User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 44

Turin

I've made a revert of an edit at that article, and edit (done by Daicaregos) which disrupted the city, sovereign state format in that article. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, either go with Glasgow, Scotland or Glasgow, United Kingdom. Personally I'd prefer Scotland, the sole reason being it narrows down the geographic region where it is located (I know where Glasgow is, but some won't. Scotland narrows it down somewhat). But that's just my personal opinion, it's not really based on policy or anything. How'd you spot the edit? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 01:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Random search. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted my revert & then added the British flag, along side the Scottish flag. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I've adopted your suggestion of accuracy & added further info to the USA & Canada entries, in line with the UK entry. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, looks good. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

• News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

• In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

• Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

• WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

• Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

• Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

• Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Steven Crossin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Conciliation.
Message added 02:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ya, I saw. Just as a note, I check my watchlist at least 200 times a day, so more likely than not, if you've replied to something I said somewhere, I've probably seen it and am thinking of a reply before you even post a note here :-) Just FYI. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 02:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, that's what I do too, (high five). Sorry for the unnecessary notification, in that case. Sometimes, the functions I do manually on Wikipedia become so repetitive that it becomes almost automatic and I just leave a talkback message right after I reply somewhere like it's second nature. Whenaxis about | talk 22:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hah. You seem to have a few good ideas in regards to dispute resolution. Shoot me an email, let's have a chat and see what we can come up with. (Reforming DR and getting more people involved is the primary reason I returned to active editing). Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Chat

Re your email, are you available for GMail chat? — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I sent both of you an invite. If you just accept the invitation, we could group chat about some things, while we are all online. Whenaxis talk · contribs 22:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)'

(Already replied to these elsewhere). Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick note

Hey Steve. Quick question about your request for amendment on the Abortion case—do you think we can put bRfC through trial with this and (hopefully) when it's successful, we can repropose it to the community? Whenaxis talk · contribs 01:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't think so, no. It will likely be me setting up the discussion (I've discussed this with a few arbitrators) but we'll have to do it on their terms though. But tbh, in this case it's really the case of tomato, tomato. There's really no difference between what they're proposing and what I'm proposing. Which baffles me even more that they said no.... Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 10:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you speaking with the arbiters on their talk pages, or by e-mail? Do you mind if I join the conversations—because binding content discussions are really a good idea. I've been preparing a request on User:Whenaxis/DR (page moved to User:Whenaxis/To-do) myself to ask ArbCom to reconsider the idea, and since you are already in talks with them, it would be easier to discuss with them directly rather than file another amendment. Whenaxis talk · contribs 14:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Mostly through Google Chat. I might just categorise it under Requests for comment or something. Dunno what to do, tbh. They really didn't provide much direction, did they? We could always just frame it like a binding RFC anyways and just have three admins close it. A regular admin, someone from WikiProject Medicine, and I'm sure I can find a sysop who has experience in DR. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, then when we repropose to the community, it will be easier to show the success (hopefully) of the bRfC format. Do you mind if you and I "co-chair" the discussion like ArbCom suggested on your amendment? Whenaxis talk · contribs 19:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, discuss over email. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---

You okay taking over the Thanksgiving thread on DRN again? (check your e-mail on bRfCs) Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs 22:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I might move it to mediation, it's becoming overly large and I don't think a quick fix is likely. Didn't see any email... Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw your note on the thread. Anywho, I guess Gmail is failing on me once again. I'll try resending it sometime. Whenaxis talk · contribs 01:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wales

Hello Steven. Do you know how to restore a post? Daicaregos erroneously (but I believe innocently), thought a response I made to another editors, was to him & he thus moved my post. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's OK, I've fixed things up. PS - I must be loosing my mind, I'm actually advising editors to walk away from that article discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Good-o. Remember that sometimes it's wise to take your own advice (and walk away). It takes two (or more editors) to have an argument. That said, I have seen someone arguing and replying with themself once. Very funny to watch. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay's latest mania: dashes are the new diacritics

