Just so you know, yes, the original cover was from a naked photoshoot. I can't find the actual photo, but I can find a photo from the same shoot. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/10/18/arts/17cnd-magcovers_184.jpg
interesting discussion here: http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=152
Just so you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.37.73 ( talk) 16:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Stevage. Recent edits to park/ranger related pages are not vandalism as you suggested. For example, Westerfolds park has wood barbeques, not electric, the Yarra Trail is a shared trail for all types of recreation users, not just pedestrians and cyclists. The suggested web link provided many useful links for anyone interested in being a park ranger. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and hoping you may reconsider future postings. Cheers from Ranger Rose. [unsigned, 203.87.38.44]
On a more serious note..Stevage, please stop removing content from Talk:Queen (band). Many Wikipedians would like to keep track of what was said about a specific article, and therefore do not like to see it deleted. -- SoothingR( pour) 15:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi SoothingR, The Queen talk page seems extremely long and full of arcane discussions about parts of the article that no longer exist. I was trying to help by removing these, so a more useful discussion about the current and future directions of the article could take place. If you'd like to give me some ideas on how to be more helpful, I'd appreciate it, thanks. Stevage 15:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, but in the context of the Queen page - call it my personal obsession that will last about 2 days. Would it not be helpful to delete the various messages like How Come I Can't Find A Site Telling Me The Dates For When Greatest Hits I Came Out!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They Are Very Good And I Am Only 11 And Like Them. or It appears that someone has managed to put insults in the article without my being able to edit them out. / Which insults are these, and where are they? You can edit any part of the article - just click "edit this page" up at the top. — Dan | Talk 05:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) ?
Perhaps there are even more useful things to do, but to actually undelete such deletions seems especially counterproductive? I appreciate your responses.
Thank you. One of my pet peeves is when a musical term is applied incorrectly. One only has to click the wikilink to read about what a ballad really is. There's nothing ballad about this song. There is a more technical term for the sections of these songs, perhaps "Exposition," but I think slow section is more appropriate when discussing a rock song.-- malber 13:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes we do. the 'e' is almost a schwa. In fact Melburnian pronunciation on all words with the letters 'e' and 'l' is generally as a schwa. Try saying ' yellow elms held bells said Elvis' in Melbourne. Am I right? Lentisco 02:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
(waving) Woo-hoo! I left a couple comments for you in the "work in progress" section of the Paris page - I finished a too-long but demographically concise History rewrite that perhaps could use your opinion and wordmanship as I myself am too "into it" to cut it up more. Anyhow I think you can do a better job of editing than I can.
Thanks, take care,
ThePromenader 03:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks there for the kind words mate, you got the right guy! :D -
G
t
14:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello! Did you realise you turned the entire Skiing page, into two copies of itself? Anyway I've fixed it now... Stevage 09:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I just tried typing DTS in the search/go box, it takes me to DTS, the disambiguation page. Maybe you last tried when DTS was a page for the sound system? Try it again and let me know. Qutezuce 18:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
I agree with you. I tried to fix that section because it was easy ;), but you may of course move or remove its content as you wish. You're doing a great job on that page! Thbz 08:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I once tried to make infoboxes for French cities that would be more simple (i.e. not separating city and metropolitan area information), but it is just impossible, because there are information that regard city (such as name of mayor) and information that regard metropolitan area (such as number of communes in the metropolitan area) that could not be mixed, lest it becomes too confusing. So I think it is better to leave city and metropolitan area information separate, in order to avoid confusions. I don't think the infobox is particularly long, so don't worry too much about that. Check for instance Template:Infobox Economy of the European Union. We're not anyway near as long as this one. If you check carefully, the Paris infobox is about as long as the United States infobox. Hardouin 19:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
This is probably a bother, but could you please take another look at the Céline Dion article. Ive taken the comments at the last FA and have tried to address them: Ive found many print sources, about 4 Books, more authoritative reviews:New york Times, Billboard.com, Los Angeles Times etc. Ive addressed her music, changes in sounds/genres, motivation etc. at the end of each sub-section, and Ive also added a "Image and Celebrity status" section at the bottom. Ive sent it to peer review for two days, but no reply. Comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 02:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
About the architects, it is Bertrand Delanoë himself who said he wanted to gather the best architects in the world to build aesthetically acclaimed towers. I am just translating his words. As for "embalmed", again I am just translating the French word embaumé often used in reference to the muséificiation of Paris. Check for instance [1]. Hardouin 14:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm easy, don't worry. Lol. The thing is, I have been submitted to such an intense level of criticism and bad faith from ThePromenader in the recent weeks that it probably made me more touchy now. I can't remember the last time I actually received words of appreciation for the tons of work I made on Wikipedia in the last two years (most of it outside of the Paris article). But then, I don't compete for medals or awards anyway. About the best architect thing, delete it if you wish. I am wasting already too much time on Wikipedia, and will not look for a quote for that. But please understand that the reason why I reverted your edit on this particular point is because the fact that the architects would be the most renowned in the world is central in the mayor project. The context goes like this: people in central Paris are opposed to building skyscrappers in the city because of the ugly towers that were built in the 1970s; the mayor wants to build towers to gain space; he knows that the only way he can have his project accepted is by convincing people that the new towers built will be aesthetically beautiful and works of art in themselves because the most renowned architect in the world will be gathered to build them. As you can imagine, I did not write all that kind of detail, the demographics section is already long enough. Hardouin 00:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello Stevage,
Just a quick note as today I'm in deadline time. Again sorry for the History rewrite over your editing but as it was that section needed remolding - I did note it almost a week ago on the talk page and asked for help there - didn't you see this? Perhaps you missed it because the talk page is much too long - a second archive is surely in order. If you wouldn't mind I would much appreciate it if you can "tighten" my writing as a do have quite a tendency to get lost in the words and the details. My aim in that rewrite was to a) retain only events most affecting the growth of Paris and b) arranging them in a chain of events all can understand. Please, by all means, make it even more understandable and less long-winded, only the facts matter to me. As for the rest I'm not going to worry about it right now; the Talk page is long enough : ) ThePromenader 14:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The Paris administration section is back "down" and nice and tight again. I painted a pretty picture today (more than a week ago actually) and I'd like to show it to you : ) It's in the administration section of the Paris talk page.
