed it's callsign from FM104.7 to simply 104.7 back in 2005 (I work for the company and was at the station when this happened), hence why the 104.7 page was created. Are you able to update the title of the FM104.7 page to represent this please?

Thanks, finetuneit :o)

FM 104.7 & 104.7

Hi there thanks for your message. I actually didn't merge the two articles. That was done by user:Bearcat. I did try and move the page to 104.7 but that can't be done now. I tried a couple of other ways of adjusting the name of the article but did not have any success. Can I suggest that you contact Bearcat and ask him to do the opposite merge for you? Cheers--VS talk 07:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to huffa

VirtualSteve, just because I don't wish to repeat my actions and get banned from wikipedia doesn't mean I'm sorry at all. I'm not sorry. I think your reply to me was rude, and not helpful at all. Your comment about belgian waffles was clearly tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, and your earlier comment said "please refrain from posting nonsense articles (Huffa)." If you guys can't see why calling someone else's hometown fad and writings "nonsense" then I'm not sure what else to tell you. It is my understanding that I don't need to apologize to keep from getting banned from wikipedia, but just not repeat it.

Also, for the record, I think it is quite silly to say that because I used a profane word, I am cowardly, gutless, or immature. I am an educated man; however, one thing I've definitely learned over the years is to be brief and to the point. If you would have been here, I would have said what I typed on your page right to your face. But regardless, it's in the past. I don't see why we're bickering about this anymore. Huffa will either be deleted or not. Someone will help me develop it or not. And because I won't swear, I will be free to edit wikipedia and enjoy it, which is all I want to do. Thanks. Barsportsunlimited 14:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Bars, he is very very rude. He is actually the sort of thing the Internet could do without.


In addition, as I think about it, I'm also quite offended by continuous references to the Wikipedia such and such and such and such policies. I understand full well that an article must be referenced and verifiable. I understand why. Just because I'm unable to verify my own article or subject doesn't mean I'm incapable of understanding the policies. I undestand that you and the rest of the admins probably spend all day bickering with twelve-year olds and wiping away their graffiti. I get that. I get why that's annoying. You should, in my opinion however, remember that not every person who posts a new article is going to be an idiot or a twelve-year old. I think you would do well to remember that. In thinking more about it, I don't really have any personal animousity towards you anymore, and I think it would be safe for me to say that I'm sorry. However, I would think it would be equally fair for you to be sorry for calling my article nonsense. Respectfully, Barsportsunlimited 14:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


Since I'm in the loop in this, I went ahead and posted excerpts of the originally speedily-deleted article to illustrate what condition the article was in at the time of deletion—and identify which editors had made certain changes. —C.Fred (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted - with some further clarifications

You clearly have a very close association or love of the huffa - and whilst it took you some lines and many words - your apology is accepted. I note that you are using the word Bickering - of course I am not bickering with you at all - C.Fred indicated on your talk page that I might or might not accept your apology for twice using personal attacks - and since I had not spoken to you at all since those attacks I thought that I would give you a clear opportunity to make that apology.

I note also the comments by C.Fred above - importantly his comment regarding not looking closely at edits are not quite as transparent towards the truth as they will be when I explain my way of dealing with articles such as Huffa.

Firstly I tried for a good 15-20 minutes all the ways and spellings, and links to Lincoln, La Mars donuts and other donut shops in Nebraska, to find any reference at all (on the web) for the Huffa - as you know there are none, absolutely none at all. If I did find them I would have put them/it into the article to make yours at the least verifiable and hopefully notable. (Here is an example of another food article that was at the point of deletion which did have many web-hits but did not establish WP:N - which as soon as I found two I posted on the net and then informed other editors was now past any deletion concerns Uncle Tony's Kebabs). Secondly if you look closely you will see that another editor was watching the Huffa article - it was him that beat me (edit-conflict) to the punch of setting up the deletion notice on your page. I then went back to Huffa because he had put up the deletion notice and found this reply from someone under your name - The Huffa article should not be deleted because it is not an advertisement of a particular product or brandname. No company owns the rights to a Huffa, nor or any company names present in the article. It is simply the explanation of a local fad that may be interesting to some, similar to an article here about "Chicago Dogs" or "Belgian Waffles," to cite precedent. Note two things - firstly you or your staff member included reference to Belgian Waffles, and secondly - no one that person had not removed the other silly nonsensical content before asking to "hang on" the deletion. So my return underneath that said this Verifiability& Notability -If you are refering to the Chicago-style hot dog or the Belgian waffle you will note that both of those articles cite references that establish both verifiability and notability. This article does not. was not a stock message it was a return on your(?) message regarding belgian waffles - and not as you put it in your apology a tongue in cheek sarcasm.

Further - just so you are aware - your belief that I spend all day bickering with 12 year olds is totally incorrect. Of course you are not to know that but if you care to look through my edits you will see that I spend very, very, very little time with vandal, nonsense or debate. I tend to write articles - oh and always with references - never in speculation.

Finally - I did not call you cowardly, gutless, or immature because you used a swear word - but I noticed you used it first before the discussion that normally emits from an adult - and on two occassions - including once with a sneak attack on my talk page - with no other explanation than these (completed) words - Nonsense? Go f--- yourself.

Interestingly in about 12,000 edits across Wikipedia I have never been sworn at by any 12-18 year old - in fact I have only been sworn at twice. So again thank you for your apololgy and thank you for clearing up that you are not a 12 year old and that your actions were that of an educated man. Good luck with finding something to establish verification and notability. Oh, here is a tip that will help - go to the "restaurant", "diner" or "donut stand" that serves these delicacies and take a photo of the donut, and a clear copy (or photo) of the menu showing the item name. Post these up on wiki to illustrate your donut - if you need help please ask - I will be happy to help. This won't establish notability and therefore your article might still be deleted but it will be a step in the right direction. Cheers!--VS talk 22:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wagga Wagga

Great news on the promotion to GA status and thanks for updating my userpage. Moving on to Albury! -- Mattinbgn/ talk 06:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks again for keeping an eye out. I don't think any of them are serious about contributing so they will just need keeping an eye on and jumping on where necessary. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 09:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • No worries as always Matt. I agree with your sentiments - and particularly liked the response you gave the current offender. I also think there is probably some sock-puppetry supporting going on.--VS talk 11:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, you seem to hold some weight around here. Could you please check out Mentone Grammar School's talk page. Sintheg2 12:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)the SNAKE is patiently waiting for any response which would be greatly appreciated. SNAKE out

Indeed - as per Mattinbgn's suggestion - but perhaps even better for you at this stage - given your rather poor form edits recently and so that you can build up some trust in the Wikipedia community - you could indicate on the talk page of Mentone Grammar School what things should be changed and why, and provide proper references for each suggestion - then others will consider them and put them in as appropriate.--VS talk 13:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Lost patience, referred to WP:AIV -- Mattinbgn/ talk 10:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Good move Matt. I notice one is blocked indefinitely now. The other will follow. I think that these four are socks of if not then meat puppets - User:Crcar2, User:Ppk812, User:Sintheg2, & User:Dingbat101 probably all from the School. I will join you in reporting to AIV every vandalism, personal attack etc.--VS talk 10:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: A word of support

Hey Steve, thanks for your kind message on Sunday. I had actually had a quick look through our friend's contribs and I had noticed your little interaction with him/her on Talk:SMH. Very exhausting. Dad's doing well, thanks. The operation went well and he's home from hospital now, which is a big relief. Hope all is well with you, Steve. Thanks again for your message, it was very much appreciated. :) Take care, Sarah 14:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rumsfeld

We are having formal discussions about demoting Rumsfeld from top. You mentioned you felt he was top, but not in the place where it matters. Please chime in on the talk page at WP:CHIASSESS. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

fr:Riverina

Hi Steve, thanks for doing a little cleanup for me. I thought you may be interested in the above article. The main contributor seems to be doing a lot of work at the french Wikipedia on Riverina articles. It's quite fascinating to watch and test out my Year 8 french on back translation. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 10:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • My pleasure on the minor clean-up. I didn't realise that they were translating our Riverina article - that's very gratifying. I had noticed French editors coming through all of our Riverina localities and I actually asked one of them earlier this evening to leave a small edit summary so that we knew what they were doing on the article without having to check it.--VS talk 10:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your GA review of Penmon, Anglesey

Thanks for your constructive comments, which are being addressed. Could you perhaps expand on your first point? There are clear WP:MOS errors in the document – for example look at the heading Popular Culture which is both stepped up to an incorrect level and incorrect as per capitalisation. I've removed the small "Popular culture" section unless and until it can be expanded (perhaps with reference to the life and works of Somerset Maugham!) but what other MOS errors caught your eye? I'd like to resubmit the article for your attention shortly, but there would be little point if there are still MOS errors that would cause it to fail a second time. All further information gratefully received. Thanks, Bencherlite 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your kind comments on my talk page. MOS is not as important at GA as it is for FA but problems such as double capitalisation as in Popular Culture, heading placement and sentence constructions - that I referred to later in the review were significant enough to prevent GA at that time. Having looked at the edits since my review, you and your wiki-colleagues appear to have done a great job (inline citations have increased dramatically). I would say that if there is some good prose that can be created relating W Somerset Maugham (and Angelina Jolie) to Penmon put it in because it humanizes any article about a place. But if you do put in as (say) Part 4 ==Popular culture==. Even if you don't it is very close and perhaps even ready to being renominated - I would say one final obligatory proof read at the very least.--VS talk 22:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No Somerset Maugham, I'm sorry, but I managed an Aled Jones reference and a Patrick McGoohan reference in a revamped "Popular culture" section. I've left a note for the main author of the page to suggest that he looks over the page once more - then can we just ask you directly to reassess it, or do we need to relist it at the GA page first? (This is my first involvement with the GA process, so forgive the newbie-style questions!) Thanks, Bencherlite 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies as I seem to have missed your question regarding Penmon, Anglesey until now. I would suggest that you renominate it (when you do) back at the GA page first. I say this because I am away for the next couple of days and someone else might review it for you before I get back. However if you nominate it and let me know then Sunday evening or Monday morning I will see your message and if no-one else has grabbed it for assessment I will do it for you - so let me know here as soon as you renominate. Cheers.--VS talk 10:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

QStik Records

Have added additional references to article - can you remove the tag you added Dan arndt 00:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Thanks Matt, well done Dan.--VS talk 01:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Faerie Dragon Records

Thanks for the heads up! Lugnuts 12:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Penmon, Anglesey revisited

Thanks again. I've renominated it but perhaps you might care to have a look if nobody beats you too it! Bencherlite 17:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You were beaten to it, in fact, and it is now a good article officially. Thank you for your comments which got us there. Bencherlite 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations Bencherlite - and thanks for the messages on my talk page. As a side note Epbr123 is a good critiquing reviewer - which further strengthens any GA Pass awarded. Glad that I could help with the initial and a smaller subsequent review. So now what's next?--VS talk 21:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did start another Anglesey village today Llanddaniel Fab just to stop a red link when I corrected Bryn Celli Ddu - suppose I'll need to work on that next... Bencherlite 21:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Backdraft editing

I have checked the editing history of the backdraft film and it seems that you put in this text in the trivia section: "BackDraft is an inspiring movie,it shows the faded love of 2 brothers and the love of fire&the house they work with.You can relate this movie to real life,although real firefighting comes from the heart.you truly have to "love" the "animal"."

