User talk:VirtualSteve/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Welcome!

Hi, VirtualSteve/Archive 1, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. For general questions goto Wikipedia:Help or the FAQ, if you can't find your answer there check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

Be Bold!!

You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.

Joe I 03:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome VirtualSteve to Wikipedia. Warning: it's addictive, as I know to my cost.

I see you're a fan of Somerset Maugham. Please feel free to edit the article itself - for example, I think I went a bit tooo far in deascribing his sex-life: I was reacting to someone who made a fuss about about Willie's "alleged" homosexuality (if Willie was an "alleged" homosexual, then the Pope is an "alleged" Catholic). In fact I couldn't care less what Willie did in his spare time, he's famous for his writing, not his sex life. Other things you might like to address include his prose style (some say it's masterly, others say its cliched - my own view is that he introduced the cliches deliberately, in order to reproduce normal speech); his right to be treated as a serious writer (he wrote "serious" Ibsenian plays that all flopped, until finally he wrote a frothy potboiler and hit the bigtime - Lady Frederick); his interest in Oriental mysticism (brings in his time in California and in India); and the entire period after about 1917, which is treated rather sketchily at present. As they say: Be Bold! PiCo 12:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes etc.

Users follow edis (and vandalism) with CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter (CDVF). It's a small helping tool. Keep editing! feydey 11:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember it is not the best place to spend time in WP. Some ppl prefer just editing. Don't say You weren't warned... feydey 11:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Trunkey Creek

I moved Trunkey creek to Trunkey Creek. The text on the Trunkey creek article was removed and replaced with a redirect to the new page. If you ever need help please feel free to ask.Johann Wolfgang 19:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thnx Johann :), Steve, if that happens again, just make a page with the correct name, place all your text there, and on the old page place #REDIRECT[[new page name]] . which the redirect is a button option at the bottom of the page.  :) Joe I 21:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Your welcome. Happy editing! Johann Wolfgang 21:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The Navy in Wagga

The RAN do not have a base in Wagga. Navy personnel are based at RAAF Base Wagga, I have not found any reference to RAN Wagga. If you wish to assert RAN Wagga please cite your sources. The statement that they have a presence in the lead paragraph is giving undue emphasis. Woolworths has a presence too and so does Coles, both probably employing more people and certainly a more overt presence. The navy's presence might seem anachronistic but in Canberra we have a naval base so it doesn't seem anachronistic to me. Any encyclopaedic mention would explain what the presence is and not leave the anachronism open. My edit comment was in my view quite adequate to explain my actions; I did not feel that I needed to discuss on the talk page. --A Y Arktos 22:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Look a little more carefully. Any check of Google or other search engine will reveal detail of RAN Wagga. They have been there since World War II - Navy personnel are posted to Wagga Wagga as Navy. They run their own race, wear their own uniform, report to their own superiors and conduct Navy business. They have been mentioned in parliament and there was a ship called the HMAS WAGGA WAGGA. Where they are housed is not the issue and a reference to Woolworths and Coles is very non-sequitir. VirtualSteve 22:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
then cite your source - the onus is on you not me as per the policy--A Y Arktos 22:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not own the article - nobody owns any articles!!!! See http://www.jobsearch.gov.au/defence/bases.aspx - list of bases does not include RAN at Wagga. My point is not that the fact is wrong but that it needs more qualification to make it sensible and comprehensible. I am trying to write about something else (architecture) and while I watch many articles, I do not have the time or the energy to improve additions to always make themm sensible. If you look at the Wagga talk page, you will see I have discussed other edits there. More or less to no response - as a tactic it doesn't work well.--A Y Arktos 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Your comments are getting a little rude now. I am thanking you for your support - my additions are not insensible - I have never used the word 'Base' I have used the word 'presence' - since world war II the Navy has had it's own presence - as it's own entity - this is a fact. And you should not paint all editors with the same brush - I am committed to wiki and do read the talk pages where a particular talk is relevant to my interest. Now for sources try the first few hits to see Navy is it's own organisation and presence in Wagga Wagga, is mentioned in Parliament as it's own entity and of the fact of HMAS Wagga Wagga named for it's link to the town.