Actually, while I'm at it, I tried cutting down and archiving the talk page a bit this evening but limited myself to "resolved events" - could you have a look at it too? One could get lost in there.
Thanks, take care,
ThePromenader 22:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I see you deleted the fact that there was no Paris mayor before 1977. Maybe we could also delete all the information regarding the prefectures. That info was introduced in the first place to explain why there was no mayor of Paris before 1977. In my opinion, if the goal is to be short, I don't think we need the prefecture information (both in Paris as a commune and Paris as a département). What do you think? On the other hand, I think we should leave the bit about the old Seine département, since it's important in relation with the current 75 département. Hardouin 11:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, about ThePromenader's map, I agree with you that the built-up areas could be removed altogether and leave only the administrative limits. Could you please take care of that? I don't want to edit the map myself, because I fear I am going to be accused again of article appropriation, if you know what I mean. Lol. Hardouin 11:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Stevage, I have finally edited the administrative map. I have removed the built-up areas, which teetered on the edge of personal research, and I have put more information in the legend. The map is now purely administrative. Please let me know what you think of the new map. Given the high level of mistrust and accusations, I don't want to put the edited map in the article on my own initiative, and would rather have the opinion of another user before. Hardouin 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Petite couronne and grande couronne don't have any official recognition, it's just a habit of language, but administratively speaking they don't exist, so I think it is better not to indicate them. Besides, the map is made such that if you want to color an area, you have to do it manualy, pixel by pixel, and it takes a hell lot of a time. It already took me a hell lot of a time to remove the built up areas pixel by pixel. Hardouin 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
"Nigger" is not, and has never been, a euphemism. Except until recently, and then only within the black community, it has been a racist slur. D e nni ☯ 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't know if you've realised, but we've FINALLY got a WikiProject on AFL up and running. Write your name on the list of participants and let us know your thoughts. Cheers, Rogerthat 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
If you look back through the history of this article, you will find that for a considerable period of time, there were examples of euphemisms of various sorts. As the article evolved, a time came when all example euphemisms were stripped from the article and moved to list of euphemisms (which, as you can see, has disappeared after failing an AfD). I was initially opposed to this move, but given the difficulty of maintaining a reasonable set of example euphemisms, I now support it. The problem with providing examples is that every editor insists on adding their "own" euphemism, even if it's known only to them and their dog (no criticism of yours - I recognised the terms), and things kept getting out of hand. This article is on my watch list, and I had to keep stripping not-so-common euphemisms out all the time. My feeling is it's best if we aviod the urge to give our favorite examples, but hey, this is a collaborative effort, and thanks for checking in with me! D e nni ☯ 01:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry for the inconvienience. I should have noticed that when I went to the link. Also I would suggest that instead of having the name of the page be Rodney "Gypsy" Smith, move it to Rodney Smith. Thanks RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do not encourage new users to work on mini-dictionaries in the wrong project. It only causes strife when they are later zapped, as they eventually are. We have a dictionary. It's Wiktionary. Please encourage people who want to contribute to a dictionary to contribute to the correct project right from the start. Uncle G 16:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
If you like, but in the meantime please stop adding to the top of every guideline and policy page you can find! I'm probably going to take it to TfD since I think it woefully misguided. - Splash talk
Howdy. I don't know if you subscribe to WikiEN-l, so here's my post on this topic from there: [WikiEN-l] One line summaries of WP Guidelines and Policies. Blackcap (talk) (vandalfighters, take a look) 06:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I've raised this question here, as now it's actually real and happening I expect more people will want to comment. Dan100 ( Talk) 15:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Stevage, before you go or after you return from hollidays, could you have a look at Transport in Paris? This article, created and mostly written by ThePromenader, is full of spelling and grammar errors, plus the usual long-winded sentences and style. I have corrected only the most obvious spelling errors now, but I don't want to spend more time on this. Plus I don't want to get embroiled into yet another controversy. So whenever you have time, please make the necessary corrections. Thanks. Hardouin 23:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't me who added the paragraph. It was there before, but someone who thought having a paragraph on the popularity of F.Ford in the USA was more important deleted it. I'm not very big on mechanics either, but by having the engine connected to the chassis, the car's centre of gravity is lowered and handling is improved. The concept was pioneered by Colin Chapman with the 1963 Lotus 25 F1 car. Pc13 22:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Stevage,
I just wanted to invite you to a project begun not so long ago - the "Paris streets" project. You can find its "home page" here. I would have asked you sooner but it made it through (but with flying colours may I say) a "proposition for deletion" process ended only today. Myself I have yet to begin as there are a few details to iron out first - typically naming - but this is a decision that could be quickly made. I'd appreciate your input. In fact, it'd be great if we could work on this together.
Thanks, take care,
ThePromenader 18:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You took the policy tag off of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia?
Wow! I guess it's official then. The experiment has failed, expect the wiki to be terminated shortly. I'll email Daniel Brandt right away, He'll be so happy!
Kim Bruning 10:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey Stevage, you may want to have your say on the recent Paris economy edits of ThePromenader. Have a look at Talk:Paris. The discussion with ThePromenader is going nowhere, so maybe it would be good to have a third person opinion. In a nutshel, if you don't want to waste time reading the lenghty messages: ThePromenader edited the economy section to replace "metropolitan area of Paris" with "Ile-de-France région". You already know his aversion to the use of "metropolitan area" I think. I explained that few people know what Ile de France refers to outside of France, whereas the notion of metropolitan area is widely understood in English speaking countries. I also showed that the Ile de France région and the statistical metropolitan area of Paris are 99% the same (using 1999 census figures). Finally I also provided citations showing that economists and geographers frequently equate Ile de France with the metropolitan area of Paris. ThePromenader accepts none and calls this my POV. So now, that's when a third person opinion would be helpful. Hardouin 12:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Stevage,
Sorry about this. The meaning of Hardoun's writ has been clear to me for over a year now and I have been trying (quite naively) to convince through posting the facts and reason the wrongs in the page. To no avail. I have filed for mediation, so you need not be our "daddy Stevage" in all this (grin) - but factual input (resources) would indeed be helpful. If you would like to verify some of what I've pointed out, you could have a go at fixing it. If you do succeed the "dispute" tag will go - but if you don't want the headache I understand. For now I wait for mediation and will work on other articles. Here's hoping we will be able to "improve Paris" normally one day soon. Cheers! THEPROMENADER 02:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Seeing the below - I confirm Hardouin's "aire urbaine" and IDF numbers. For the rest, you're being led by the nose. For example, most French people don't know what an aire urbaine is, let alone a metropolitan area - I would like to see Hardouin take this one to the French Paris page. I do not want to eliminate the aire urbaine; I want it to be used correctly where it is needed - I suggest you look in the Paris history for my Economy edit. In the meantime I will try to make my arguments clearer on the Paris talk page. All this walzing - I almost feel sorry for you. Let's keep the Paris discussion on the Paris talk page where it should be. THEPROMENADER 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems there isn't much of a problem. The term "aire urbaine" appears exactly four times in the article. Twice in infoboxes and once in the text (all preceded by "metropolitan area"), and once in a reference for a statistic. If statistically speaking, "Ile de france" is almost identical to "aire urbaine" then I think your complaints about the use of one or the other are rather spurious.