I had just deleted this, since I did not find it relevant to anything in the article and not very objective.

So just wanted to know if I was right in deleting this or if not, what I should have done instead.

Quite new to Wikipedia, Backdraft was second edit, so any help would be appreciated:)

--Steadi 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steadi - Thanks for signing on your message. No you have misread the edit - I certainly did not put up the detail that you described - I in fact deleted it the first time. And yes if it has been put up again you were quite right in deleting it again. Cheers--VS talk 13:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fahan School

WP Civility restrains me from leaving anything other than I have removed the Fahan school prod/tag/delete/notability issue. Have a good day :) SatuSuro 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC) I would say less than 60 seconds to find refs - and refs exist at National LIbrary of Australia and Stats Library of Tasmania that would be sufficient to show that the school has notability.(However even the better admins here in Perth forget about library catatlogues to check so youre in fine comP My first use of prod was as risque - but I would personally challenge ever prodding schools as a regular exercise. Cheers SatuSuro 01:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi SatuSuro - your posts on this topic made me chuckle - but they usually do. Actually my prod was not my first by a long shot - and it had nothing to do with notability - it wasn't even titled notability. Schools are of course notable! My post was for verifiability - hence the references tag to complete the daily double. Have a look here... Make sense? Question still arises therefore whether all of the middle part under timeline is verified? I would say not - what are your views - or are you okay for me to go in and just remove the whole section?--VS talk 13:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
And he throws the book at me - clearly you should be in correspondence with the captain beefheart red link crazy who occasionally (sic) ventures into tass articles as well ... - all school arts bother me - see our west coast version at Wikipedia:Aquinascruft - if there is a section that bothers you - do it - i dont have my hand on the texts so i cannot say yay or nay - and last in hobart this weekend last year, sigh nostalgic for the mount wellington chill in the bones and the black ice on lyell highway in the middle of nowhere, argh nostalgia, nostalgia. cheers SatuSuro 05:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You're a crazy mad bugger SatuSuro - and I like you a lot. I take it in amongst all of that return that you are in support...--VS talk 09:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
gawd signs of appreciation like that are very dangerous - you might catch something - just in case you wonder if i was having you on - check out this evidence =- very carefully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Huonville%2C_Tasmania - im not the only one :) Yes if there is something that smells of lack of verification on that weird and wonderful talis database that carries the state ref library in hobart on its shoulders and its hemline - then it has to go - which means i have about a hundred tasmanian stubs with very thin chance of existence if i dont rush in and populated them from my various tas refs that i carry around in the head at times. gawd its the waning moon SatuSuro 13:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ford Falcon Cleanup

Hello Steve, I am (with others) cleaning up the Ford Falcon article and are looking for people to help make it good. Intrested? Harrison-HB4026 06:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Harrison - sorry my life is so busy at the moment I just can't offer any more time for projects etc. Thank you for asking though.--VS talk 10:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Red Herring Surf

Hi Steve. The article has the references on it now, please reconsider your vote if possible? Thanks. Neil â•¦ 09:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Steve, just to let you know that I emailed you earlier. Hope all is well. Take care, Sarah 10:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. Congrats on making it to 10k edits! You beat me - I've still got another 150 edits to go. :)

  • Hi Sarah - Thank you for your email. I would be honoured to accept if you think I am ready and if you and others still believe that I could be of help to the wiki community. In terms of timing I would be better placed to answer questions etc from Monday June 18 - *the Opera House will have cracked from sail to sail attempting to withstand my voice by then  :-) :-) :-)* and I will be a little more free. HB is a fine young man and very kind. Thank you also for your congratulatory comment - a little bit here and there and what do you know 10K - what fun.--VS talk 12:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I, for one, think you'll be of immense benefit as an admin and look forward to supporting your candidature. Should be a shoo-in ;-)--cj | talk 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Totally agreed. You've been a very solid contributor across WP Australia. Orderinchaos 05:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated CJ--VS talk 22:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I much appreciate these comments of support Orderinchaos.--VS talk 05:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Steve, best of luck with the candidature and with the performance, not that you will need any for either! Thanks for the kind words on Jandowae, Queensland. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 02:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Matt - your constant support is much appreciated.--VS talk 02:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No problems, Steve. Don't worry, I think you know that I would tell you up front if I thought you were not ready or that you were unsuited for adminship. I am confident that you will make a fine and very fair admin and I am happy to nominate you and look forward to adding you to my list of successful WP:100 nominations (no pressure or anything!) ;) lol. As I've told you, I started on your nom statement before dad's operation and I will try to get it finished in the next few days. Then you can simply add your answers and accept the nomination in your own good time. This is based entirely on your schedule, so don't feel under pressure to get the ball rolling until it suits you. I hope the Opera house gig is going well. Take care, Sarah 12:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. And guys, please, I beg you, stop massaging Steve's ego, you're going to be giving him a massive ego problem! ;D lol Sarah 12:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. :) It was so nice to log on and most unexpectedly receive such kind and encouraging messages instead of complaints and such. Hope all is well with you and that the Opera House job is going well. Best wishes to you and yours, Sarah 07:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a service award, not one from me so don't put my name on it :)

This editor is an Experienced and Established Editor, and is entitled to display this Service Badge.
This editor is an Experienced and Established Editor, and is entitled to display this Service Badge.


Harrison-HB4026 07:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks Harrison - well you learn something new everyday - I had never heard of these things before. - Appreciate your gesture. Cheers!--VS talk 07:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My recent revert

I strongly suspect that editor is our friend from Gundagai. -- Longhair\talk 09:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks Longhair - yes the terminology seems to suggest as much. I actually did not even see it - was busy assessing a GA nom. Thanks for keeping any eye and reverting.--VS talk 09:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I've range blocked our friend with anon blocks on 203.54.9.0/24 and 203.54.186.0/24. Cheers, Sarah 13:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah - (sorry just got your message have had a late night of rehearsal).--VS talk 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tassie basket cases

Please dont forget to let me know - your edits wander across my watch list with some rapidity again :) - cheers SatuSuro 08:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I won't forget. I am editing a bit along the way too - making notes of some that I will return to once I get some more of the assessing done. As for before I have found no serious basket cases at this stage - some mini - make that minuscule - stubs but worthwhile enough at this stage. (And on the brighter side there are some very good previously unassessed articles that I have read this evening)!--VS talk 09:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I could cheat horribly and double the size of the project from about 6 - 10 ref books that i have in my office - tassie yearbooks (hard copy) from the late 70's , the first volume of robsons history, as well as alison alexanders companion volume - so if you ever want anecdotal quick checks about info - feel free to check with me if you like - oh and a huge number of books about west coast - but thats another story another time - cheers SatuSuro 09:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
ta give me ten see what i can do cheers SatuSuro 11:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Opps longer - the cape sorell issue i must send a long email sometime - it could be upt to 3 arts - not now - central plat first SatuSuro 11:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Understood - there are 4 articles with Sorell inclusion. Let's keep it on the todo list.--VS talk 11:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Central plateau - deserves quite a large article alone - it has not been done as such - so added further reading only to the cons area. I might try to find T Jetsons 'The roof of tasmania' before i try the main art - it is cited in Alexanders art on the subject. sigh. theres always too much to do :) SatuSuro 12:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just keep at it young fella - BTW I am intent on pursuing a particular Tassie article that caught my fancy tonight to GA status - it's about time we got one up there I'd suggest...?--VS talk 12:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you havent seen the perth meetup photos to ascertain my ancient nature. Good luck to you on the ga item - gmail on its way as well SatuSuro 12:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC) arrgh - youve just tagged one that I have asked you about in theemail :) SatuSuro 12:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well (smile) I did pick up your general age in some edits you put up recently - the young fella comment was just to remind you (and me) that we are only as young as the sum of our wiki edits as posted here In other words you get younger as your number gets smaller and BTW you have dudded yourself out 1 place - should be 422 not 423 as posted I believe?--VS talk 12:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I am off for a while in a minute or so - it would be good to have your/answer opinion re the question in the gmail sometime. cheers SatuSuro 12:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep I will go through those four and suggest back to you - and I'd be happy to help to get which ever one you choose to GA also - with a view to helping you in your other interest in a month or two... I am off for a few days now so will get back to you on Monday with some detailed response - OK?--VS talk 12:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you visiting and commenting at my RfA, I have tried to expand on my philosophy and answers. I do hope that my extra comments address your concerns. Even if they don't, thanks for stopping by! DrKiernan 11:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just back from a couple of days away IvoShandor - it was my pleasure to support your RfA. I expect to see your name up again in a short while as a renomination. --VS talk 01:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Good Article Medal of Merit

The Good Article Medal of Merit 
I have awarded you this medal for your work in helping to reduce the backlog during the Good Article Candidates Backlog Elimination Drive. You reviewed five or more articles during the drive, which helped to contribute to the large decrease in the backlog. If you have the time, please continue to review articles to help make sure the backlog does not jump back up to what it was. Good job and happy editing! Nehrams2020 06:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Nehram2020 for both implementing the drive to reduce the backlog of GA assessments and for the Good Article Medal of Merit badge you placed on my page.--VS talk 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Steve, thanks for your note of support at my RfA. Cheers. Shyamal 04:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It was my great pleasure to support your RfA Shyamal - thank you for your courtesy.--VS talk 01:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Our friends at Mentone Grammar

HI Steve, hope everything went well on the weekend. You may be interested to know you have an imposter - see here for details. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Matt. Everything went particularly well on the weekend - hopefully the CD which will be released to us in September will agree. It seems we have a couple or three young bored boys from MGS who obviously do not realise that an imposter is easy to spot - I will keep an eye out for their work as always. Cheers! --VS talk 01:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

my RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. I hope I will live up to your expectation. Let me know if you need any help, or I make any mistake. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It was my pleasure to support your RfA Chochopk. Good luck and happy admin-ing!--VS talk 01:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Henry Peel Ritchie

Thanks to a very thorough review by Eyeserene and my own changes, I believe that this article now reflects GA quality and your concenrns are addressed. Let me know if you have any other concerns. Thankyou--Jackyd101 12:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Cass

This article IS notable, just not yet finnished. There is much to be added, but I must retire for now. Please do not delete until after tomorrow, when I have a chance to complete it. Thanks, jdstein89.