Firstly, let me express my profound comisserations. I really cannot think of what possessed you to be GoodDay's mentor. I have witnessed his behaviour on Wikipedia for years, and I'm afraid that nothing indicates that he will ever be an asset to the project. It is actually GoodDay himself who suggested I speak to you about his edit yesterday to the Robert Burns article. I objected to him changing "(b. 1762)" to "(1762–??)" etc. Now, most sentient beings would realise that the reason it says "(b. 1762)" is that we do not know the person's date of death (in this they are far from alone, see Category:Date of death unknown). But not GoodDay. He seems to think that the DoB is just an oversight by the people who have written the article, and that bunging in a couple of question marks he will stimulate the lazy oafs to provide the missing info. When reverted, he re-reverted, instead of taking it to Talk, yet we all know he is well aware of WP:BRD. I also find it worrying that he was at the Burns article at all, considering that it was the scene of one of his thousands of crimes. Finally, can you get him to use Edit summaries? We know who he is, but most Wikipedians do not, so when they see one of his summariless edits they have to click through to see what he is up to. A total waste of everybody's time. As usual. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is classic GoodDay: he then looked at my contributions and goes straight into his classic pattern of behaviour. He doesn't give a fig about our official policy WP:VERIFY and how things are referred to in the real world, nor does he consider that the folk who wrote the article might know more about the topic than he does. He thinks that Wikipedia is just a forum for him to play tit for tat. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask you to watch your tone. You can't just come here and say "zomg GoodDay is evil" if you act make comments like you have here. Now, I am assuming you are referring to this edit. No comment on the ndashes, I'm not personally familiar with them, but as for the dates, GoodDay is technically correct. The manual of style states that the format such as (b. 1762) is to be used when the subject is still living, this is clearly not the case here. It states that when the date of death is completely unknown, it should be extrapolated from the last known period of activity, eg (1762 - after 1827). If you can't find even that, I'd suggest removing the date completely. (b. 1762) is completely incorrect. As for GoodDay, he seems to be making a genuine effort to improve, and has been using edit summaries for the large part of his recent editing. But users reverting his edits with flawed arguments isn't really helping, nor does baiting him. Have a nice day. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mais, may I ask why I wasn't alerted of this discussion, let alone invited? DBD 23:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, DBD, but I've removed the reply. I felt it was full of sarcasm and unnecessary. Cheers. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

:) GoodDay (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't mention it. I see my task as one of your mentors is to advise you on how to proceed when you get stuck, whack you on the head when you lack clue and explain to you how to improve when you stuff up. I also am here to tell you off when you do the wrong thing, but at the same time stick up for you when you're unfairly criticized, like above. There's definitely an element of "as you sow, so shall ye reap" here, but I can see you're making an effort to improve. Just remember to take it slowly and if it gets too heated, edit somewhere else for a while. It's not like we have a shortage of articles or anything :-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 06:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Steven Crossin. You have new messages at GoodDay's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

He's an irresponsible editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay is now just referring me straight to his mentors, without addressing the issues raised

Sorry to bother you again, but GoodDay now refers me straight to you. What exactly are you meant to do about it? It is not your editing that is problematic.--Mais oui! (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm fed up with Mais oui!'s antagonizing/baiting conduct. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Now he wants me to take ALL concerns direct to you! How do you feel about that then? --Mais oui! (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: I'm beginning to believe that Mais oui! also has ownership issues with Scottish related articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

PPS: Very well, Mais oui! isn't barred from my talkpage (per agreement at my Rfc/U), but it would help if he would contact you & Dan, when he chooses to contact me. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Defending oneself