I simply don't think the issue is important in any real sense. I have no idea where, say, the precise limits of Melbourne are, and this has never posed me the slightest problem. If I tell someone the population of Melbourne is 3.5 million, I don't stop and think about whether that's a statistical division, a formal administrative boundary, or some artificial line based on contiguous urban build up. If it was important, then I might come to Wikipedia for some sources and go and follow those up.
So perhaps you ought to concentrate your energies on adding your relevant URLs, which you collected on the Paris talk page, to the "References" or "External links" sections of the article. Or on something that matters. But not this. Stevage 10:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you tried the Wikipedia Ircle channel yet? I think a live discussion on this would be extremely useful.
THEPROMENADER
11:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Had a bit of a think about it. I think you're making a massive mountain out of a tiny molehill. Sorry, but I don't think I'll spend any more time on it. If you could simply express your objections clearly and simply, without accusing anyone of anything, and without using such figurative language, you might get somewhere. I genuinely believe your issues with the page can be stated briefly. However after all this time, I still don't understand them. Sorry, but I give up. Best of luck to you. But I've wasted a lot of time on this and I don't think it's worth it.
Stevage
22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I saw your message on my talk page. I also read your comments on the Paris talk page. You say you have problems finding exact figures for the metropolitan area of Paris. Let me give you the figures, so you can have a better grasp at this confused debate. All figures I give you here come from www.splaf.fr, an excellent French site using only official census data.
Of the 10,952,011 inhabitants of Île-de-France in 1999, 10,842,037 (98.99%) lived within the limits of the aire urbaine of Paris, while 109,974 (1.004%) lived outside of the aire urbaine of Paris.
Of the 11,174,743 inhabitants of the aire urbaine of Paris in 1999, 10,842,037 (97.02%) lived within the île-de-France région, while 332,706 (2.97%) lived outside of the Île-de-France région.
Do you still follow me?
What the figures show, is that the aire urbaine/metropolitan area of Paris and the Île-de-France région are almost identical. When economists and demographers do not possess data for the aire urbaine of Paris, they use data for Île-de-France instead, because both areas cover each other almost perfectly (more than 97% the same).
ThePromenader wants to delete all mentions of the aire urbaine/metropolitan area of Paris and replace them with "Île-de-France". I think this is spliting hair in four. Most people outside of France are not familiar with "Île-de-France", whereas English speakers understand what "metropolitan area" means. I also note that French people themselves almost always refer to Île-de-France as the "région parisienne" (as in "mon fils habite en région parisienne" or "la région parisienne abrite XXX sièges sociaux d'entreprises multinationales"), because in their mind the Île-de-France région is simply the metropolitan area of Paris.
Please answer on my talk page if you have comments. If you want to know more details on certain aspects of this, just ask me. Hardouin 13:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey Stevage, the "totally disputed" tag has unfortunately been reinserted in the Paris article. You removed it, but ThePromenader re-added it. I removed it, but he re-added it again. What should we do?
I am reading your message above, and all I can say is do not despair! Wikipedia is often like that, "prise de tête" like the French would say. A third party with fresh vision and no prejudice is strongly needed at the Paris article, because this two people "dialogue" with ThePromenader is going nowhere and is really driving me nuts. So, "haut les coeurs, et prend ton courage à deux mains"! After all we are working for the enlightenment of mankind. Noble task worth some sacrifices. Lol. Hardouin 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Stevage,
I do have to say that your 'diplomatic input' through all this has been rather frustrating - if you don't understand the problem, how can you expect to suggest what's wrong or right? If you don't read the WP:NPOVD and WP:AD how can you say the tag is not justified? It is through most every reason indicated there for its use! Read especially How to initiate an NPOV debate. Both tags and inaccuracies are embarrassing, but at least tag shows that the page's contributors intend to fix things.
The errors are one problem - fixing them is another. If I could spend an hour or two one morning making corrections without worrying about later seeing them reverted without justification, I would, and no doubt the quality of my work would better. Do you really think it normal that one can totally revert the work of another without proper justification - and this without ever engaging in the pre-emptive discussion asked for well beforehand, or providing any reference proving the validity of the reverted version after? This also you seem to ignore.
With the tag I hoped to 'corner' some pre-emptive discussion - but now it looks as though we're off for another round of 'stall and revert'. The fact that there's a pending mediation case may make things different this time around - here's hoping.
THEPROMENADER 09:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. After a rummage on my hard disk, I found the following image ...
It's taken from the same location (or nearby, can't remember), but I oriented it to get more of the surroundings in (though it does tend to dominate the locale). Hope this is of interest. Cheers, -- Plumbago 09:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Because you can achieve the same result with a single template. There was only one word of difference, and any such page already has a big honkin' {{ guideline}} or {{ policy}}. R adiant _>|< 20:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for deactivating the how-to category link on my user page. Kinda embarrassing that I didn't think of that .... -- ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 14:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms has been part of the Wikipedia style guide for 2+ years. Unless you know of some process that's formally rejected this style guide, please don't mark it "rejected". -- ESP 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and I'm glad you got around to summarizing the lot of them. Keep up the good work! R adiant _>|< 07:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Likewise, thanks. As a newcomer, I greatly appreciate your hard work, which has saved me some time in getting up to speed. -- TJ 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I pretty sure that I am coming off as a pain in this discussion on the 'verifyability' page. I guess that was just my response to what I saw a absolutist additutes. Anyway, I wanted to say that yours was the most reasonable voice I heard in that conversation. See you around. ike9898 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No durians. Priceless. Melchoir 05:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stevage. I decided to reply here, as you may not notice my reply in that place.