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4521/topstories/story20.htm http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4518/topstories/story12.htm http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20000504091 http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20030529041
Now to help me understand your point can you cite sources that the RAAF incorporates RAN as a part of their command - in other words that the Navy do not operate as their own group - as per wiki policy? VirtualSteve 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • My intention is not to be rude. You asserted that "Any way I see that you feel you own this article". I responded to that assertion - neither I nor anyone else "owns" articles on wikipedia.

I had done a google search and had came up with the same references as you and hence my reversions and comments were based on that info. The first reference you gave states "Navy personnel based at RAAF Base Wagga". HMAS Wagga Wagga was as far as I can see a ship [1] named no doubt for it connection to the town, but that isn't what the addition said. There is no base. HMAS Harman for example is an inland navy base. Without being a base as far as I can see it is not an "entity" at Wagga. It has a presence but not to my mind significant enough - hence my reference to Coles and Woolworths who have a more significant presence. If you want to assert significance do so, but in a meaningful way.--A Y Arktos 23:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to "Oh and of course the New South Wales Parliament (see my references) stating in Hansard, Honourable members may be surprised to learn that there is a Navy in Wagga Wagga - is not significant either!". I am saying that its significance needs to be explained and put in context. Your addition - "and despite a rural location a Royal Australian Navy presence." begged a lot of questions. Why not write the section on the defence forces presence in Wagga? :-)--A Y Arktos 23:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Section started - please expand :-)--A Y Arktos 23:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Your user page

I refer to the recent edit of your user page referring to me. Please note Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks--A Y Arktos 10:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to your reply "Huh? Your last message has me baffled? What attack?", I regard the phrase "Tacet, vita brevis, sic semper tyrannis" associated with my username link on your page as an attack.--A Y Arktos 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The policy is "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Your user page is not private and the phrase in relation to me is seen by me as an attack. I would rather be editing but I will escalate the issue of personal attacks to mediation and beyond.--A Y Arktos 21:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I assume by using the Latin phrase, you can translate it and realise its connotations. Sic semper tyrannis even has its own article. You asked: How are you personally attacked? What is it that you are upset by? What is your problem exactly? All 3 questions can be answered by the fact that you have associated my user ID with that phrase. You are thereby commenting on me and not the content of my edits. --A Y Arktos 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not "demand to be in charge", nor do I ask that youleave my edits alone. In fact I specifically invited you to work on elaborating your point about the navy in Wagga. Up to you of course whether you do or not. But I find even "Silence, life is too short, let those who demand to be in charge have their way." in connection with my user ID as inapropriate. Please "Comment on content, not on the contributor." You will see from my user page that I believe that I as a contributer am no more or less than the sum of my contributions, with the brief caveat that I am from Canberra. Thanks--A Y Arktos 22:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I laughed--A Y Arktos 22:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Back to the navy

As a tyrant I now demand you find out what it is the navy does in Wagga :-)--A Y Arktos 22:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Asking very nicely, in response to "I will leave Wagga Navy alone (I spent 12 years in Wagga Wagga) and know very well what it does there." Please then tell me on my talk page what the navy does. What also is your take on the 5 o'clock wave? Regards--A Y Arktos 22:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Latin

Unfortunatlly I know very little latin "Semper Fidelis" being among the 5 phrases I know. So now that I know what "Tacet, vita brevis, sic semper tyrannis" means, I assume "Tacet, vita brevis, caveat tyrannis" means "silence, life is to short, ?" and "Ex uno disce omnes" means ?. I would love to learn more latin, and have actually printed over 25 pages of common phrases and words but still I find no everyday use, so it flys with the wind.  :) Joe I 22:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page  :)Joe I 22:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The tyrant again

Hi - just to warn you that I am interested in localities in south-eastern New South Wales and have edited many such articles . I am about to disambiguate some links and may add some info on the way through. It is in no way an attack on your edits. Pleease don't stay away from those articles just because I touched them. Regards--A Y Arktos 21:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No problems at all AYArktos. Attack not ever assumed. Thanks 4 msg. VirtualSteve 00:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Popups Help