You know something Steven. It's tough enough having to defend onself against an editor on another editors talkpage [not your talkpage ;)]. But, it's even tougher, when that talkpage owner deletes your defence posts. GoodDay (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Then stop jumping in when another editor asks for advice. Also this edit on your talk page is in poor taste. We have just lost an editor who made more detailed content contributions and created more articles then you are ever likely to. Your own conduct as at least a part of their decision to retire. You should be apologising, not seeing it as a vindication. Its that sort of petty minded comment that gets you into trouble. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I won't accept blame for another editor's choice to retire. The editor-in-question made that choice on his own. GoodDay (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Which editor are we talking about here? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 07:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming Snowded means this bloke. -- GoodDay (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Daicaregos, GoodDay has a long running issue with him. GoodDay, its the idea that you are vindicated that is really irritating. Just redact it and apologise. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely agree here. If your comment about being vindicated referred to Daicaregos retiring, then I am personally disgusted. Dancing on one's grave is probably one of the worst acts you could do here. At the very least an apology is necessary here, but if this is indeed the case, I am not impressed. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 07:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, it wasn't about Daicaregos' retirement. But, I did redact anyways, as a curtesy to Snowded. GoodDay (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What was it about? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It was about Mais oui! & his failed attempt to provoke/harass me, around the British articles. GoodDay (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense. Just please don't make me upgrade my cluebat. Some things are better left not said. I think you'd be in a lot less trouble if you thought about saying stuff before you actually post it. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly trying to concentrate on gnome editing, but it gets difficult when one's constantly getting sh-t upon. GoodDay (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Due to the outing issue comments have been redacted on my talk page, but GoodDay was very definitely grave dancing (or at least standing outside the cemetery conducting a celebratory square dance.). If he has understood the foolishness of that sort of edit then all well and good. I'll leave it at that. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I did see that, but not the actual edits. Can't really comment there, I dunno what happened. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 09:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You could always go back to working on the M*A*S*H article :-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Someday, I will. GoodDay (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Even stuff like copyediting has been causing issues lately :/. When I want to maintain a low profile, I fix dead links. Immensely useful task. Wanna know more? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've not good with external links. GoodDay (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, you don't do it manually. You use interiot's tool to do it. It's easy, trust me. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll consider it, 'after' I putter around the M*A*S*H articles some more. GoodDay (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, keep your nose clean for a few days. I've got a rather ugly RFC to draft over the next day or two *groans*. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll practice more restraint. GoodDay (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you do, for both our sakes. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

;-) GoodDay (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert Burns

Did you have to continue the edit warring on Robert Burns? Please revert your change and discuss the matter on the talk page. This change is disputed, and the interpretation of guidelines to justify it appears to be open to question. I still do not see what it is claimed to say, but maybe the guideline needs clarified. Either way, continuing to impose this edit on the article while it is disputed is not helpful. The best place to clear the matter up is on the talk page, something that has been requested a number of times, but hasn't happened so far. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

To me, it seems like several users have been ganging up on GoodDay recently, and it's not really fair. He's been trying to improve and keep his head low. I personally think the policy is pretty clear, but happy to self revert and discuss it. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, an awful lot of us think that "it's not really fair" that GoodDay persistently disrupts Wikipedia.

I'm going to level with you: I genuinely think that your "mentorship" of GoodDay is, on current evidence, doing both him and the Wikipedia project more harm than good. Please take a few days to consider my point of view. Of course, there is the possibility that I am incorrect, and that GoodDay is a reformed character due to your influence, and is now an asset to the Wikipedia project, but I fear that an overly quick response from youself may simply exacerbate an already poor situation. I look forward to hearing from you when you have had a few days to mull this over. --Mais oui! (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel that based on policy, GoodDay is indeed correct here, and I am prepared to stand up for him in situations like that. Take note that I am equally open to whacking him on the head when he stuffs up (see this and this for two examples). In this situation, I think seeking clarification from the community on this at the Village Pump (policy). I am pretty sure precedent is for putting "unknown" as the date of birth, but will find out at the VP. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)re

Sinking of the RMS Titanic FAC

Thanks very much for your help! Could you possibly take a look at the Broad reference (#39)? I can't seem to get it to work... Prioryman (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been sorted out now, so thanks anyway... Prioryman (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was sleeping :) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. ;-) Prioryman (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Online Ambassador, Spring 2012

Hi, Steven! I noticed you added yourself to the OAs for the semester and wanted to direct you to the OA talk page, where you can find a list of courses that still need ambassador support in order to join the program for the semester. Please check it out and use it to sign onto a course (or multiple courses if you're available/interested) on their Course Pages. Thanks! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. I already added myself to two , but I'm rather new to all of this, so I think I'll stick with two :-) Cheers. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Melbourne meetups.