  • Hi Jdstein89. Thanks for your message on my talk page - as I said I will leave it for a day or two - but please note that you just saying this fellow is notable does not make him so. We need to see exactly why he is notable enough to make Wikipedia. Also please do not put SPAM links within the content of the article (I have removed the latest ones) - as that just makes the article look like an advert and it will definitely be deleted. Finally I can see that you are keen to progress and that is commendable - what I am going to do is put a welcome template up on your page after this - I strongly suggest that you go through some of the links so that you learn a little bit more on how to write up article content - and if you do - my own personal belief is that you will turn out to be a very good editor - but just keep at it and follow all the guidelines.... Ask me if you need help in any way and I will see how I can assist. --VS talk 12:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Brighton Bypass

G'day mate, i noticed you changed the Eastern Ring Road To start class, was wondering if you think the Brighton Bypass is ready for a B class rating yet? Wiki ian 11:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Ian - I did think about making it B but what dissuaded me was the tag at the top of the article - and I guess more importantly the speculative quality of the article. For my money B class article should be relatively stable in terms of overall content - not quite as much as a GA but close.--VS talk 11:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Landmark WP:FLC

You helped us at WP:CHICOTW create and improve List of Chicago Landmarks. This week we have nominated it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Landmarks. Feel free to make comments about its candidacy or to come by and help respond to the comments of others. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

Sarah would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Sarah to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VirtualSteve. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Hey Steve, I started up a RfA nomination for you on Monday. I'm going to send you an email shortly. Hope the Opera House performaces went well! Cheers, Sarah 06:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, hurry up! Support --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sarah - you are a such a lovely person. I have just got back from some rehearsals to find this pleasant message - and yes the Opera House performance was just stupendous - singing to a packed house along with another 1000 or so choristers and the Sydney Orchestra. Thank you for the nomination - I am just about to accept and to answer the first question.--VS talk 13:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Stephen - well what more can I say with a name like yours I have always known that you are great guy! Thank you for your positive prompt.--VS talk 13:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Poor Steve. I have to have my wisdom teeth out and I've been putting it off and so I have great sympathy for you having dental work done. I will read your answers in a minute but when you ask me to post it for discussion, do you mean you want me to list it on the RfA page to get things started? Just double checking so I don't do the wrong thing. I will go and read your answers now. I wouldn't worry too much about Stephen as he can just add his co-nom, if he wishes, whenever he's ready. You don't need to wait for it to get things underway. I'm glad to hear your Opera House experiences is so fantastic! Have a safe trip to Melbourne and I hope the root canal isn't too traumatic. Sarah 14:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • There you go - I thought for sure you'd be asleep. Yes please to your question - I meant list my nomination at RfA for discussion. I'll stay up for another 30 minutes or so - just in case you want to tell me that my answers are not quite there.--VS talk 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No worries. I'm going to go and list it right now. Personally, I think your answers are very good, but you know what RfA is like. It is sometimes hard to predict how people will respond to various things, but if there are any problems (I don't think there will be) you'll be able to clear them up easily enough. You'll probably be asked a few extra questions anyway. Good luck Steve! :) Sarah 15:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just adding your edit stats to the talk page but I got edit conflicted by someone else doing the same thing! People who watch RfA are so fast! I don't think there is any need to mention your dental apt unless you particularly want to. If you find you're not up to coming online until Friday and there are questions mounting, I can always mention that you might not be back until Friday, so people know there is a reason for your absence. But it's entirely up to you Steve. Sarah 15:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No problems thank you again. I will leave it. Talk to you soon.--VS talk 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hmmm, if I see any opposes, I'll mention that you're quite the haiku writer, but I think you'll go well :) Good luck with it, Steve! Riana ⁂ 15:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you Riana - your support is so appreciated.--VS talk 15:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wishing you good luck is probably unnecessary, but have some from me too. A delight to see someone on RFA that I've had personal contact with, so very happy to support you. Bencherlite 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Supporting your nomination is the most enjoyable thing I have done on Wikipedia. Good luck! -- Mattinbgn/ talk 20:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I was watching for the nom and pleased to see it come up! Regards the tyrant 00:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi VS - I added my support as I think you would make a fine admin. Hope you are feeling well from your root canal. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know

But seriously, why isn't his face on the page, I mean It used to be up there. Drinkanotherday 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your support and kind words at my RFA. I was frankly surprised to come here and find that you aren't one yourself. Fortunately, it looks as though we will soon correct that oversight :)--Kubigula (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Ugh, dentist's appointment sounds nasty! Hope it wasn't anything too horrible! Riana (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately Root canal treatment (does that make you shiver? me too!). --VS talk 10:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh-ho... glorious little picture on that article, gives me the full idea :/ Hope you aren't cotton-mouthy anymore :) Riana (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Steve, personally, I wouldn't advise you to leave messages until the RfA has closed because of the whole canvassing issue. People might say that you're trying to slant opinions (even though you don't have any opposes). It's up to you of course, but I'd wait until the RfA is closed before you start thanking people. Glad to see you back from the dental apt and hope it's not been too painful. At least the RfA hasn't contributed to your pain. :) Cheers, Sarah 10:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah - Dentist wasn't too bad (well who can love an appointment like that ever but it wasn't as bad as it could have been) In terms of canvassing yes I don't want to do that at all and hopefully wrote my thank you so that it didn't/wouldn't. But I will take your advice (which is becoming a pleasant habit :) ) and adjust it to thank everyone after the RfA is finished. Best wishes as always.--VS talk 10:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear the dentist wasn't too bad. I don't think the message you wrote sounded like canvassing, but I've just seen things like that backfire at RfA before. It's a pretty unpredictable beast. :) I'm just about to head offline for the evening, so take care and I'll talk to you soon. Sarah 10:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk soon Sarah. Cheers--VS talk 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

optional question

Thanks for taking the time to answer my optional question (you don't have to apologise in any way, though). Hope you're not in too much pain. I haven't had the opportunity to enjoy root canal treatment yet, but my brother tells me it's not that hilarious. —AldeBaer 14:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

anytime

real life is in the way most of the weekend anyways SatuSuro 00:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Thank you

Thank you for welcoming me. I have been editing for sometime but only just decided to register a proper account. Thank you. Friedle 09:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • That was my pleasure welcoming your anonymous IP - but now that you have an account - well that is an even more welcome situation. We are always happy to have good new editors - be bold keep editing... I have put a new welcome template under this message so that you have links to the policies and guidelines and if I can help in anyway please just ask at anytime.... --VS talk 12:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Top Candidates

I was hoping to get some feedback on prospective top candidates before we get to 10500 articles and then take our next top candidates vote when we get to around 11000. Your feedback would be appreciated. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't have it

No way. Here, have these :) Riana (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • That's about how many I feel like too! Yum. --VS talk 00:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Re. Change of mind

You're welcome. :-) In fact, I regret my initial neutral and I apologize for taking so long to change my mind. You're obviously qualified to become a wise, most valued admin. Best regards, Húsönd 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's an oblivious surgeon fish for you! Oblivious surgeon fish somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Húsönd 01:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes sir - that works - when I smiled at receipt of the surgeon fish I think my mouth resembled that of the fish (but that may have something to do with a late night and rehearsals/s/s/s/s/).--VS talk 02:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WPChi falling on its face?

I hope you have been following along at Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates#List_of_Chicago_Landmarks. If you have, then you may have noticed that the only drawback that seems to have emerged is the number of redlinks in the list. If you check in at WP:WIAFL this should not be a surprise. There is nothing much else really to complain about, IMO. I have said from the initial CHICOTW nomination. Unfortunately, once we worked on the page we found preponderant redlinks. I have always known this would be a problem and asked for help creating stubs. You may recall I encouraged us to spend an [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/COTW/History/CLstubification entire extra week creating stubs]. This still fell short of getting the majority of articles linked. I continued to suggest that we attempt to create stubs. This whole effort six weeks ago seems to have brought down WP:CHICOTW. Since this attempt to get people to create redlinks for a budding WP:FL people have stopped participating in the CHICOTW. This week marks the fifth week in a row that there has been no significant editorial contribution during the CHICOTW. I would say I am afraid to lose CHIICOTW support by mentioning this, but since NO ONE has come by to help this week, it could not get any worse. If anyone cares about getting an FL at CHICOTW for our past efforts it might be a good idea to express such concern by creating 5 or so stubs from among the redlinks at List_of_Chicago_Landmarks. Since I have already created about 3 dozen I have mentioned on the discussion that I am standing pat with my contribution to this concern. However, if any of you cares, feel free to make some stubs. The 20 minute stub instructions are still available. If you create any such stubs list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Newly_Created_Chicago_Related_Pages so that everyone can help you to clean it up. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

More help needed

If you have been following along at WP:FLC#List_of_Chicago_Landmarks you know we need help creating stubs for the List to make it a more useful list and help it achieve WP:FLC status. Since I reminded people of this 7 stubs have been created. We need about 40 more to be safe although we may have a successful candidacy with the article as it stands.

Some of you may also be following the success of WP:CHICOTW at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/COTW/Good Articles. For the last 4 weeks no one has been very active. Thus, I am fearful that Historic Michigan Boulevard District, Harold Washington Cultural Center, Crown Fountain, & Art Institute of Chicago Building will all fail at WP:GAC when their turns come up. Also, Magnificent Mile did not experience the collaborative spirit. Our reputation as a successful collaboration is at stake. In addition to making stubs for the FLC we need your contribution to our collaborations. I am sorry to pull you away from whatever other wikipleasures you may be experiencing, but we need your help. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

ahem

Howdy there - late laste night my time i tagged a vast amount of oz politics 'oz ministries' for the oz project and initially gave the benefit of the doubt of them as articles (even though they are lists i know..yeabut) on the basis that they could actually have either refs or text added at top if anyone got adventurous. my changing ideas are on the politics prpoject talk page - then this am to finish i find your tag on one of the hawke ministeries - which says list - yeahbut - interested to know your idea as to whether some second adma cra might come along and plonk in text or refs - anyways most have been - yes tagged as - yeeehah! - stubs (heheh) - might need to get the old awb aout and do sum pukka rearrange? your thoughts as always appreciated SatuSuro 00:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi SS - thanks for your message. I was going to respond similarly to Rebecca as I agree completely with her view - plus at the end of the day any one of us can go in an adjust a previous classification. Cheers as always (PS Great job these ongoing assessments of yours).--VS talk 01:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeahi'll leave it all for the moment - at least its in the oz project (I still keep finding heaps of cats (category pages) and dogs (politicians) not yet in the project - intriguing) and ill go back and maybe make it all consistent later. asforassssssmnts - if you know parry hotter i think there isa snake loose in the ssscriptorium :| SatuSuro 01:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're an Admin!