I do not know the answer to your question. A better place to ask it would be User talk:Lupin/popups.js. Zoicon5 19:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Labour and employment law

Hi VirtualSteve. I just reverted your changes to Labour and employment law. I'm sure your intentions were good, but you don't need to remove red-links to empty pages. In many cases they can be an important tool for letting people know there is information that is still needed. As well, the link in Labour and employment law#Canadian labour law looked different because it was a template for standardizing links to main articles. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 19:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bookandcoffee - lovely to talk to a Canadian. I appreciate your courtesy in responding to my redlink removals on Labour and employment law My intentions were good as you note. I have three points and would appreciate your reply before I return to the article.
  • 1. Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context states very clearly What should not be linked .... Subsidiary topics that result in redlinks unless the editor is prepared to promptly turn those links into real ones .... It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one.
  • 2. The article has a In need of attention tag - one of the many things that needs attention is the redlinks.
  • 3. The adjustment I made to the what you have reverted to on this redlink
Main article: Canadian labour and employment law
doesn't get you to the main article - but the one that I adjusted it to being Canadian labour and employment law does so I miss the point - I would suggest that you have the bracket style incorrect perhaps?
I understand your point that In many cases redlinks can be an important tool for letting people know there is information that is still needed but only if you or others are prepared to promptly write that page. The fact is that an article looks and feels clumsy when it is full of redlinks. The better way to seek that sort of new article assistance is probably to put a request for article pages in the discussion page. Get back to me (my field is Industrial and Employment Law) as I want to help but if you revert from wiki policy and methods it is a bit difficult. VirtualSteve 22:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I'll poke into the conversation below :), but just one small note about links. You might want to have a look at the blue link in your number 3 point above, and see where it actually points to. Secondly, have a look at {{main}}, it is the template used in the markup that pointed to {{main|Canadian labour and employment law}}. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 06:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Bookandcoffee that's very constructive. Appreciate your point on Main - which escaped me and is my fault entirely. As you noted my intentions were good - I was just trying to remove the redlink/s which you have my views on and thought it was just the brackets for this one item. Anyway it has opened up pandoras box on the issue of redlinks and that is probably about time. Perhaps we might get a policy very soon. Cheers in return :)VirtualSteve 08:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
No worries, but don't get too jumpy on the whole Pandora's box thing. This is an argument that has already happened more than once here. Just my opinion, but try to keep the whole issue in context. (We're talking about redlinks - not Avian bird flu :)--Bookandcoffee 08:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well that's too true. Just so you know I sent Martyman the following suggestion and will see where it goes.