My primary objection to including Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes in the welcome template was that it needs a bit more work. You believe that that article is useful enough for any newbies to see it, so then you could polish it a bit first before asking again for it to be included. I don't have a monopoly on the welcome template, so if other people also react positivley, and since you are asking something reasonable (replacing a link, instead of adding yet another one) it may go in.
And I would like to give you a friendly advice. Please take it that way, even if your first reaction may not be positive, I do mean it as a sincere suggestion. I think you should be more careful with your comments, so that even when you don't agree with somebody, your comments don't sound like a bitter remark by an irritated user, but rather as constructive suggestion or criticism. Again, just a suggestion. Thanks, and you can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 22:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I note you deleted what seemed to me to be a highly relevant link to a website I publish about MUSU and its liquidation. You might not like its "POV" but that doesn't justify removing the link, its relevance cannot be disputed credibly. Do you disagree? DarrenRay 23:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Good onya for getting in and reworking the article without getting involved in the POV waffle. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Try to verify is the product of discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability and discussions on Wikien-L. It's not something that appeared out of whole cloth.
Do you find anything to disagree with in the content of that piece? Or is adherence to process the standard by which you make judgments? (I know that sounds disputatious, but I'm not trying to be. I'm just trying to clarify why you made the change, since I come from the age of "rules to consider", not the increasingly bureaucratic world of today's Wikipedia, and don't really understand what constitutes a "consensus" nowadays.) -- The Cunctator 22:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I doubt the ettiquette of Wikipedia or rules allow you to unilaterally remove my merge proposal for the article, so please don't do so again. I'm trying to constructively sort out a situation where an article has been devised that is a total mess, is riddled with political bias and factual error is taken to a higher level, hopefully by editors who aren't pushing an anonymous/pseudonymous agenda. Please respect the suggestions of others. DarrenRay 21:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Stevage. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 22:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between DarrenRay, 2006BC and others. You are being named as an involved party. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, not sure which reverts we're talking about now but I have removed the TotallyDisputed tag as we're not far from something that's OK. At least by me.
One outstanding issue though is Dean McVeigh and I don't really know how to deal with that. I think we have an absurd situation where dozens of news clippings speak to his notability, the article is neutral enough. It's been up in the user space as a draft and no one has even made a suggestion to change it. That's why I get a little confused about the activity in reverting it but there's little interest in participating in a discussion. I am a compromiser by nature, training and experience. That's what I'm looking for but instead I'm dealing with unilateral edicts and no one willing to engage in a debate.
It's frankly not enough for people just to assert their view and insult me or attack my motives to attempt to get their own way.
I continue to be open to discussion. The University of Melbourne student organisations article seems to have fewer mistakes and less bias than it had but is far from perfect.
I took off the Totally Disputed tag as a gesture reflecting the improvement and some hope that things will improve further.
The article still needs a clean up. I'm not game to do it in these circumstances but encourage anyone to try. DarrenRay 10:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I actually agree it's a cop-out. I think we all need to contribute. But boy oh boy, it's not easy. The page is being used to attack people and Wikipedia is strongly against defamation, perhaps there's some unknown exempting of articles about student unions. There shouldn't be. When I remove the violent and aggressive language inserted by some, it is accused of being 'weasel words' a term I don't even understand but I assume means not tabloid enough. If this is an encyclopedia project then it should be treated like that. At this stage many anonymous people who won't put their real name to what they are writing are turning the variously titled student organisations at University of Melbourne articles into little more than a vehicle for attacking rivals. -- 2006BC 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your fix to the punctuation marks template (space character -> space (punctuation)). I can't believe it escaped me! -- Gennaro Prota 13:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of changing the redirect from this page to a page that does not exist? Am I missing something, but I saw a similar redirect the other day and the article was not created. -- Bduke 23:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested in this article. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Which? magazine of October 2004 contained a critique of the one in three claim, including the key facts here. I can probably find a copy somehere to email you for verification but it's copyright. Just zis Guy you know? 21:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry to inform you that I am de-listing your current Request for adminship due to lack of support. Please, don't let this discourage you from editing, as you are still a very valuable member to our encyclopedia. Thank you! Moe ε 04:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
about your
talk:gmail#Lead section too short, there you go. ;-) enjoy fixing my grammar. :P --
Caue (
T |
C)
15:33, Saturday
2006-
04-1 (
UTC)
I replied on the project page, but you can also read the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life (and several other scattered places around wikipedia). Hope it helps! Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the dispute has died down now. I don't think anyone has any immediate plans to rename. :) Stevage 16:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Excellent point you made on the talkpage. I'll place it up for deletion as soon as some other user's put in thier two cents. - Zero Talk 15:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, a while ago you made an edit on the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 00:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sadly this failed it's good article nomination. Please see the reasoning here. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 23:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the project page and was just about to nominate you (as you seem like a great editor to me) though you might want to wait a couple months before applying (or accepting a nomination from someone else) - its just another reason for people to oppose (sigh, I think I was the only editor in the last 2 years to pass on a 2nd RfA a month later). Keep up the good work though, and once people have no more reasons to oppose, I'm sure someone will send a nomination your way :-) -- Tawker 23:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:HeidelbergTun-edit1.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Dear Stevage, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ← Humus sapiens ну? 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading Image:PanoChambord2work3.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stevage - thanks for your message. Just wanted to let you know that I've seen it and that I'll try to have a proper look this evening... I'm supposed to be revising for exams at the moment :)
Cheers,
Yummifruitbat
13:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not an AfD yet. I'm going to try and do some merging and improving of esoteric programming language first, hoping that that it will smooth the process when I do put it on AfD some day. Cheers, — Ruud 22:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, yes, the original cover was from a naked photoshoot. I can't find the actual photo, but I can find a photo from the same shoot. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/10/18/arts/17cnd-magcovers_184.jpg
interesting discussion here: http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=152
Just so you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.37.73 ( talk) 16:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Stevage. Recent edits to park/ranger related pages are not vandalism as you suggested. For example, Westerfolds park has wood barbeques, not electric, the Yarra Trail is a shared trail for all types of recreation users, not just pedestrians and cyclists. The suggested web link provided many useful links for anyone interested in being a park ranger. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and hoping you may reconsider future postings. Cheers from Ranger Rose. [unsigned, 203.87.38.44]
On a more serious note..Stevage, please stop removing content from Talk:Queen (band). Many Wikipedians would like to keep track of what was said about a specific article, and therefore do not like to see it deleted. -- SoothingR( pour) 15:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi SoothingR, The Queen talk page seems extremely long and full of arcane discussions about parts of the article that no longer exist. I was trying to help by removing these, so a more useful discussion about the current and future directions of the article could take place. If you'd like to give me some ideas on how to be more helpful, I'd appreciate it, thanks. Stevage 15:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, but in the context of the Queen page - call it my personal obsession that will last about 2 days. Would it not be helpful to delete the various messages like How Come I Can't Find A Site Telling Me The Dates For When Greatest Hits I Came Out!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They Are Very Good And I Am Only 11 And Like Them. or It appears that someone has managed to put insults in the article without my being able to edit them out. / Which insults are these, and where are they? You can edit any part of the article - just click "edit this page" up at the top. — Dan | Talk 05:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) ?