It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an admin. Congratulations. You can feel free to do everything you're supposed to do and nothing you're not supposed to do. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. -- Cecropia 16:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Congradulations on becoming an admin! Jreferee (Talk) 02:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Congradulations on becoming an admin! Jreferee (Talk) 02:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! WjBscribe 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, Steve! Well deserved :) Enjoy the toolkit! Riana (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! -- Mattinbgn/ talk 20:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You are very welcome. Good luck! Acalamari 22:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Told ya so :) Congratulations from myself also. -- Longhair\talk 22:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • —AldeBaer (c) 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well done, now head over to CSD and click delete 400 times! ;) --Steve (Stephen) talk 23:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
per hour... :) -- Longhair\talk 23:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Piling on - This is a celebration of your hard work. Enjoy your promotion! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Congratulations - you are no longer a lowly editor, because you now know that your wiki law #1 didn't exist! All the best and welcome to the world of saving the puppy's integrity - and other defences in aid of the truth - and getting abused for your pains! Regards --Golden Wattle talk 00:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It was inevitable :). Happy admining, --cj | talk 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Please accept my heartfelt congratulations at your acquisition of the mop and bucket. As far as your comments on my talk page go, all I can say is that you are most welcome, your experience is greater than mine, and I look forward to working with you for the good of the encyclopedia.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wield me! Wield me!
Wield me! Wield me!
Congratulations on your successful RFA! I'm sure that you'll keep up the good work, now with the aid of shiny new admin tools. Use them wisely. :-) Festive regards, Húsönd 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

congrats on successful RfA

as you alluded to, this "anonymous" editor fully supports you being an admin. as my username indicates, i lurk all over wikipedia, watch discussions, comment where appropriate, do the wikignome and wikifairy thing, and generally contribute to WPChi, NRHP, architecture, and newly created DYK articles. i hope to work with you in the future improving the project, and not necessarily just articles. overall, have a BIG CONGRATS on a successful RfA! i have full faith that you will lead through an example that others can follow. LurkingInChicago 00:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for your kind note. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr Administrator

  • Oh dear,what I have done?! Is it too late to withdraw my nomination?? ;-D Seriously, Steve, the most sincere congratulations on an outstanding RfA. The near unanimous result was truly fantastic and one you most certainly earned honestly and fairly through sheer hard work, dedication to the project and highly visible integrity. You have been a pleasure to work alongside these last months and I look forward to continuing to work with you as a fellow administrator as well as a fellow Australian editor. Welcome to the admin team, my friend. Please don't hesitate to give me a yell at any time if you ever need a hand, a second opinion, or just a return of some of the kind support and encouragement that you have given me since we became wiki-friends. Thankyou for your lovely message on my talk page and for your email, which I have now replied to. With sincere congratulations and best wishes for your new role on Wikipedia, Sarah 09:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks again Sarah - you can be certain I will keep you on speed dial. --VS talk 21:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats for becoming a Admin!

Congrats on getting the mop and bucket! Have a nice week and God bless:)--†Sir James Paul† 04:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

†Sir James Paul† has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

  • Oi! I'll join in the cheer squad here. I didn't know any mops were being handed out, if I'da known I would have heartily contributed to your RfA.Garrie 05:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Ha, had to laugh to see my name mentioned in your optional question. Good old Boinka!Garrie 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Speedy Delete Tags

A bot beat me to leaving a note about the other artist article on the creator's talk page but I will do so in the future. Closenplay 09:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • That's cool Closenplay - the Bot will come and do it - but if you do then it just makes the job of administration easier (in terms of editors have a chance to adjust their new work and they don't so often complain to us). As I said keep up the great work.--VS talk 09:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Question for Mr Administrator

Hi VS, is there anything in your cool new tools with which can help me for this issue: I recently added a timeline to the PI death in custody article, unfortunately it obscures the 'See also' and 'External links' section when it is viewed in IE, looks fine in firefox though. Any thoughts? don't worry I don't expect you to fix the many many many many many problems that IE has. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry to bother you, I've worked out how to fix it now. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 12:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey never a bother Alec - sorry I missed your message as I have just come back to my wiki office. Glad to hear you got it fixed. Cheers!--VS talk 13:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Image:Water drop animation enhanced small.gif

Hi VirtualSteve. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance.

Jreferee (Talk) 08:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 Image:Admin mop.PNG

Manzanar GA Review

I think we've addressed the concerns you expressed in your initial GA review of Manzanar. I'm sure you'll have additional concerns, however. :-) Also, there is at least one question for you requesting clarification. Also, I just wanted to let you know that if I am slow to respond (after Sunday night, Pacific time), an explanation for that is on the Manzanar talk page. Thanks for your work on this GA review. It's most appreciated. Gmatsuda 09:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Congratulations to all editors who assisted in this article. I have read the changes made (and noted the couple of arguments against my suggestions - all of which I can live with). The article is well presented and passes the WP:GAC.--VS talk 23:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the GA review. Making it to GA status wasn't the important thing...what was and is important was/is making the article better, and that has been accomplished. You are a part of that process, so thanks again! Gmatsuda 23:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday of alpinism

Hi VirtualSteve, could you please explain your reasoning a bit more? A majority of voters wanted to delete or merge the article. I don't see "multiple voting" by anyone but User:Doug Coldwell--who attempted to imply that I had changed my "vote", but I never did. More importantly, I think the horribly extensive discussion demonstrated that the "birth of alpinism" was not a concept that warranted it's own article. And of course, I think you've basically rewarded Doug by alllowing him to keep "his" article--he obviously thinks of it as his, and said so in the AfD, even though he split it off from an article that was deleted, Francesco Dionigi, while the AfD for that article was in process Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi. I strongly disagree with your close, and I hope you will reconsider. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I must agree in asking you to reconsider. I recognize the force of "a vote to merge is a vote to keep"; but in this instance, the merges are unusually strongly from the PoV that we don't need this article. While Akhilleus did not indent one comment from the left margin, as far as I can see all of the multiple !votes are the repeated defenses of the article creator. I will, however, begin by merging this, insofar as it is sourced, with Petrarch; that shouldn't take long. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

By my count, we have three keep !votes, four "deletes" (one of them strong), four "merge", and one "move and rework". During the AfD Doug changed from "keep" to "rename" ([1]). I guess I never formally expressed a !vote through a bold heading, but obviously I thought the article should be deleted.

Pmanderson is exactly right in saying that the merge voters were saying that this article didn't need to exist. Including me, that's nine editors who thought this shouldn't be an article of its own, versus four who thought it should be kept in some form. Even one of those keeps suggested that the article needed to be reworked into a history of the origins of alpinism. Another one of those keep voters started editing on June 18, and looks like a potential sockpuppet.

Anyway, I see you have just become an administrator--congratulations!--and this seems to be one of your first AfD closes. Thanks for reading through the tedious discussion on this AfD, and I understand how a decision of "no consensus" might seem to be the best way of dealing with this morass, but I hope you reconsider your close, because it doesn't conform to the actual wishes of the voters. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments folks. Firstly yes - morass is a reasonably exact way of describing the content of AfD discussion, but you can be assured that I read through and noted all of the contents, including the multiple and convoluted arguments put by more than one of the contributors. I note for the record that my count of the !votes was very similar to that detailed above. Secondly (and I note with relief that you are both finding the answer to your own question) the job of AfD is to find a consensus - which in reality is a consensus to delete because merge, move, redirect !votes act towards a keep decision. On that basis alone there is no consensus to delete. Thirdly, I considered carefully the suggestions of name changes - particularly to Birth of Alpinism but even that suggestion did not reach an absolute consensus. Finally therefore the result must be (by the deletion guidelines) to reach no consensus which in effect at this stage must be keep. All of that said, Septentrionalis has reached the most sensible conclusion (which I also noted was related in the AfD) - to actually undertake a merge of the article with Petrarch. I say this because after that is done carefully and accurately - those of you who wish to put in a new AfD will have a very solid argument (and a position from which clear consensus to delete is likely to be formed) that the article Birthday of alpinism is no longer required.--VS talk 22:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi VirtualSteve, thanks for your response and your clear explanation of your reasoning. I still disagree with your close, because I disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of the merge/redirect votes in this AfD, but I have to admit that your position is justifiable. As you observe, we seem to be coming to a solution through normal editorial processes--we'll see how it goes. Happy editing! --Akhilleus (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thats my pleasure --Akhilleus. Please let me know if there is anyway I can help further - including (if you wish considering I will be accustomed to the debate content) when a new AfD takes place?--VS talk 23:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My article "Sam Cashion" was delted

I feel that my article should be restored, I was still editing the page when it was deleted. I think I stated clearly why it should not have been deleted in the talk page for the article. If it is not to be restored, please at least inform me why.