Removing red links

Please don't do this. Red links are there for a reason; to show that an article is needed, and to provide links to that article when it is created. I notice that you try to use Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context as justification for your edits - unfortunately, you might want to read the second half of the sentence you quote. That very specifically refers to only the most trivial of topics - book chapters and songs, and not ordinary redlinks which we just haven't covered yet. There is absolutely no basis in policy for what you've been doing, and it could well be classed as vandalism. Ambi 03:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Ambi - Please don't use the word vandalism with me again - that's very rude! The full wiki policy does not refer to trivial topics it doesn't even use the word trivial it says What not to link Subsidiary topics that result in redlinks (links that go nowhere), such as the titles of book chapters and the songs on albums, unless you're prepared to promptly turn those links into real ones yourself by writing the articles. It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one. Subsidiary topics are secondary topics. Redlinks are clumsy, they read like a wish list and assume that people will choose the topic name that exists in Wiki space so that everything links together eventually. There is of course nothing wrong with linking to other topics it is one of the important facets of wiki, but the correct way to edit is as I suggested - ask someone to write the article in the discussion pages, or write it yourself and then link it back to the original article - promptly. It is not correct to create a redlink farm or to justify it's existenc. I am happy to discuss this further of course your point of view is valid but do not suggest that what I am doing is vandalism again please VirtualSteve 03:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If you want to go around removing redlinks, then get a consensus to do so. The paragraph you are citing does not support your claims - it refers to a very limited subset of articles which probably don't make good redlinks. The correct way to go about this is, as has always been done on this project, to create a redlink - not to ask on the talk page. You're completely on your own on this one. Free free to make a policy proposal, but if you keep doing this without asking the community first your edits will be rollbacked and you are liable to be temporarily blocked fom editing. Ambi 03:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt and more courteous response. As you see I read and interpret the wiki policy as I do and you don't - but we are both editors - unless of course your interpretation is more significant because you are an administrator or similar? I know that I am not completely alone on this one though but I agree to your suggestion and futher suggest a combined policy proposal suggestion to clear the matter up - with your views and mind put forward. If you agree what do you suggest the first step is?VirtualSteve 04:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
My interpretation is not more significant because I'm an administrator - it's more significant because that simply is the way that guideline has always been interpreted by everyone else I've ever known on Wikipedia, and as longstanding practice dating back to well before you, or even I, arrived on Wikipedia. It's not for me to put my point, because my point is already policy - it's you who has to convince people that your opinions should become policy, and you're going to need to do that before continuing mass removals of this type if you don't want them mass-reverted. The place for that to start may be the very talk page you mentioned, although you'd need to advertise it very widely for it to have any legitimacy, considering what a major change this would be (and that it would overturn four years of common practice). Ambi 05:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hate to but in, but can I please have the article name that started this all? Joe I 05:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
THNX steve, just wanted to check it out. I agree that redlinks do facilitate new additions, but they do as well look unprofessional, and in this case unwarrented of their own article(but it's not my thing so I wouldn't know). But either way, you kids play nice :) Joe I 05:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Ambi - I have put my views on the talk page at this stage I do not see yours. I respect your need to be assertive but you simply do not have consensus on style or links. Your debate on the issue of style and links and subsequent cutting out of whole sections, then your mass reversion and edit war appraoch, plus the threat of blocking is not appropriate. I note that you are receiving similar discourse in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_it_permissible_to_implement_the_guidance_in_the_Manual_of_Style.3F in the issue concerning User:Bobblewik. Some of your reversions today are in fact redlinks that I created in the first place - are you seriously suggesting that these redlinks can't be removed by me or anyone else? Please move on by being a part of wiki putting your point forward and then seeing what the consensus is before you threaten, mass revert, block etc. I will be happy to agree to the consensus but not to your threats and methods of editing as that really isn't productive. And is it appropriate for an administrator to make personal remarks - what is the 'creep' bit on your edits?VirtualSteve 05:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the policy, nor that particular clause, as it's quite a sensible one. What I'm being very blunt about is your serious misinterpretation of that. I've removed it because it applies in only a very few situations (see m:instruction creep) and is, as demonstrated here, apparently prone to being misinterpreted. I accidentally chopped out more than I intended to with rollback before, and you'll notice that I didn't re-revert those two articles before, but I will continue to shoot on sight any undoing of perfectly sensible links against policy. Ambi 05:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay your the administrator you win - obviously today was the day you needed to cut out the previous redlink policy but you can put your gun away. I have my hands up. I do appreciate you clearing up the creep comment. I'll send you a quick little request everytime I want or need to remove a redlink if that's okay? Then when you say it's okay I'll do it but only then. Thanks again for your support. VirtualSteve 05:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