Hi Steve, just wondering what you are using as the basis for notifying people of Melbourne meetups? Last year, I removed my name from the list of people interested in attending Melbourne meetups, so I must admit that I am rather surprised that I have started receiving these notices again. I know that you are acting in good faith, but to be perfectly honest, if people haven't signed up for notices, or, like me, have intentionally removed themselves from the "interested" list, it feels rather distinctly like spam. If you are using the category of Wikipedians in Victoria, I would ask you to reconsider and instead use the list of people who have actually expressed an interest. Alternatively if there is some other list that I am on, please advise so that I can remove my name from that as well. Cheers, Sarah 23:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. We are indeed using that category (got a lot of people at the last meetup too because of it). I'll remove you from the list in future. Cheers, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, I think that qualifies as spam as it is not why people have listed themselves in that category. I think it would be better if you messaged all those people asking them to sign up to the list if they are interested in receiving notifications and then use the list for notifications, rather than assuming a default position that if you list yourself as in the state, you are interested in meetups in North Melbourne. Looking at the category itself, it simply describes itself as "a listing of Wikipedia users who are located in Victoria (Australia)." There is not the slightest indication that by placing yourself in that category or using the userbox, that you are consenting to receiving what amounts to unsolicited messages. I don't really want to have to cause a fuss, but I honestly believe this is inappropriate spam. Sarah 00:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll have a chat about this among others in the Wikimedia AU chapter. I note that all meetups won't be in Melbourne, we have plans to do meetups elsewhere (including regional Vic) but will see what other members of the chapter think. Cheers, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You might want to consider using Wikipedia:Geonotice. My area's meetups have been using that method. Cloveapple (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

• Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters

• News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department

• In the news: Scholars and spindoctors contend with the emergent wikiorder

• In focus: Skirmishes in the 'great sectarian war of the Internet'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced

• Technology report: January sees prototype new geodata API; but February looks to be a testing time for top developers

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Trillium Software

I noticed that you nominated Trillium Software for speedy deletion by replacing {{db-spam}} with {{db-corp}}, but then undid your edit with the summary "Undid revision 442834409 by Steven Zhang (talk) Hm, the main corp seems to be notable,)". Now this article is in AfD, and your findings might be helpful there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I haven't got back to you sooner...boy that was a while ago. I'll have a closer look and weigh in at AFD if I can be of any use. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 09:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay again - sorry