  • The article Sam Cashion was deleted because it was an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. Please have a look at the links detailed in the welcome message I have left you - and if you feel you can justify an article about this person which meets all of our guidelines then please do so. I would suggest the best thing you might do as a new editor is to edit firstly in the Sandbox (link given above) and then post it to a proper page. Best wishes. --VS talk 09:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Birthday of Alpinism - your advice would be valued

Hi, I see you were the closing admin on the AfD for Birthday of alpinism. Another user has been redirecting the article to Mont Ventoux, citing the AfD and your comments above in his edit summaries. My understanding of the AfD and of your comments above was 1) keep (no consensus for deletion), and 2) you suggested merging content into Petrarch and then doing a new AfD. I don't really want to get into a revert war, but in my opinion the article should stay until there has been a new debate and consensus reached - so any advice/guidance you could give would be appreciated. For what it's worth, I don't really mind either way if the article stays or is merged into Petrarch, but it would be nice if guidelines were followed (of course it is entirely possible that I have entirely misinterpretated the AfD!). Thanks. DuncanHill 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What Duncan has misinterpreted is the difference between a merge (and severe trim) and deletion; the history is still there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Events since you restored "Birthday of Alpinism"

Since Duncanhill has restored "Birthday of Alpinism" Akhilleus has attacked many of the articles that I have started. It is obvious that he is not editing in good faith, since he already knew of these articles months ago and did nothing - until you restored Birthday of alpinism. Now he has decided that they either need to be deleted or completely rewritten. It is obvious that this is just an act of revenge. Those article have been up and running for several months with many other Wikipedians viewing them. None of these other editors had any objections to these articles - however Akhilleus suddendly now feels they are all bad articles since you restored "Birthday of alpinism." Is this the proper procedure to attack articles in revenge and not in good faith? Articles in question that he suddendly now feels need to be deleted or completely rewritten are: Liber sine nomine (which many other editors have worked on), Petrarch's library (which has never even been edited by anyone), Petrarch's testamentum (which also has never been edited by any other editor); I'm sure there will be more. He accuses me of canvasing others while he canvasses others in his support to bypass the final decision of Keep for the article. This is Pot calling the kettle black since after the decision was made to Keep the article he canvassed others in his support to Delete the article - bypassing the normal procedure. Then the article was just directly redirected to Mont Ventoux without going through the process recommended by the closing administrator - getting the article Deleted (as he wanted). Left a copy of this on the Talk page of User talk:VirtualSteve. --Doug talk 11:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad case of WP:OWN, combined with a passel of falsehoods. Coldwell's articles need, perhaps more than others, to be edited mercilessly, since he began his campaign on Petrarch by informing the Reference Desk that Petrarch forged the New Testament. He should read his edit screen, be prepared to discuss, and to yield to consensus.
As for Birthday of alpinism, I decided, when I looked at it, that anyone searching that phrase would be more interested in Mont Ventoux (which links to Petrarch.) If anyone disagrees, feel free to change the target.
Much of the content of Birthday of alpinism is valueless (tertiary sources; a citation of Burckhardt which misrepresents what he said; treating Rudolf Steiner as a reliable source). Some of it is only valuable in Doug's campaign to assert the title of Birthday of alpinism as notable; a strongly minority position. Most of the remainder of this indiscriminate collection of information would only have value in a hypothetical article on Petrarch's letter itself; and no-one has yet written one. What's left is in Mont Ventoux; but all of it is on Talk:Mont Ventoux to be discussed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it correct that "Birthday of alpinism" is a redirect to Mont Ventoux, as it is now? Shouldn't the article still be there for others to edit and if they want it deleted that they should go through AFD after the material has been carefully merged into Petrarch? I don't see any parts merged into Petrarch and most of the key parts (i.e. wording to the effect that "April 26, 1336, is regarded as the birthday of alpinism because of the letter Petrarch wrote to his close friend Francesco Dionigi." Basically the way it is now, the article is missing everywhere and essentially Deleted. That to me is not what the results were suppose to be. I thought the result was "no consenses" meaning that the article would be kept. Should the article be Deleted? This redirect seems to circumvert the final decision you had made and then Delete has been the conclusion - which seems wrong to me. Can you correct this?--Doug talk 21:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to issues surrounding Birthday of alpinism

Firstly my apologies for not responding earlier - delayed because of current commitments in real life. (Copies of this message are posted on the pages of the relevant editors mentioned immediately above the original post on my talk page.) I have read all of the above and have looked at the history of changes at this page. I intend not to reply specifically to a couple of the editor versus editor comments - other than to note that, with respect, I agree with the comment made by Doug that all editors should cool down a little bit. In relation to the redirect to Mont Ventoux - in a nutshell I disagree for the simple reason that a redirect is not a merge. More specifically - the AfD resulted in a keep. I appreciate that some people did not like or agree with that decision but the deletion policy does not allow (nor should it) for administrators to act without a solid consensus to delete and such a consensus was not provided in the extremely long and straying comments provided in that AfD.
In further discussion with two editors I suggested that concerns might be addressed by merging, that is taking some or all of the content in this article, and placing it into Petrarch. I used Petrarch as my point of reference because it was that article that was strongly mentioned in the AfD. Whilst editors may have considered that suggestion and adjusted their thought process to redirection, I am a little perplexed at how any editor or group of editors could display a level of fairness to their wiki colleagues without first mentioning the idea of a redirect on the talk page for a few days before it is undertaken. Clearly that has not happened and now you are found again at loggerheads.
To my mind basic wiki guidelines and policy should immediately come into play. Firstly any editor can remove the content of any article that is not verified. From that perspective any such content on Birthday of alpinism should be and can be removed. Secondly, content that is verified within the article can be duplicated in another article where editors feel that it is better placed at that other article. To my mind civility of process should dictate some discussion on the talk page of Birthday of alpinism on these parts. Thirdly, if that process moves relevant content to other articles so that the article is no longer required it could be redirected (for the purpose of meeting search terms), or alternatively it could be deleted through a second AfD process.
Whilst I sincerely hope that you are all able to reach an amicable solution, it would be remiss of me not to note that if the process is unable to be completed in this way because someone or many take an ownership over the article that breaches WP:OWN and especially if WP:3RR is breached, please let me know directly and I will block editors or protect the article as necessary until the normal process of mature editing is completed.--VS talk 22:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you VS, that sounds fair to me. Sorry to have stirred up such a hornets nest! DuncanHill 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks also from me, great answers. Sounds fair to me and as a matter of fact will not edit before tomorrow for others to get a chance to look over things. Don't worry about it Duncan - it ultimately would have come up eventually. This now solves the problem and perhaps now we can get down to cool headed editing - like how most Wikipedians edit.--Doug talk 23:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

VS, thanks for looking into this. The basic problem here is that several editors feel that there is virtually no useful content in Birthday of alpinism--that's apparent both from comments at the AfD and at the article's talk page. Please note there has been extensive discussion about the sourcing of the article both on the AfD and on the article's talk page, and that discussion makes it apparent that many of the sources used for the article are not reliable; others are misinterpreted, and the whole thing is a mishmash of stiched-together quotes that don't really add up to much. I am now going to edit the article to remove everything that isn't well-sourced, and I'm afraid the process is going to look rather WP:POINTy, but I'm acting in accordance with majority opinion at the AfD. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the polite return comments from all three editors closely involved in this matter. I hope to see continued civility and a working towards the prime goal of wikipedia. If the matter gets to a point where blocking or protection is thought to be required please let me know directly. I will respond as quickly as possible given real life time constraints. Best wishes to all. --VS talk 00:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi VS, I've rewritten the article. If you have the time I'd appreciate your comments. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • As the closing admin for the AfD on this article I have been asked to make a comment on today's re-write. I will post that response at my talk page and on the article talk page so as to maintain continuity. Whilst I do not profess to be an expert in this genre of wikipedia in any way I am a long standing editor with good understanding of article content in terms of neutrality, verification and notability. With regards these areas it seems to me that the article has been well scanned and adjusted. To my mind it reads well with verified content, and references. I note the inclusion of a doubt as to the claims made by Petrarch as being good pointedness as to the controversy surrounding the claim. Given that the other references are valid and the article contains the doubt issue as a verified comment I wonder as to the reason for the dispute tag which is placed at the top of the article at this time because if the article has been "pared to the bone" in terms of verifiable content then there should be no dispute in terms of neutrality or factual accuracy and I suggest that the tag could be removed. Finally I note - in terms of style (and as a suggestion for improvement) that inline citation 5 could be adjusted to not show the repetition of the material at inline citation 4. I hope that helps? --VS talk 03:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's extremely helpful. Just wanted to make sure that I wasn't being too WP:BOLD with my edits here. Thanks for your continued attention to this matter. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mentone Tab

Hi Steve. You may wish to put your administrator hat on and have a look at the above article. It appears that some students at a well known (at least to us!) Grammar School must be bored during the school holidays. Cheers, Mattinbgn/ talk 05:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Cheers for the heads up Matt. Trust you are well. Page is now history. Of interest I had spotted the only editor as a vandal earlier today and had blocked them for a short period and then another admin came in and blocked indefinitely.--VS talk 06:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wenmovie

I have determined that all four users in this case are abusive sockpuppets. Since I'm not an admin, and you've already dealt with them, I suggest that you indef-block all of them. Thank you and happy 4th of July. Shalom Hello 16:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Good work - thank you. I agree with your synopsis and have acted accordingly.--VS talk 18:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Theatre GA/R

You may have an opinion on this: Wikipedia:Good_article_review#Chicago_Theatre

Australian International School Hong Kong

Hi there VirtualSteve. Could I ask you to take a look at Talk:Australian International School Hong Kong. Several anonymous editors, or quite possibly just the one editor using several IP addresses, appear to have a problem with the school's recruitment policies and seem to think this is a suitable place to discuss their grievances. I deleted the offending remarks and have tried to explain the purpose of discussion pages and the requirements for notability and verifiability. As none of what I've said seems to have had much effect, perhaps you could provide a second opinion. Thanks. Gimboid13 06:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Gimboid13 - my initial opinion has been to revert the final comment after yours (and put two cautions on the talk pages of offenders). It looks to me like this might be the work of sock or meat puppets. I will keep my eye on the article also - but if you see anything more please let me know. Best wishes. --VS talk 18:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I've been watching this article for a while, for my sins. I've just removed most of the information under the heading Academics which appeared to be not especially notable and not within the guidelines at WP:SCH. Gimboid13 06:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why remove Dubbo from "Aboriginal placenames" category?

Hi VirtualSteve Just curious- you've removed the most recent edit from the [dubbo, New South Wales] page, where an anonymous user has added Dubbo to the Australian Aboriginal place names category. Why? The page says that Dubbo is an Aboriginal name, I've never heard otherwise.

  • Thanks for your question regarding Dubbo on my talk-page. Please go ahead and put the Australian Aboriginal place names category back up as you feel it should be. My roll-back was a complete one against two anonymous editors who simply were nominating it seems almost every town in Australia as belonging in the category even when there was no evidence within the article of Aboriginal background to the name. My view is that if there is a referenced link to the town's name being of Aboriginal origin then the category can be verified and included. If not it should not be there. Trust this helps you to understand my actions?--VS talk 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ark

Why did you revert my edit about the contested speedy and then proceeded to delete the article? Per WP:CSD A7, "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be listed at Articles for deletion instead."

The article as it was did assert notability, and so you were supposed to take it to AFD. I was in the process of adding a reference to support the notability when I noticed that you used a revert (by the way, you are not even supposed to use admin-revert on a non vandalism edit).