(Smile) Yes Joe - it's only a couple of Aussies having a minor blue. Heck if us mere mortals don't buck the administrators every now and again we'll suddenly believe our leaders are right all the time. Won't we? And lots's of bright red is a pretty sight in an encyclopedia - (Damn! Oh it's okay I or someone else will fix that link up later and it makes a great prompt). Anyway I have the solution and I have an armed administrator close by who is happy to watch over my shoulder. (Smile again)VirtualSteve 06:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, spare the drama. Just follow policy, or propose changes to it, rather than doing things against policy and trying to weasel around it. Secondly, please drop the hyperbole - I'm talking about topics that would very obviously lead to potential articles, such as those you removed from It's Time (which included, among other things, one of the famous federal elections in Australian history). Ambi 06:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fussed what opinions you have, as long as you don't run around claiming they're policy and messing up articles. I was entirely within my rights as a user (not as an administrator) to chop out that section, as unnecessary instruction creep that was prone to being misinterpreted. It doesn't affect you either way, because what you were doing was still not justified by the original version. Nor am I here to police anything - I'm here to write articles, and I get rather defensive when someone starts messing up good articles because of a misguided interpretation of policy. Ambi 07:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, calm down. You might notice that it does not say "This is a static page. Discuss every minor change on the talk page." I chopped out a minor, little-used clause that was being misinterpreted and justified it, which is all one need do on Wikipedia. What you're proposing is indeed a major change, which is why it does need to be discussed. I know I can be terse at times, but Martyman's advice is probably wise to take. And for the record, I am an administrator, but this has nothing to do with anything, as everything I've done here can be done by anyone. Ambi 07:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow I love this place

I love this place it is so vibrant, so jargonistic, so inclusively/exclusively juxtaposed. It is just fantastic! VirtualSteve 05:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Links and redlinks talk/opinion page

  • What in heavens name is wrong now Ambi. Did I say it was policy? This Wikitalk page is an opinion page. Have a look at the top of the page it says exactly that it is a collection of opinions. Can you please stop pointing your gun at every one that has a different opinion than you - better still seeing you nominate yourself as an administrator can you please tell me who I complain to about your fair policing and the steps for formulating that complaint - by return message please? VirtualSteve 06:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Steve, stop trying to cause trouble. I think the fact you don't know how to make complaints about other users is evidence on Ambi's side that you haven't been around here long enough to have a great grasp on wikipedia policy. I might add that going around complaining about other editors, causing administrative hassles, just because they don't agree with what you have been doing is not a great way to win friends on wikipedia. --Martyman-(talk) 07:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Martyman not trying to make or lose friends. Trying to help write wiki and was following a consensus (see next message below). Also not trying to cause trouble trying to get consensus without being pushed around by another editor. The fact that I do not know how to make a complaint just means that I haven't made one before.VirtualSteve 07:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ambi - This is the very last time I am going to ask you - if you do not want to do answer say so. You appear to be making yourself out as an administrator and you do not have the right to cut large chunks out of pages that have a heading which says This page is a style guide for Wikipedia. The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these rules. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. I do not mind being wrong but be very clear I am not attempting to, as you put it, mess up good articles. I am removing redlinks - proper live links that do not go to empty pages can be put in there when the time is right. Now I am not interested in your views on this debate any more. I have asked you now three times - you say you are an adminstrator - my intention is to lodge a formal complaint against your administration technique - Again my question to you is - What is that process? If you do not want to answer say so and I will add that to my complaint. If you are not an administrator then say so. Then I will lodge the complaint myself. VirtualSteve 07:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ambi there seems to be two trains of thought on this area and others are buying in because it is an important area to reach consensus. I guess I can understand why you (even as an administrator) don't want to advise me on the complaint process. My research reveals that I should get your consent for mediation so I can then contact the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Do you give your consent? I will post this question here and on your user page so there is no chance that you might miss it. VirtualSteve 07:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Steve I hope you have read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and exhaustively followed all the options set out there before requesting mediation (which as generally seen as a last resort). As the way it currently seems to me is that you are actively trying to escalate the situation rather than resolve it. Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Martyman-(talk) 09:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again (only just saw this message) Appreciate your response again. I absolutely do assume good faith - my first redlink removal was in good faith and I absolutely am not trying to escalate anything - just trying to mediate an important point. I was having a reasonable discussion (and learned something from Bookandcoffee when Ambi butted in and started cutting out my own major article redlink removals (I mean surely I can adjust those) and chopping out whole sections of valid edits. I note that others disagree on the chopping out of the whole section bit and have reverted her also. I understand you have a closer relationship with her on Canberra project and it may be harder to see my point but it is simply that I do not think it is right when an administrator acts godly and just jumps down someone's throat - suggests they are vandals etc reverts legitimate (not even redlink edits) and then won't answer questions on policy. I tried to discuss but if that doesn't work then where do I go? Again your reasonable suggestions will be appreciated. Would rather move forward of course. VirtualSteve 09:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Creating a new guideline/policy