Perhaps there are even more useful things to do, but to actually undelete such deletions seems especially counterproductive? I appreciate your responses.
Thank you. One of my pet peeves is when a musical term is applied incorrectly. One only has to click the wikilink to read about what a ballad really is. There's nothing ballad about this song. There is a more technical term for the sections of these songs, perhaps "Exposition," but I think slow section is more appropriate when discussing a rock song.-- malber 13:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes we do. the 'e' is almost a schwa. In fact Melburnian pronunciation on all words with the letters 'e' and 'l' is generally as a schwa. Try saying ' yellow elms held bells said Elvis' in Melbourne. Am I right? Lentisco 02:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
(waving) Woo-hoo! I left a couple comments for you in the "work in progress" section of the Paris page - I finished a too-long but demographically concise History rewrite that perhaps could use your opinion and wordmanship as I myself am too "into it" to cut it up more. Anyhow I think you can do a better job of editing than I can.
Thanks, take care,
ThePromenader 03:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks there for the kind words mate, you got the right guy! :D -
G
t
14:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello! Did you realise you turned the entire Skiing page, into two copies of itself? Anyway I've fixed it now... Stevage 09:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I just tried typing DTS in the search/go box, it takes me to DTS, the disambiguation page. Maybe you last tried when DTS was a page for the sound system? Try it again and let me know. Qutezuce 18:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
I agree with you. I tried to fix that section because it was easy ;), but you may of course move or remove its content as you wish. You're doing a great job on that page! Thbz 08:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I once tried to make infoboxes for French cities that would be more simple (i.e. not separating city and metropolitan area information), but it is just impossible, because there are information that regard city (such as name of mayor) and information that regard metropolitan area (such as number of communes in the metropolitan area) that could not be mixed, lest it becomes too confusing. So I think it is better to leave city and metropolitan area information separate, in order to avoid confusions. I don't think the infobox is particularly long, so don't worry too much about that. Check for instance Template:Infobox Economy of the European Union. We're not anyway near as long as this one. If you check carefully, the Paris infobox is about as long as the United States infobox. Hardouin 19:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
This is probably a bother, but could you please take another look at the Céline Dion article. Ive taken the comments at the last FA and have tried to address them: Ive found many print sources, about 4 Books, more authoritative reviews:New york Times, Billboard.com, Los Angeles Times etc. Ive addressed her music, changes in sounds/genres, motivation etc. at the end of each sub-section, and Ive also added a "Image and Celebrity status" section at the bottom. Ive sent it to peer review for two days, but no reply. Comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 02:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
About the architects, it is Bertrand Delanoë himself who said he wanted to gather the best architects in the world to build aesthetically acclaimed towers. I am just translating his words. As for "embalmed", again I am just translating the French word embaumé often used in reference to the muséificiation of Paris. Check for instance [1]. Hardouin 14:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm easy, don't worry. Lol. The thing is, I have been submitted to such an intense level of criticism and bad faith from ThePromenader in the recent weeks that it probably made me more touchy now. I can't remember the last time I actually received words of appreciation for the tons of work I made on Wikipedia in the last two years (most of it outside of the Paris article). But then, I don't compete for medals or awards anyway. About the best architect thing, delete it if you wish. I am wasting already too much time on Wikipedia, and will not look for a quote for that. But please understand that the reason why I reverted your edit on this particular point is because the fact that the architects would be the most renowned in the world is central in the mayor project. The context goes like this: people in central Paris are opposed to building skyscrappers in the city because of the ugly towers that were built in the 1970s; the mayor wants to build towers to gain space; he knows that the only way he can have his project accepted is by convincing people that the new towers built will be aesthetically beautiful and works of art in themselves because the most renowned architect in the world will be gathered to build them. As you can imagine, I did not write all that kind of detail, the demographics section is already long enough. Hardouin 00:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello Stevage,
Just a quick note as today I'm in deadline time. Again sorry for the History rewrite over your editing but as it was that section needed remolding - I did note it almost a week ago on the talk page and asked for help there - didn't you see this? Perhaps you missed it because the talk page is much too long - a second archive is surely in order. If you wouldn't mind I would much appreciate it if you can "tighten" my writing as a do have quite a tendency to get lost in the words and the details. My aim in that rewrite was to a) retain only events most affecting the growth of Paris and b) arranging them in a chain of events all can understand. Please, by all means, make it even more understandable and less long-winded, only the facts matter to me. As for the rest I'm not going to worry about it right now; the Talk page is long enough : ) ThePromenader 14:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The Paris administration section is back "down" and nice and tight again. I painted a pretty picture today (more than a week ago actually) and I'd like to show it to you : ) It's in the administration section of the Paris talk page.