So, please restore the article and allow me to provide the reference. If you still don't like the reference, take it to AFD, but don't misuse admin tools or misinterpret CSD. Thanks. --Ragib 22:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Ragib - please be very careful with your choice of words. If you have a good look at a "hang-on" tag you will see that it notes the following... this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria... You simply removed the speedy deletion tag and despite your suggestion, the article did not in any way assert notability indeed it only had the following content ... Ark was a popular Bangladeshi rock band. The band got popularity during the late 1990's with their vocals Hasan, Tulu and composer Pancham. Later some of the members including Hasan came out of the band and formed a new band named Jonmobhumi . Finally I will be happy to assist you in any way you need but only where you Assume Good Faith on my talk page.--VS talk 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I always assume good faith. Anyway, I didn't start the article, nor edited it before, but I am familiar with the subject of the article and its notability. There is an inherent systemic bias in WP against non-western topics, and we always need to balance the tradeoff between having nonsense and things that are notable outside the Western hemisphere.
The rollback is still not justified in this case. Per WP:REVERT#Rollback, Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted. I myself try to refrain from reverting non-vandalism edits. But I'd again assume good faith here.
Anyway, per the cover story of the Weekend Magazine of the Daily Star, 2004/04/05 issue, Ark was credited with popularizing Rock music in Bangladesh in the 1990s. I was about to add that reference. By the way, thanks for your prompt clarification. Ragib 23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No problems here also Ragib. I can assure you I have no bias against any article other than it meet WP standards. My return suggestion (to interact with the inevitable admin assisting at WP:CSD)is to add words that influence the notability factor or reference before removing the speedy. That sort of edit will stand out immediately as we watch the history - (and will look less like a the work of a sockpuppet) and, well certainly in my case I simply wouldn't remove the article if it asserted notability. Cheers! --VS talk 23:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, point taken. I'll try to see if I can get any web versions of Bangladeshi newspapers from the 1990s (which is difficult, given that they only went online in the 2000s). But anyway, you are right ... we do need to adhere to WP:V. I'll recreate the article only when I get enough refs ... :). Thanks. --Ragib 23:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh sorry Ragib - my mistake I had already restored it for you I assume you can address the notability with enough to keep it safe from a further tag? Best wishes --VS talk 23:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I added a sentence with the Daily Star news report as a reference. Hope the original creator of the article will have more references. Thanks a lot. --Ragib 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Aboriginal placenames

Dear Steve,

You have gone through and removed many of my categorisations (some which I did not logged on) where there IS direct evidence on the page. I would ask you to kindly reinstate those pages where you removed the categorisation where there was verifiable evidence. You have wasted a huge amount of my time.

By putting the category there, I may prompt a local to go back and research their town's placename. They may not have been thinking that broadly. While many do not talk about the history of the placename, it is obvious that the name is Aboriginal and, in time, as the page is developed, this information will be verified. I am expanding the category, not researching every town's history in Australia!

I am not doing this no a blanket basis as you allege. I am not adding obvious Anglo-Saxon sounding names! That would be blanket!

In the very small number of cases where it is NOT of Aboriginal origin, but sounds it, and I have erred, the person researching the town need merely remove the category - too easy. Something I did recently for Bellingen.

It is not vandalism. If anything, you are vandalising my hard work!

You may like to look at List of Australian place names of Aboriginal origin, where I have a subheading, placenames which sound Aboriginal which aren't, which include things like Dimboolah, Malabar, even Ulladulla I have left out as there is some speculation.


  • Hi DRyan - thank you for your return message although can you please get in the habit of using the four tildes ~~~~ after each message you leave so we can tell immediately who is leaving the message.
    I respond to your request on my talk page as follows:
    One of the first rules of Wikipedia is that every entry must meet verification guidelines. That includes all forms of categorisation. Simply, as you put it, adding a categorisation when a name sounds of Aboriginal origin does not meet this guideline.
    Secondly by not adding an edit summary such as "Article has verified detail of location being of Aboriginal origin" your edits do not appear at all to be researched. This is borne up by the fact that you are adding your entries within a minute or two of each other.
    Indeed it is up to you to first verify the fact and then add the category - if not then you are simply disrupting wikipedia and disruption is considered a form of vandalism.
    As importantly, as a part of the wikipedia community, it is inappropriate for you to expect anyone to go through your "blanket" categorisation and check your work - especially where you give no edit summary and you (by your own admission) add categories when you just feel it sounds as if the name of the town has an Aboriginal background.
    Finally to be more candid, whilst I approve of your categorisation in a general sense, I do not approve of your method and I would be very surprised if other administrators did not eventually block you for this work. To reiterate you clearly add categories to many articles where there is no evidence (I know because I checked). Whilst I would prefer not to upset you I would be remiss of my duties if I did not simply rollback all of your numerous edits where the above occurs. Alternatively where you give an edit summary, and only put categorisation where the information (whether you first put it there or it has been put there by someone else) contains verified detail of an aboriginal background, I will leave the edit alone. Best wishes --VS talk 04:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User: YourBiggestFan

Hi Steve, I have found a certain individual who has nothing better to do than make defamatory edits to Stan Zemanek saying that he will be commiting various sexual acts in hell to the devil and Saddam Hussein. I have left a de-fam. tag on his page but I wanted to give you a heads up just incase he wants to play ball. Thanks Harrison-HB4026 03:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S Sorry that I sound a bit angry but it is just very low to defamatorise a dying man, even if he wasn't popular with you.

  • Thanks Harrison (nice to see your name come up on my talk page) I agree we do not need that sort of editing. I have placed a final warning on this user's talk page - let me know if he defames again please (I also have him on my watchlist). Cheers - keep up the great work!--VS talk 04:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Steve, sorry that I have not been in touch for a while- I have been working on the Falcon article. I thought it would be useful to inform you so if an edit war started you could do the admin work. Thanks Harrison-HB4026 09:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Aboriginal placenames

Steve,

Firstly, you have taken the categorisation off where verification EXISTS in many cases. Please reinstate that categorisation where appropriate.

Secondly, you accuse me of applying the category in a blanket fashion, even though I've just explained to why, and how, that's not so. I am a fast worker with a good knowledge of Australian geography. I have passed through many towns in Australia and read a lot of history. I resent you accusing me of blanketly doing this. Where uncertainty exists, where it's possibly a corruption of some other word, then I don't put the category in.

But, to be fair, you are being overly pedantic and censorious. Use some common sense here. We live in Australia; most of us with half a brain can tell an Aboriginal word - because there's heaps of them! In some cases - probably 1 % - we get some interesting sounding names which are in fact NOT Aboriginal but sound it (Nullarbor's another classic).

I put the categorisation there when I see a town with a very obvious sounding Aboriginal name. There is a 99% chance that that is correct. That's pretty damn good odds and is hardly wrecking Wikipedia as you seem to allege.

The error factor here is extremely minimal.

To do it the way you suggest, go on a talk page, attempt to start a discussion for EVERY one-horse town, await a reply (may take months, years. I may never go back again and find half those towns, and the people who created those towns may not THINK to put that particular category in. If they see the category, they can expand on it (or REFUTE in the very tiny percentage of cases where that will be required).

If I find information, I put it in as I can, as I did with Wonnerup just yesterday or the day before.

If it's not on the category, though, I may never find that placename again. Now THAT is truly innacurate and inefficent.

Sorry, but the way you suggest is simply ridiculous. Please be sensible here and stop abusing your powers. Your implication that I am just randomly and blanketly doing this is extremely insulting.

  • I am going to reply to these type of emails only once more DRyan. Firstly, and again, please sign your posts using four tildes as I described in my last reply. Secondly verification is verification. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, or even a small part of one that is created in relation to your personal travels where you believe there is a 99% chance that you are right. Thirdly, I am not suggesting that you go to the talk page - I didn't even mention the talk page of articles. If you believe that a location name is of Aboriginal origin and that detail is not reported with verified information on the article page then go and find the verified information so that you can add it - and then, and only then put up the categorisation. Finally I am going to warn you that if you put up unverified information it will be removed, and if it is you I will consider that you are purposefully attempting to break one of the cardinal principals of Wikipedia and block you as necessary! Oh & PS to the above - please do not again tell me that I am abusing my powers in relation to this issue - what I am doing has nothing to do with Admin work - every editor has the fundamental right to remove unverified information.--VS talk 23:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
      • AN EXAMPLE (there are many) - Tarcutta, New South Wales (which you had previously tagged) has no information regarding Aboriginal heritage. However if you to this page you will see gain a direct and verified reason for including information about the background of the name within the article and then after adding that detail (complete with reference) you can add the Categorisation tag - but please put up proper edit summaries.
        Indeed for New South Wales the website I point you to in the immediately above link will give you the background of every towns name so that you undertake the same process. If you do that you will be putting up valuable data. (Go to Mitta Mitta, New South Wales which is one of many examples where I conducted the above process) Does that make sense?--VS talk 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

IP:210.49.249.210

(Copied from User: Sarah's talk page)

Hi Sarah, I have already got Steve onto this but I need your help as well. A certain individual that goes by the name of User: YourBiggestFan has decided to defame the Stan Zemanek article (see history for further details) and after VS and I have warned him it seems that he is using his IP to further vandalise (I believe that it is him). I will remove it and hand out another warning but could you please 1. Put him on your watchlist and 2. If you know of any tool to find out the location of IPs could you please enlighten me? Thanks Harrison-HB4026 02:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Harrison-HB4026 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Steve, I just wanted to let you know that I gave the Stan Zemanek vandal an indef vandal block. I felt the paragraph s/he added to the bottom of the article was quite foul considering the fact that Stan Zemanek is termminally ill and dying a rather horrific death. Hope all is well with you my friend, Sarah 09:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks Sarah - I hope you are well too. (Great continuing work Harrison) - sorry I have been just flat out over the past 9 days in final tech, full dress rehearsal and then opening preview and opening night performances in a theatre production I am in, so just get to wiki intermittently - but will be back more now that the play is up and running.--VS talk 01:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Guy, spam disguised as user pages is deleted all the time. This batch here is selected from the last few months. I have more if you like. Kindly pay attention. --Calton | Talk 04:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • (Also posted to Calton's talk page) And as you are aware in relation to version of pages such as these User:Losplad, User:Chris funk bass when you put up Speedy Tags, I agree also with Admin OwenX et al who have posted comments on your talk page in relation to you adding such tags where those pages are simply not SPAM. Indeed your edits especially here come across as disruptive and in breach of WP:POINT. Indeed you should consider this response my warning to you that you please refrain from adding these type of messages on an administrators talk page when you simply do not get your own way.--VS talk 07:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • PS When you come back to look at this issue again can I suggest that you actually try to Google the exact content of a talk page you are intent on deleting? Please come back to me with an exact link found through Google and I will be very supportive of your endeavours. Cheers!--VS talk 08:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment would be appreciated

Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • At the stub Genealogia deorum gentilium I just made an article from. Please edit to make any improvements you can see or give me some suggestions on the article Talk Page. Thanks.--Doug talk 22:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you all know I have looked at the pages you have asked me to consider. I have no specific comment/s at this time - so that if needed I can wield the admin mop etc with a completely unbiased rational.--VS talk 03:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Username Change

I have now changed my username to HarrisonB. Thanks User: HarrisonB 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (HB4026)

  • Good on you HarrisonB - a much nicer, friendlier name (less Star Wars character image more human (smile) ) Congratulations!--VS talk 03:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

vandals

Thanks VS, but by the time I let you know about it I might as well have reverted it myself :) besides despite my frustration at having to do it I think defending good articles is part of the duties of anyone who gives a damn about wikipedia. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 06:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Shiv Nadar

I found from deletion log that you had removed article of Shiv Nadar for copyright infringement. I was not involved in putting together the article in either attempts but started from ground zero. FYI. --Kalyan 08:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning, eh?