I am no expert on creating policy/guidelines, what I do know I have learnt from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Category:Wikipedia proposals (and linked pages) and they are discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Essentially you write a proposed policy/guideline and ask around for feedback on it, once it is established through consensus you can declare it a guideline. Policy status requires further voting and stuff and is pretty much unachieveable. The same proccess can be gone through to propose a rewrite of an existing guideline. --Martyman-(talk) 09:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Lovely - Thanks Martyman - appreciate the helpful response from not too far away Canberra. I will see if I can start the process at least for a clear (read clearer) guideline on redlinks. VirtualSteve 09:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Further Suggestions

There has been a few running disputes recently with editors tkaing a certain interpretation of teh guidelines and starting to make wholesale changes to multiple articles without waiting for community approval. I expect Ambi's reponse has been effected by that. I agree I have edited fairly closely with Ambi before and may not be the most impartial person. Maybe you should ask for comment at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. --Martyman-(talk) 10:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited a small number of pages as a result of an interpretation that I may be right or wrong about. I may have got more sparring with Ambi than I normally would have but I am a serious, mature contributor and was put out particularly by her suggestion I was a vandal. It seems to me (not withstanding the fact that the redlink area may have been debated before) that there are two sides to the interpretation and that it is an important debate on the issue of style. By posting a request for guideline suggestion and seeking comments we may get a better consensus - so I am going to take up your instructive idea on that. As for mediation in whatever form it requires - I am just going to see if Ambi will come back to me with her agreement or otherwise and then one way or another I will move it from there. VirtualSteve 11:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I note your comment on request for mediation and appreciate your agreement that you were a a bit rude in communicating things. I understand your point on valid redlinks - I do have an issue with the time that those redlinks remain valid but that can be dealt with outside of the mediation forum. I also note that others are involved in a series of revert actions in terms of the clause that you are still trying to remove. I will be happy to end my request for mediation if you (a) leave that clause alone and let it work itself out through consensus or perhaps policy formulation, (b) and you agree to supportively discuss those redlinks I (and perhaps others) remove rather than wholesale reverts of anything I change with threats of blocking etc (especially where I created the redlink myself). From my side I will more carefully consider the changing of redlinks and where contentious put up a discussion point in the edit. Is this something you could agree to? If so I will contact the RfM group and delist. VirtualSteve 22:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I really have no desire to have to watch your contributions and discuss every redlink removal. I know I fired a bit too quickly the first time, but please do not remove redlinks that could concievably lead to a perfectly good article in the future. There really is no basis for that in policy. As for that clause - I don't know why you're bothering to defend it, seeing as it doesn't support your argument an iota. Since it a) doesn't apply in most cases, and b) is prone to being misinterpreted, it makes sense to get rid of it. Ambi 02:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
You sure are a firey person Ambi. I am not asking you to discuss every edit I am asking you to discuss any reduction that you don't like rather than you go through all of of my previous edits and even articles where I created the redlink in the first place - without looking at them and reverting wholesale. A bit like I have been going through some of your (otherwise fabulous) articles and picking up typo's, grammar etc and then leaving you a positive edit message. For me that is what a long term contributor who proudly states she has contributed 1000's of articles and is an administrator should be doing. Administration is partly if not largely about support - but that is up to you. As for the clause, well I defend it in the same spirit that it seems many others do - have a look at all of the other administrators that are reverting your revert. Put simply to not have a clause at all is far, far worse than any misinterpretation, or just a wholesale removal of that part of an attempt to establish consensus when one doesn't like the action of others. Anyway I want to move on - I have put the proposition to you and I'm not sure if you have answered it - for me it is like playing a sport, say netball, or being in a court of law - usually we can't be players and umpires too. I am happy to move on with the above understanding or I am happy to stand by the umpires (mediation committee) decision. Can you just tell me which process you would prefer? VirtualSteve 05:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Any chance on getting a response on the above question I put up several days ago Ambi? VirtualSteve 09:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn - Ambi refuses to respond - no mediation possible. (What a fantastic sysop she is and a credit to the system - take note all other great wikipedians) VirtualSteve 21:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