Actually, while I'm at it, I tried cutting down and archiving the talk page a bit this evening but limited myself to "resolved events" - could you have a look at it too? One could get lost in there.
Thanks, take care,
ThePromenader 22:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I see you deleted the fact that there was no Paris mayor before 1977. Maybe we could also delete all the information regarding the prefectures. That info was introduced in the first place to explain why there was no mayor of Paris before 1977. In my opinion, if the goal is to be short, I don't think we need the prefecture information (both in Paris as a commune and Paris as a département). What do you think? On the other hand, I think we should leave the bit about the old Seine département, since it's important in relation with the current 75 département. Hardouin 11:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, about ThePromenader's map, I agree with you that the built-up areas could be removed altogether and leave only the administrative limits. Could you please take care of that? I don't want to edit the map myself, because I fear I am going to be accused again of article appropriation, if you know what I mean. Lol. Hardouin 11:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Stevage, I have finally edited the administrative map. I have removed the built-up areas, which teetered on the edge of personal research, and I have put more information in the legend. The map is now purely administrative. Please let me know what you think of the new map. Given the high level of mistrust and accusations, I don't want to put the edited map in the article on my own initiative, and would rather have the opinion of another user before. Hardouin 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Petite couronne and grande couronne don't have any official recognition, it's just a habit of language, but administratively speaking they don't exist, so I think it is better not to indicate them. Besides, the map is made such that if you want to color an area, you have to do it manualy, pixel by pixel, and it takes a hell lot of a time. It already took me a hell lot of a time to remove the built up areas pixel by pixel. Hardouin 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
"Nigger" is not, and has never been, a euphemism. Except until recently, and then only within the black community, it has been a racist slur. D e nni ☯ 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't know if you've realised, but we've FINALLY got a WikiProject on AFL up and running. Write your name on the list of participants and let us know your thoughts. Cheers, Rogerthat 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
If you look back through the history of this article, you will find that for a considerable period of time, there were examples of euphemisms of various sorts. As the article evolved, a time came when all example euphemisms were stripped from the article and moved to list of euphemisms (which, as you can see, has disappeared after failing an AfD). I was initially opposed to this move, but given the difficulty of maintaining a reasonable set of example euphemisms, I now support it. The problem with providing examples is that every editor insists on adding their "own" euphemism, even if it's known only to them and their dog (no criticism of yours - I recognised the terms), and things kept getting out of hand. This article is on my watch list, and I had to keep stripping not-so-common euphemisms out all the time. My feeling is it's best if we aviod the urge to give our favorite examples, but hey, this is a collaborative effort, and thanks for checking in with me! D e nni ☯ 01:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry for the inconvienience. I should have noticed that when I went to the link. Also I would suggest that instead of having the name of the page be Rodney "Gypsy" Smith, move it to Rodney Smith. Thanks RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do not encourage new users to work on mini-dictionaries in the wrong project. It only causes strife when they are later zapped, as they eventually are. We have a dictionary. It's Wiktionary. Please encourage people who want to contribute to a dictionary to contribute to the correct project right from the start. Uncle G 16:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
If you like, but in the meantime please stop adding to the top of every guideline and policy page you can find! I'm probably going to take it to TfD since I think it woefully misguided. - Splash talk
Howdy. I don't know if you subscribe to WikiEN-l, so here's my post on this topic from there: [WikiEN-l] One line summaries of WP Guidelines and Policies. Blackcap (talk) (vandalfighters, take a look) 06:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I've raised this question here, as now it's actually real and happening I expect more people will want to comment. Dan100 ( Talk) 15:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Stevage, before you go or after you return from hollidays, could you have a look at Transport in Paris? This article, created and mostly written by ThePromenader, is full of spelling and grammar errors, plus the usual long-winded sentences and style. I have corrected only the most obvious spelling errors now, but I don't want to spend more time on this. Plus I don't want to get embroiled into yet another controversy. So whenever you have time, please make the necessary corrections. Thanks. Hardouin 23:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't me who added the paragraph. It was there before, but someone who thought having a paragraph on the popularity of F.Ford in the USA was more important deleted it. I'm not very big on mechanics either, but by having the engine connected to the chassis, the car's centre of gravity is lowered and handling is improved. The concept was pioneered by Colin Chapman with the 1963 Lotus 25 F1 car. Pc13 22:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Stevage,
I just wanted to invite you to a project begun not so long ago - the "Paris streets" project. You can find its "home page" here. I would have asked you sooner but it made it through (but with flying colours may I say) a "proposition for deletion" process ended only today. Myself I have yet to begin as there are a few details to iron out first - typically naming - but this is a decision that could be quickly made. I'd appreciate your input. In fact, it'd be great if we could work on this together.
Thanks, take care,
ThePromenader 18:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You took the policy tag off of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia?
Wow! I guess it's official then. The experiment has failed, expect the wiki to be terminated shortly. I'll email Daniel Brandt right away, He'll be so happy!
Kim Bruning 10:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey Stevage, you may want to have your say on the recent Paris economy edits of ThePromenader. Have a look at Talk:Paris. The discussion with ThePromenader is going nowhere, so maybe it would be good to have a third person opinion. In a nutshel, if you don't want to waste time reading the lenghty messages: ThePromenader edited the economy section to replace "metropolitan area of Paris" with "Ile-de-France région". You already know his aversion to the use of "metropolitan area" I think. I explained that few people know what Ile de France refers to outside of France, whereas the notion of metropolitan area is widely understood in English speaking countries. I also showed that the Ile de France région and the statistical metropolitan area of Paris are 99% the same (using 1999 census figures). Finally I also provided citations showing that economists and geographers frequently equate Ile de France with the metropolitan area of Paris. ThePromenader accepts none and calls this my POV. So now, that's when a third person opinion would be helpful. Hardouin 12:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Stevage,
Sorry about this. The meaning of Hardoun's writ has been clear to me for over a year now and I have been trying (quite naively) to convince through posting the facts and reason the wrongs in the page. To no avail. I have filed for mediation, so you need not be our "daddy Stevage" in all this (grin) - but factual input (resources) would indeed be helpful. If you would like to verify some of what I've pointed out, you could have a go at fixing it. If you do succeed the "dispute" tag will go - but if you don't want the headache I understand. For now I wait for mediation and will work on other articles. Here's hoping we will be able to "improve Paris" normally one day soon. Cheers! THEPROMENADER 02:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Seeing the below - I confirm Hardouin's "aire urbaine" and IDF numbers. For the rest, you're being led by the nose. For example, most French people don't know what an aire urbaine is, let alone a metropolitan area - I would like to see Hardouin take this one to the French Paris page. I do not want to eliminate the aire urbaine; I want it to be used correctly where it is needed - I suggest you look in the Paris history for my Economy edit. In the meantime I will try to make my arguments clearer on the Paris talk page. All this walzing - I almost feel sorry for you. Let's keep the Paris discussion on the Paris talk page where it should be. THEPROMENADER 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems there isn't much of a problem. The term "aire urbaine" appears exactly four times in the article. Twice in infoboxes and once in the text (all preceded by "metropolitan area"), and once in a reference for a statistic. If statistically speaking, "Ile de france" is almost identical to "aire urbaine" then I think your complaints about the use of one or the other are rather spurious.