My edit was in good faith you know. I don't take any comment with the word "warning" in it lightly. Thank you very much. Biofoundationsoflanguage 11:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your return comment. Whilst perhaps a little misplaced your umbrage is noted. Cheers! --VS talk 14:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Keser

Hi Steve, please get in touch regarding the Keser page if you have any questions!

I'll be happy to answer/verify anything you require, is there a problem with the page?

Thanks

whodis7 Kevan Whitley www.keser.co.uk www.alextronicrecords.co.ukWhodis7 23:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Kevan - thank you for your question. No nothing is wrong. As you know the article Keser was tagged with a speedy delete request. Because that speedy delete request was contested - As an administrator I moved the article (as I felt I should in this case) to articles for deletion so that others in the community could decide whether it meets WP:Band and other criteria such as Notability and Verifiability. I understand that as a new editor all of these guidelines, links and rules will be a bit daunting but you should not take offense - it's just wiki's way of keeping the level of quality up. If you follow the articles for deletion page closely and note the comments made by other editors, stay civil, and try and improve the content of the article it should be fine. Take care. --VS talk 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, article now updated, content of article has now improved considerably! Thanks for your advice. KevanWhodis7 23:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keser, article complete

Hi Steve, please can you review the article now and remove the note at the top of the page if it's ok now? If not, let me know any changes that have to be made. Thanks! Kevan, whodis7Whodis7 23:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes Kevan, article does appear to meet WP:Band now and I have added a little bit of editing myself. The article could still do with some good neutral copy-editing to give it some overall improvement. A favour from you now if I may ? Please sign of your messages by adding these four squiggly tildes (should be on the far left of your keyboard) ~~~~ after every message. Please keep editing on Keser and other articles of interest to you. Good luck! --VS talk 23:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Steve, thanks very much for your help! Take care. Kevan Whodis7 23:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Brainbox

I just removed a red link (which was a spam article) from this disambiguation page. As a result, the grand total of links is: 1. Should it be deleted? -WarthogDemon 00:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes I'd say it is a non-required redirect. I have deleted as a test page not required. Thank you for your prompt. Best wishes. --VS talk 00:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Happy editing. :) -WarthogDemon 00:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Here. Nothing to worry about, and BTW, if you click the small delete next to the prod reason, or the delete in an CSD notice, it pre-loads the deletion reason with appropriate text for you, and makes it easier for folks to see why it was deleted in the logs. --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks Steve - Yes most of the time I use the pre-loaded delete tab but sometimes I cut and paste part of the reason into the edit summary (especially where the pre-load is not particularly civil or NPOV) - as you picked up at the ANI comments they were all expired prods. I appreciate your comments in support at that page - thanks for your advice also. Best wishes. --VS talk 15:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

 :Image:Daredevil46.jpg

Please do not put fake and ridiculous warnings on my talk page. Putting a template to assume good faith and written as if I were a new editor in this instance is absolutely ridiculous. This image has already been deleted probably about 30 different times (I am not kidding, it's been a LOT) under the current name and others, each time being seen as a copyright violation. The person who uploaded it reuploaded despite knowing this. Redeleting an uploading of a previously deleted image is something speedy deletes are for. Your warning was nonsense because you didn't take the time to research the issue at all. DreamGuy 04:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I have just come back from some real life engagements and I have noted your comments on my talk page. My note of caution (which you appear to have deleted to hide the fact) was made against your bad faith returns on speedy delete tags on this image - when at leasts two admins did not like the speedy request that you had put up. I note that you have been blocked and then unblocked for disruptive edits in the past so quite frankly you should know better. In my case the warning was because you had used a less than informative and certainly very uncivil way of asking for a speedy delete request on the image. I note that you have used the edit summary to lambast admins, who like you are volunteers. Put simply you should take a couple of days to realise that where two or three admins all agree that your actions do not assist then most probably you have not quite acted in the way that you should on this occassion. Given that you continue to not take a step back and await WP:FUR as another editor suggests I am going to block you for 72 hours until you calm down and realise that harassing us is not the way to get this matter solved! --VS talk 15:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a note that I have no objection to this user being unblocked early, if you are so inclined. -- But|seriously|folks  21:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, VirtualSteve. Your above post suggests to me that your main reason for giving DreamGuy such a hefty block is that he speaks rudely of admins. Please reconsider blocking for such a reason. Admins have too much power to act out a sense of grievance—collective or individual—with a Power Answer. Try to ignore offense against yourself, that's my best advice. After taking a look at DreamGuy's recent edits and your own, it also worries me that you block an editor you have been edit warring with: if he needed blocking (for three days, yet), the appropriate action would IMO have been to post what happened on WP:ANI, and leave it to an uninvolved admin to deal with. But I notice you didn't even post your block on ANI for review, and in fact signed out as "unavailable" 25 minutes after you blocked.[2] [3] I'm quite tempted to unblock without further ado myself, as these actions make it in practice impossible to discuss the block with you. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

re:AN/I Here

Theres always reason I do things a certain way, and going to WP:AN/I was just another example of how I do it. I know I didn't notify you, and theres a reason for that (had this been a deletion review or some other process for undeleting the page, I would have notified you). But this wasn't an attempt to undelete it, this was an attempt to see what was on the page before you deleted it, which really didn't involve you besides the fact you deleted it (mentioned above, I think the automatic edit summary would fair much better in the situation of PROD's). Reason I did that thread anyways was because I looked at the Chris Kindred what seemed like only a couple of days ago and didn't see a PROD, but I guess it was a couple of more days than I thought; had PROD been the edit summary of your deletion, I wouldn't have questioned it anyways. I didn't even realize it was PROD'ed until an admin confirmed this on AN/I. And I know you don't bite, it's just somethings are better left in the hands of an uninvolved party than others, and involving someone when you don't have to, is better off avoided than creating a conflict questioning them. It really had nothing to do with fact you deleted it so much as I wanted to know what was the notification was that alerted you to the page (here it was PROD). As to your suggestion of watchlisting the articles, due to the sheer amount of articles I edit, even daily, it would be impossible for me to fully pay attention to the watchlist to make sure everything is running smoothly, so I have to rely on other editors to at least notify me of an article being proposed for deletion if I created it.

And trust me, if I really had a problem with you, you would be the first to hear about it. :) — Moe ε 20:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dream Guy

The 72 hour block seems a bit excessive. Would you be amienable to moderating that time period somewhat? Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy

I am awaiting confirmation from the above blocked editor that he will not attempt to delete the image, so I might unblock him. Since there is an ongoing discussion regarding the image I think DreamGuy has the right to add his views. If you feel strongly otherwise you may of course contact me. LessHeard vanU 21:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Another admin has since reviewed the block and lessened the tarrif, so I have withdrawn my offer to unblock (under the conditions mentioned above). LessHeard vanU 22:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think your 'assumption' that he was 'hiding' anything (here) is in poor taste and shows a predisposition to presume guilt. The fact that you were edit warring with him in the first place shows a level of personal emotional involvement. DreamGuy is not the most polite individual on wikipedia, but he damned sure isn't the most acrid either. I think that you should have followed protocol and filed an AN/I thread and removed yourself from the situation, and let someone else review and/or block. I fully support LessHeard vanU if he wants to remove the block entirely, but I think you should show Good Faith and remove it yourself. It is exactly situations like this that produce the 'guilty' blocklog that you used to help convince you to block in the first place. Peace.Lsi john 00:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And to the extent that I've come across as overly harsh, please accept my apologies. I'm in a pissy mood and this sorta put me over the top for the day. Best Regards. Peace.Lsi john 00:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy my response to those who have commented on this user's blocking

(Posted also on individual talk pages) Thank you to Bishonen, LessHeard vanU, Hamster Sandwich, Lsi john, Butseriouslyfolks, Pascal.Tesson & Evilclown93 for taking an interest in this matter. I appreciate the views you have provided and understand them all to be in good faith. I detail the following comments for historical purposes:

  1. For the record I do not get upset by comments made towards me on wikipedia. If you feel that I have, those feelings are incorrect, and I wish to go on the record as saying that I do not have any personal issue with or feelings against DreamGuy in any way.
  2. People will have different views on edit-warring. That was absolutely neither my intention nor, in my view a reflection of my actions in regards to Image:Daredevil46.jpg. DreamGuy placed a tag initially [4] on July 5th that said, This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen.
    I assume as a part of his admin role Evilclown93 removed that tag as detailed here.
    Dream Guy's reply (unknown to me at the time) was to suggest that Evilclown93 was a sock of the uploader.
    It was only a few days later that I, also as a part of my admin role came across the speedy delete request and confronted with the above rationale, agreed with Evilclown93 views and removed the request stating in my edit notice: reverted edits by DreamGuy to that of Evilclown93 - who is not a "sock" but an admin. Pls use only correct speedy tags before replacing (if at all).
    A further four days later, again just as a part of my admin role (see history of my admin work for that day) I came across the renewed speedy request, again with the above rationale. Confronted by no more information, I removed the speedy noting in the edit summary: Speedy deletion tag removed - awaiting a NPOV request that retains civility! You will note that I was talking about the content of the speedy deletion tag request of which I considered words such as the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... to be misplaced, no matter the frustration felt by Dream Guy. I then left the matter.
    DreamGuy it appears renewed his request again and without alteration at which point Butseriouslyfolks removed it, it was renewed and then Butseriouslyfolks put it up at WP:FUR.
    I came across it a day later and after I had left an adjusted canned message (which as most of you know includes a welcome to wikipedia line) on DreamGuy's talk page that also said, politely, Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing! My warning therefore was in relation to his edit-warring with three admins who did not agree with his method.
  3. In relation to blocking ... Following the posting at WP:FUR - at which I note Dream Guy has commented, he still reverted Butseriouslyfolks' removal of the speedy tag, even after Butseriouslyfolks wrote in his edit summary, Let's discuss it first, please?. Finding another reversion, despite an ongoing request at WP:FUR and noting that DreamGuy has been warned before and blocked before, and most importantly that whatever any admin did DreamGuy would revert, I blocked him for a period which I considered at the time to be commensurate with his previous block and the continued reversions. To the extent that others consider that amount of time excessive I thank you, and particularly to Pascal.Tesson for his revision of the time line.
  4. I note the comments above that in the opinion of an other editor Dream Guy is not the most polite individual on wikipedia, but he damned sure isn't the most acrid either and I agree totally. Whilst DreamGuy may not be able to accept that my message to him as detailed above was positive - I reiterate here again for all and sundry that I believe he is an otherwise good editor that was confronted by enormous frustration over the image he has been trying to delete. HOWEVER my job as I understand it is to assist in the protection of wikipedia. For those edits that relate to this matter - in my opinion DreamGuy needed to be blocked so that the process of deletion or otherwise of this image could be dealt with, without having to battle his continuing nose thumbing at the Good Faith decisions being made - especially with regards listing the matter at WP:FUR.
  5. I should end by also indicating that my becoming unavailable at the time I did had everything to do with it being 2.00am in the morning at my location (bed and pillow beckoned) and no other reasoning.