I noticed that you recently filed a request for mediation on WP:RFM. As the new chairman of the committee, I've been busily trying to streamline the process to make it easier for users to request mediation, and easier to provide exactly the information the Committee needs to accept or reject cases. In doing so, I have developed a new format for RfM that mirrors closely the format used at WP:RFAR. Although the new format was implemented shortly after filed your request, I'd like to ask that you reformat it to the new format to make the RfM process easier on the committee members and yourself. You can find instructions for the new process at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide. I, and the rest of the Committee, appreciate your help greatly.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 16:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Essjay. I did notice you churning very progressively through the large list of mediation requests. I appreciate the effort and time you and the mediation committee take on these issues. I would be happy to reformat and will do so in a couple of days if that is okay as I am away for that time and will have hardly any time to get to wiki. I will pass this message on to my co-protagonist also. On that basis can you give me a week say to finalise the new process? Thank you in advance. VirtualSteve 22:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Essjay - so as to keep you and the mediation committee informed. In regards to a pending request to mediate 'Redlink Reduction the other party user:Ambi at this time is simply ignoring my request to agree to mediate. A little disappointing from an administrator - especially when the usual response by some administrators is to block someone that won't answer - and non-administrators do not get the same priviledge. Not seeking a personal commment about the parties from you of course but really not sure where to go from here in terms of process. Any help or thoughts would be appreciated. VirtualSteve 09:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Signature

Please - Does your signature M@thwiz2020 happen 'automatically' or do you cut and paste? If it is the former how do you set this type of thing up. Any clues appreciated. VirtualSteve 05:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve! That's a good question - and the answer is simpler than you might expect. I'm going to assume for a moment that you know about the four tildes - that is, in order to sign your name, you type in ~~~~ and, for you, [[User:VirtualSteve|VirtualSteve]] (plus the time) appears. Three tildes is just your sig, four is sig + time, and five is just the time. Well, if you go to Special:Preferences, you can change the signature that appears when you type in three or four tildes! What I did is I selected the box that says "raw signature". If raw signature is not selected, your signature will be [[User:VirtualSteve|whatever you type into the box]]. However, if you don't want the stuff before and after the "whatever you type into the box" to appear, just select raw signature. Then, you can type in anything. For my signature, I just entered:
--[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]][[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">wiz</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Mathwiz2020|<font color="black">2020</font>]]
Now I just sign with a space followed by four tildes! It's as easy as that! I hope this answers your question in a not-too-complicated way. --M@thwiz2020 17:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you Excellent set of instructions. I value your support and will set up in the next day or two. VirtualSteve 22:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Image licences

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your new image of the MCG. It's a good one. But I noticed that on all three images that you uploaded today, you wrote that you were releasing them into the public domain, but then put a GFDL licence notice on them. You'd better choose one or the other!

Thanks, Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Stephen. I have removed Public Domain component. Does that fix it? VirtualSteve 22:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yup, looks good now, thanks. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Date links

Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have posted the following vote on the appropriate page... *Strong Support Excessive blue linking is one of two linking scourges on Wikipedia today. image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 03:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hot pink in nature

I was concerned about the title/caption, in regards to the fact that the color was filtered/altered. I felt that if you're going to call an image "hot pink in nature", I think the color has to be completely unaltered (as much as is possible with a camera, of course).