I simply don't think the issue is important in any real sense. I have no idea where, say, the precise limits of Melbourne are, and this has never posed me the slightest problem. If I tell someone the population of Melbourne is 3.5 million, I don't stop and think about whether that's a statistical division, a formal administrative boundary, or some artificial line based on contiguous urban build up. If it was important, then I might come to Wikipedia for some sources and go and follow those up.
So perhaps you ought to concentrate your energies on adding your relevant URLs, which you collected on the Paris talk page, to the "References" or "External links" sections of the article. Or on something that matters. But not this. Stevage 10:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you tried the Wikipedia Ircle channel yet? I think a live discussion on this would be extremely useful.
THEPROMENADER
11:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Had a bit of a think about it. I think you're making a massive mountain out of a tiny molehill. Sorry, but I don't think I'll spend any more time on it. If you could simply express your objections clearly and simply, without accusing anyone of anything, and without using such figurative language, you might get somewhere. I genuinely believe your issues with the page can be stated briefly. However after all this time, I still don't understand them. Sorry, but I give up. Best of luck to you. But I've wasted a lot of time on this and I don't think it's worth it.
Stevage
22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I saw your message on my talk page. I also read your comments on the Paris talk page. You say you have problems finding exact figures for the metropolitan area of Paris. Let me give you the figures, so you can have a better grasp at this confused debate. All figures I give you here come from www.splaf.fr, an excellent French site using only official census data.
Of the 10,952,011 inhabitants of Île-de-France in 1999, 10,842,037 (98.99%) lived within the limits of the aire urbaine of Paris, while 109,974 (1.004%) lived outside of the aire urbaine of Paris.
Of the 11,174,743 inhabitants of the aire urbaine of Paris in 1999, 10,842,037 (97.02%) lived within the île-de-France région, while 332,706 (2.97%) lived outside of the Île-de-France région.
Do you still follow me?
What the figures show, is that the aire urbaine/metropolitan area of Paris and the Île-de-France région are almost identical. When economists and demographers do not possess data for the aire urbaine of Paris, they use data for Île-de-France instead, because both areas cover each other almost perfectly (more than 97% the same).
ThePromenader wants to delete all mentions of the aire urbaine/metropolitan area of Paris and replace them with "Île-de-France". I think this is spliting hair in four. Most people outside of France are not familiar with "Île-de-France", whereas English speakers understand what "metropolitan area" means. I also note that French people themselves almost always refer to Île-de-France as the "région parisienne" (as in "mon fils habite en région parisienne" or "la région parisienne abrite XXX sièges sociaux d'entreprises multinationales"), because in their mind the Île-de-France région is simply the metropolitan area of Paris.
Please answer on my talk page if you have comments. If you want to know more details on certain aspects of this, just ask me. Hardouin 13:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey Stevage, the "totally disputed" tag has unfortunately been reinserted in the Paris article. You removed it, but ThePromenader re-added it. I removed it, but he re-added it again. What should we do?
I am reading your message above, and all I can say is do not despair! Wikipedia is often like that, "prise de tête" like the French would say. A third party with fresh vision and no prejudice is strongly needed at the Paris article, because this two people "dialogue" with ThePromenader is going nowhere and is really driving me nuts. So, "haut les coeurs, et prend ton courage à deux mains"! After all we are working for the enlightenment of mankind. Noble task worth some sacrifices. Lol. Hardouin 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Stevage,
I do have to say that your 'diplomatic input' through all this has been rather frustrating - if you don't understand the problem, how can you expect to suggest what's wrong or right? If you don't read the WP:NPOVD and WP:AD how can you say the tag is not justified? It is through most every reason indicated there for its use! Read especially How to initiate an NPOV debate. Both tags and inaccuracies are embarrassing, but at least tag shows that the page's contributors intend to fix things.
The errors are one problem - fixing them is another. If I could spend an hour or two one morning making corrections without worrying about later seeing them reverted without justification, I would, and no doubt the quality of my work would better. Do you really think it normal that one can totally revert the work of another without proper justification - and this without ever engaging in the pre-emptive discussion asked for well beforehand, or providing any reference proving the validity of the reverted version after? This also you seem to ignore.
With the tag I hoped to 'corner' some pre-emptive discussion - but now it looks as though we're off for another round of 'stall and revert'. The fact that there's a pending mediation case may make things different this time around - here's hoping.
THEPROMENADER 09:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. After a rummage on my hard disk, I found the following image ...
It's taken from the same location (or nearby, can't remember), but I oriented it to get more of the surroundings in (though it does tend to dominate the locale). Hope this is of interest. Cheers, -- Plumbago 09:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Because you can achieve the same result with a single template. There was only one word of difference, and any such page already has a big honkin' {{ guideline}} or {{ policy}}. R adiant _>|< 20:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for deactivating the how-to category link on my user page. Kinda embarrassing that I didn't think of that .... -- ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 14:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms has been part of the Wikipedia style guide for 2+ years. Unless you know of some process that's formally rejected this style guide, please don't mark it "rejected". -- ESP 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and I'm glad you got around to summarizing the lot of them. Keep up the good work! R adiant _>|< 07:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Likewise, thanks. As a newcomer, I greatly appreciate your hard work, which has saved me some time in getting up to speed. -- TJ 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I pretty sure that I am coming off as a pain in this discussion on the 'verifyability' page. I guess that was just my response to what I saw a absolutist additutes. Anyway, I wanted to say that yours was the most reasonable voice I heard in that conversation. See you around. ike9898 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No durians. Priceless. Melchoir 05:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stevage. I decided to reply here, as you may not notice my reply in that place.