Again thank you all for your comments. Please let me know if anything at all needs further explaining. With best wishes --VS talk 01:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Spammer who doesn't learn

This linkspammer has just resumed his spamming. An obviously deliberate action in the face of a block and many warnings. How about a month block, or even a couple years? We don't need these types here. -- Fyslee/talk 13:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes this spammer and another IP address 203.218.138.106 (possibly the same person) are active again. I have blocked the first one for 24 hours at this time because it is somewhat problematic to block an IP for more than a few days. It also seems that this IP is working up a few spam links at a time and then moving to another computer or new IP. Please continue to let me know or for even quicker admin service post your request at WP:AIV. Best wishes. --VS talk 21:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK Update

As instructed byt the DYK talk page, I am trying to attract the attention of an admin to update the DYK template on the main page because it has not been updated in 11 hours. If you are abailable to help, thank you very much. -Dekkanar 15:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your message - I see that another editor has assisted. Sorry I was not immediately around when required.--VS talk 21:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:72.147.120.238

I've undone this block. The anon didn't do it right, but the article was clearly innapropriate, and he doesn't deserve to be blocked for pointing that out. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. Thank you. --VS talk 22:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:RDUNC

Hi Steve

I wonder if you would help a new user who emailed me on 6 July (only just read it). You will see from his talk page User talk:RDUNC he has had some bother in getting started. An editor, User:Lucasbfr, has been providing him with some useful advice but perhaps he needs some follow up - see User talk:Lucasbfr#Murray River Queen- the continuing saga..... and the next two sections.

I have sent you a copy of my email reply to him. I have also asked ScottDavis to help in case one or the other of you is too busy.

Regards --Golden Wattle talk 23:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd be very happy to GW.--VS talk 23:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Have left a message on user's talk page - hopefully they are still around.--VS talk 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

candidates in election...

Hi VS, the article I created today has been probed for WP:NOTE, if just a candidate I would agree however he is a very prominent businessperson in North Queensland and also has a very good chance of winning the seat according to polling specifically done on Herbert which was in the Australian a few weeks ago, what are your thoughts on notability? PS let me know what you think of the new signature. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 11:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • There you go - that should address immediate notability concerns. Yes I like the fancy new signature. Cheers!--VS talk 11:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Perhaps you missed where MONGO and I have asked questions on WP:ANI#Dubious block of DreamGuy by VirtualSteve - the posts are currently at the very end of the section. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 13:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes I had missed those posts. Thank you for advising me I will reply there!--VS talk 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You had missed them, yet quoted MONGO's post jestingly back at him here, long before the above exchange with Killer? How curious that is. Bishonen | talk 00:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen to clarify further for you - I had missed responding to those posts!--VS talk 00:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Robb

Hi VS, can you check out this article and Melbournewater (talk · contribs). Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 00:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Block reviews

As this seems to have caused you some confusion and/or misunderstanding, there is currently an example of an admin listing a block for review at WP:AN#Block review requested. Hope this helps. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And here is a new one which is even better, because 1) the admin felt that there might be reason for people to think there might be a conflict of interest, and 2) it seems that editors are concerned the admin made an error in blocking, although for reasons other than conflict of interest. The very original post is short but clear, and although the administrator (Durova) has not repsonded yet, watch how the admin responds with a critical eye. WP:AN#Block review requested by Durova Again, this might help you as an example of how to handle controversial blocks and constructive criticism. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ken Ticehurst

Hi VS, can you please check out this article and recent edits to it by AusBrian. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 14:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi - since I think you are still away (VS - as still showing unavailable up the top of this page) I had a very quick look and also commented on the editor's talk page. Regards --Golden Wattle talk 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

July 14 MAD deletion

Any reason you deleted the Wikipage for just one out of the 50-plus contributor pages linked to MAD Magazine (including stubs)? I keep an eye on the MAD page and noticed the dead links. Desmond Devlin has written there for about 25 years, and wouldn't appear to qualify as either "unsourced" or "not notable." He is among the magazine's top ten most frequent writers, going by the all-time appearance list (http://users.ipfw.edu/slaubau/madlist.htm).208.120.227.19 04:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of universities that offer the PPE degree

VirtualSteve,

I disagree with your finding, regarding the above stated deletion, that "consensus equals Wikipedia is not a directory." The comments seem fairly mixed in their support of the deletion.

I also disagree with the deletion itself. While Wikipedia certainly isn't a directory it does contain numerous lists of notable items which pertain to an entry including the List of library and information science programs, which is obviously very similar to the PPE list (disclosure: I did recently update the library programs entry). I would also argue the sheer utility of the PPE list, especially since no such list seems to exist elsewhere online. If the deletion is to stand, then the List of library and information science programs should go as well for consistency's stake.

Patrick Mhnin0 09:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi as VS is unavailable, I responded on user's talk page with: Hi - I saw your note on the talk page of VirtualSteve - he is at present unavailable. If you disagree with his deletion finding, the appropriate place is Wikipedia:Deletion review and you can raise the issue there. Somebody will review his decision. Regards --Golden Wattle talk 21:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Back from overseas ....

Just a general note that I have returned from overseas (Japan) and then a couple of extraordinary weeks where I was appointed the chair of a board for a long standing organisation (which required/requires intensive work at the moment). Thank you to those that watched over my page (especially Golden Wattle and Sarah) during my absence. I will be available but still a little tardy in responding. Cheers to all.--VS talk 22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - pleased to see you are back :-) --Golden Wattle talk 22:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Good to see you back. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 23:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I never knew you left our shores :). Also, I would like to point out that Werdnabot is no longer active, and that ShadowBotIII I believe (clone bot) is running it. That is why I no longer use it, and switched over to Miszabot. Anyway, welcome back. HarrisonB Speak! 09:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the message and glad to hear you're back on deck (sort of?). I hope you had a good trip and the final Opera House performances went well? Catch up soon, Sarah 02:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Top importance voting

You have voted before. Let the next round of voting begin (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment#Current_Top-importance_Candidates).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:JudyMorris-PrueFletcher-Homicide445.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:JudyMorris-PrueFletcher-Homicide445.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • dispute tag added - awaiting decision on whether this constitutes fair use in these circumstances. --VS talk 22:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheMadPlumber.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TheMadPlumber.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Fair use rationale added. --VS talk 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of @UK PLC article

00:16, 14 July 2007 VirtualSteve (Talk | contribs) deleted "@UK PLC" (This article does not contain reliable secondary sources. It contains no material that is not advertisement for a non-notable software (?) company.)

I have been busy with other things and did not notice that this article was up for review.

I assume that if it was to be restored it would need some improved secondary sources and some information on why the company is notable.

I am reasonably confident that I can

  1. Improve Secondary Sources and
  2. Tidy up the article to cover the various areas where the company is interesting
  3. And if it meets the criteria for Notable show it is notable

Please let me know how to proceed, and I would like some guidance on what constitutes notable.

e.g. No customers/Turnover/Innovative products/Notoriety/ Gut feel ?

PS How do you get back the original content, or does it need recreated from scratch.

RonaldDuncan 12:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi RonaldDuncan, Thank you for your message and questions on my talk page. My apologies for the delay in responding caused by some real life deadlines. My simple advice to you on this page is that you initially start to re-write the article up in a sandbox that you have created for your self as a sub-page details on how to do that can be found here. Once you have started you can let me know and I can find and copy and paste the original material to your sandbox. Then when you have the article at a verifibable stage you re-start the page and copy/paste your text over to it. It will remain safe in your sandbox until you do that. For advice on what constitutes notability please click on this link. Best wishes --VS talk 22:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

King Me

I was clearing out Category:Non-standard album infoboxes when I came across Talk:King Me. I see you we're the last to delete the article on the mainspace back on June 28, 2007. Tha Redmaster Clash (talk · contribs) has made the article on the talk page, since it has been put on the mainspace and deleted 3 times. I was wondering if you could go and delete the article again, and maybe protect it from re-creation? Cheers. -- Reaper X 05:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the article from the talk page, Steve. Cheers, Sarah 07:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks Sarah. --VS talk 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:TheMadPlumber.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TheMadPlumber.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Richard Partridge

Thanks for catching those errors! I must have read the article through fifty times without noticing them -- it's great to get a fresh pair of eyes. Cheers, Espresso Addict 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Absolutely my pleasure (and an interesting DYK too!) --VS talk 00:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

DRVNote

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of universities that offer the PPE degree. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mhnin0 06:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Junio Hamano

Just a heads up, I've undeleted the article, since I think the maintainer of Git (software) is notable. I'll work on expanding the article soon. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-3 16:17

  • Thank you for notifying. Article needs much expansion - good luck. Cheers --VS talk 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex Tronic Records

Hi Steve, I wrote an article on UK Record label Alex Tronic Records. It appears to have been deleted and I can't find it in the deletion log so I'm not sure why. Please can you investigate and undelete the article? Thanks! Whodis7 13:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Hi again. I have since found it was deleted by ST47 with the reasons spam, notability cited. This article was not spam and its notability was verified. How do I request that it is put back on? Thanks! Whodis7 13:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Hey again Steve, I think that's it restored now, no need to investigate! Cheers. Whodis7 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)