I put the photo back, with a different caption. See what you think. It is a nice picture. I shouldn't have removed it in the first place. --Srleffler 12:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No problems at all - nice caption - nice to do wiki-business with you. image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 00:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Redlink reduction

Having had a taste of the Ambi school of editing and policy my advice is to move on and don't look back! Garglebutt / (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice comment - yes I have learned that there is an Ambipedia and a Wikipedia - but I moved of that ambivalent, hysterical goat track to the friendly freeway long ago. Cheers! image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

dates

You may wish to copy User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js. Regards bobblewik 22:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please keep this an Ambi free page

Ambi your mothering of my talk page by reversion of other positive additions is not required. I will make my own mind up about offers from other users. I also do not appreciate the way that you are increasing personal edit count via edit-waring with Bobblewik or in fact any other user - you have tried that with me before and your actions are profoundly hypocrytical. Please come back only when you finish a LONG LONG course that helps you to become an administrator with a positive, non-political wiki attitude. image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 04:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another date links proposal

Hi,

You contributed to a previous debate about date links. You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 08:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I posted the following to this debate;
STRONG SUPPORT
Editors are suggested to be bold when editing. To not allow editors to remove date links (and indeed other non-useful links such as redlinks) which in their opinion at that time do not add to the value of an article smacks of administrative policing gone mad . I have noted that some administrators take this to the extreme of not even allowing original editors to remove links they actually created in error. I do not need this type of mothering! Most editors are mature, supportive and take their writings to wiki seriously. The second suggested adjustment by Bobblewik being
Editors may, remove links that do not conform with the guidance on this page. When making edits of this sort, be sure to state so in the edit summary, so that problems can be quickly resolved.
reads to me no differently than any other edit I choose to make - that is if I do not agree with content then I can adjust, put my reasons in the edit summary and await legitimate response to which I can object or agree with. image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 09:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
So I see. Thank you very much. bobblewik 09:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sig

I'd just like to pop in with a suggestion for the signature... You may have gone a bit overboard there. The image as well as sheer number of links in your name is a bit distracting. Not policy or anything, but consider simplfying it a bit. -AKMask 21:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hot pink in nature image

Hi there. I stand by my reasons for removing this image from the article. I don't think the image gains ANYTHING by having the colour removed from the leaves, etc. Given that hot pink is defined in the article with a palette and mathematically, I don't feel that isolating the colour helps at all. It just makes the image less encyclopedic because there is less context to the image - no other reference points of colour. I believe the article would be better served by a full colour image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't say it added nothing to the article, just that it would probably add more by being in full colour. The contrast of pink flowers and green leaves would be more asthetically pleasing and would also make it less artificial and therefore more encyclopedic. If you're going to show hot pink in nature, you should also show nature in its true form since this context is very relative! I agree that it adds just as much to the article as the knitting image. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Monobook tool

Hi,

I don't know if you are aware of my tool to reduce unnecessary links to solitary months/years.

You only need a single click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. If you want to use it, simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to the bottom of User:VirtualSteve/monobook.js. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work.

Please feel free try it out. It also has a 'units' tab. Regards. bobblewik 00:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Greetings. I just noticed your contributions to the De La Salle College Malvern article. I am a student in year 12 there at the moment. What connection do you have with the college? Goiter McWilliostein, P. I. You can't control me! I'm a P. I.! Save Stargate SG-1! 12:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am an old collegian - 1971/1977 (in the great days when we had a girls school next door and you could sneak through a loose timber in the paling fence when Brother Damian or Brother Stanislaus were not looking) although I have never taken part in reunions etc. I visit the school every now and then on a weekend when I am in Melbourne to see what changes have been made. Who are, who are, who are we? We are the boys from DLC! D E L A S A DOUBLE L E, DE LA SALLE How is year 12 going? Do you still have a/many/any Brother/s teaching you? image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • There are brothers still teaching, but not many... less than 15 total. Personally, I am taught English by brother Quentin Hillary (you may remember him... he's in his late 70s, or so I believe) but that is all. Oh, Year 10 has been moved over to Kinnoull, as of 2004 (the year I was in year 10), and that girl's school is long gone. It's an old folk's home now (looks like a prison). The Duke of Copeditting, Bow before me! You can't control me! I'm a P. I.! 05:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Steve—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 05:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks - and have voted in support. image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 05:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)