My primary objection to including Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes in the welcome template was that it needs a bit more work. You believe that that article is useful enough for any newbies to see it, so then you could polish it a bit first before asking again for it to be included. I don't have a monopoly on the welcome template, so if other people also react positivley, and since you are asking something reasonable (replacing a link, instead of adding yet another one) it may go in.
And I would like to give you a friendly advice. Please take it that way, even if your first reaction may not be positive, I do mean it as a sincere suggestion. I think you should be more careful with your comments, so that even when you don't agree with somebody, your comments don't sound like a bitter remark by an irritated user, but rather as constructive suggestion or criticism. Again, just a suggestion. Thanks, and you can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 22:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I note you deleted what seemed to me to be a highly relevant link to a website I publish about MUSU and its liquidation. You might not like its "POV" but that doesn't justify removing the link, its relevance cannot be disputed credibly. Do you disagree? DarrenRay 23:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Good onya for getting in and reworking the article without getting involved in the POV waffle. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Try to verify is the product of discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability and discussions on Wikien-L. It's not something that appeared out of whole cloth.
Do you find anything to disagree with in the content of that piece? Or is adherence to process the standard by which you make judgments? (I know that sounds disputatious, but I'm not trying to be. I'm just trying to clarify why you made the change, since I come from the age of "rules to consider", not the increasingly bureaucratic world of today's Wikipedia, and don't really understand what constitutes a "consensus" nowadays.) -- The Cunctator 22:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I doubt the ettiquette of Wikipedia or rules allow you to unilaterally remove my merge proposal for the article, so please don't do so again. I'm trying to constructively sort out a situation where an article has been devised that is a total mess, is riddled with political bias and factual error is taken to a higher level, hopefully by editors who aren't pushing an anonymous/pseudonymous agenda. Please respect the suggestions of others. DarrenRay 21:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Stevage. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 22:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between DarrenRay, 2006BC and others. You are being named as an involved party. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, not sure which reverts we're talking about now but I have removed the TotallyDisputed tag as we're not far from something that's OK. At least by me.
One outstanding issue though is Dean McVeigh and I don't really know how to deal with that. I think we have an absurd situation where dozens of news clippings speak to his notability, the article is neutral enough. It's been up in the user space as a draft and no one has even made a suggestion to change it. That's why I get a little confused about the activity in reverting it but there's little interest in participating in a discussion. I am a compromiser by nature, training and experience. That's what I'm looking for but instead I'm dealing with unilateral edicts and no one willing to engage in a debate.
It's frankly not enough for people just to assert their view and insult me or attack my motives to attempt to get their own way.
I continue to be open to discussion. The University of Melbourne student organisations article seems to have fewer mistakes and less bias than it had but is far from perfect.
I took off the Totally Disputed tag as a gesture reflecting the improvement and some hope that things will improve further.
The article still needs a clean up. I'm not game to do it in these circumstances but encourage anyone to try. DarrenRay 10:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I actually agree it's a cop-out. I think we all need to contribute. But boy oh boy, it's not easy. The page is being used to attack people and Wikipedia is strongly against defamation, perhaps there's some unknown exempting of articles about student unions. There shouldn't be. When I remove the violent and aggressive language inserted by some, it is accused of being 'weasel words' a term I don't even understand but I assume means not tabloid enough. If this is an encyclopedia project then it should be treated like that. At this stage many anonymous people who won't put their real name to what they are writing are turning the variously titled student organisations at University of Melbourne articles into little more than a vehicle for attacking rivals. -- 2006BC 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your fix to the punctuation marks template (space character -> space (punctuation)). I can't believe it escaped me! -- Gennaro Prota 13:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of changing the redirect from this page to a page that does not exist? Am I missing something, but I saw a similar redirect the other day and the article was not created. -- Bduke 23:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested in this article. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Which? magazine of October 2004 contained a critique of the one in three claim, including the key facts here. I can probably find a copy somehere to email you for verification but it's copyright. Just zis Guy you know? 21:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry to inform you that I am de-listing your current Request for adminship due to lack of support. Please, don't let this discourage you from editing, as you are still a very valuable member to our encyclopedia. Thank you! Moe ε 04:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
about your
talk:gmail#Lead section too short, there you go. ;-) enjoy fixing my grammar. :P --
Caue (
T |
C)
15:33, Saturday
2006-
04-1 (
UTC)
I replied on the project page, but you can also read the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life (and several other scattered places around wikipedia). Hope it helps! Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the dispute has died down now. I don't think anyone has any immediate plans to rename. :) Stevage 16:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Excellent point you made on the talkpage. I'll place it up for deletion as soon as some other user's put in thier two cents. - Zero Talk 15:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, a while ago you made an edit on the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 00:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sadly this failed it's good article nomination. Please see the reasoning here. -- Cel es tianpower háblame 23:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the project page and was just about to nominate you (as you seem like a great editor to me) though you might want to wait a couple months before applying (or accepting a nomination from someone else) - its just another reason for people to oppose (sigh, I think I was the only editor in the last 2 years to pass on a 2nd RfA a month later). Keep up the good work though, and once people have no more reasons to oppose, I'm sure someone will send a nomination your way :-) -- Tawker 23:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:HeidelbergTun-edit1.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Dear Stevage, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ← Humus sapiens ну? 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading Image:PanoChambord2work3.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stevage - thanks for your message. Just wanted to let you know that I've seen it and that I'll try to have a proper look this evening... I'm supposed to be revising for exams at the moment :)
Cheers,
Yummifruitbat
13:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not an AfD yet. I'm going to try and do some merging and improving of esoteric programming language first, hoping that that it will smooth the process when I do put it on AfD some day. Cheers, — Ruud 22:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)