Would you have a look at this thread. One of the issues before was GoodDays habit of leaving casual comments with various direct or implied accusations on talk pages. It just generates heat and he seems to be starting up again. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it Steven, things have been settled. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, you have reluctantly deleted one comment making side comments about censorship and you.have left the other comment standing justifying yourself. And the number of experienced editors getting frustrated is increasing deleting their comments will not help ----Snowded ^TALK 16:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Note his latest example here. [1] See his talk page where he deleted my complaint and final warning of ANI action, also contrary to the express terms of this arrangement. He apparently regards my complaint as a "provocation", but not this latest example of his serial love for random and irrelevant POV commenting on one of the key articles in UK-space. Had enough frankly and I am not easily worked up. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If James had asked me to strike my post at UK, I would've. But instead, he deleted my post & then showed up at my talkpage with a 'bad attitude'. I won't take that kinda put-down from him or any other editor. Just because I went through at Rfc/U, doesn't mean he can sh-t on me. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the facts are that I complained and made a clear statement of the consequences if you persist; the opinion you posted in the thread was irrelevant and a breach of your mentoring arrangement (in that it was designed to provoke) - your deletion of my comments on your talk page is also a specific breach - further deletion will confirm my suspicion that you regard the mentoring arrangement as mere cover for your activities and have no real intention of sticking to either the letter or the spirit of it, other than on a childish, pretend level, the latter being what we are actually getting at the moment. Evidently it's still not getting through, which is why I now believe we must return to ANI and seek a lengthy block on the GoodDay account. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's up to you Steven (and you Dan). If you both feel I need to be topic-banned from British & Irish articles? then so be it. As for me? I won't be bullied by James 'or' his OTT reaction. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It is neither "bullying" not "OTT". In fact, this was just the latest egregious example of a mind-bogglingly large problem, the fact that GoodDay spits out random provocative personal opinions in BI-space articles on a daily basis and has been doing so for years, at least 90% of which are completely and utterly unconstructive and unhelpful. Against that background, other editor's conduct towards GoodDay has been a model of restraint. Also it isn't just up to the mentors and I intend to seek help from involved admins to get a speedy resolution to this rather than get bogged down in further childish arguments with this account. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You're now Harassing me by restoring your post to my talkpage. I've already informed you that I got your message & will abide by it. So, stop restoring it. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As a followup, note that GoodDay will not allow my comments to remain on his talk page - I take this to be a declaration by him that he has unilaterally ended the mentoring arrangement, as that was very clearly one of the criteria. He has also constructively ended it by reserving the right to himself to continue the main criticized behaviour without reference to mentors, and by regarding mentors essentially as backstops for editor complaints rather than reference points. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing in the summary at GoodDay's RFCU that said he is not permitted to remove such complaints from his talk page. If there is a separate agreement made (with one or both of his mentors) is for GoodDay and his mentors to hash out. If GoodDay is violating an agreement with Steven Zhang or DBD not to remove comments, then bring it up with them, let them deal with it, and walk away. Your behaviour on his talk pages constitutes both edit warring and harrassment from where I am sitting. Consider this a WP:3RR warning, James. I will block you if you continue making reverts on GoodDay's talk page. Resolute 19:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Number 5 in the summary was about his "banning" of people from his talk page by removing complaints. He had agreed in his RFC/U that he wouldn't remove peoples complaints anymore if I recall correctly, tho his agreement to not do that might have been a comment he posted on his own talk page while the RFC/U was ongoing. But I do agree that James should just walk away at this point. I was going to post a note on his talk page to do so when I saw this comment. -DJSasso (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Dear oh dear oh dear oh dear. Look what happens when I catch a bit of sleep. James, one of the terms of GoodDay's mentorship is that he is not permitted to ban users from his talk page. He has not done so here, he has removed a post that he responded to, which he is within his rights to do so. Now, having a look at the comment you referred to ([2]) I am not seeing a major issue with that comment. Perhaps it's because I don't edit the subject area. I agree that there have been other comments made by GoodDay that have been way over the line. GoodDay, I did remind you to think before you speak, and it doesn't appear you have done so. I think a topic ban from all pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, broadly construed, will need to be strongly considered. It's generating far too much heat and nowhere near enough light, and I think your time would be better served improving articles like M*A*S*H and copyediting. There's over three million articles on Wikipedia. No real reason you can't edit a different topic area, IMO. I'm not so sure how such a topic ban would be implemented, however. As I am not an administrator I don't think I have the authority to impose such a restriction, even if I am your mentor. Will have to ask around. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I won't contest a topic ban, if it'll cut down the harassment on my talkpage. James' advice isn't a problem with me, but how he presented it was GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I haven't banned anyone from my talkpage. But, I'm allowed to 'delete' posts, after I've read & responded to them. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Notes to self

Stuff to look at tomorrow

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_February_2012/Muhammad-images
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure

sent you an email

hi Steven,

sent you an email re: mediation.

ps. like your page. find it welcoming and calming (especially for newcomers like me). thanx.

SP Arbcom report - civility enforcement

Please see my comment here Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-20/Arbitration_report --Surturz (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your photo

Just saw it on your user page. For a second (just a second) I thought you looked like Julian Assange. Nice pic though :P Lord Roem (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

• Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers

• News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering

• Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Civility enforcement closed, proposed decision in TimidGuy, two cases remain open

• Technology report: Major strands of development cycle coalesce as 1.19 is deployed to first wikis

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Howdy Steven. I hope editors are reviewing my conduct on a post-Rfc/U basis. If I recall accurately, pre-Rfc/U conduct isn't supposed to be counted. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse host profile

I think it's great that you added yourself (even if the Teahouse has not officially opened.) I actually used your profile as an example when I started creating the pages on MediaWiki, check it out if you want to see what I did. We are using the left side of the profile as a sort of explanation of a hosts WP interests and hope to have links to those things. Thanks for jumping in! heather walls (talk)

That looks really good :-) Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 19:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind terribly if I add that info to your "real" profile on en.? heather walls (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, wouldn't mind. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion questions

Hello! I would like your opinion on the actions of User:Eraserhead1 with regards to the WP:RFC/AAT. He has reverted some changes I made to the page which I thought were constructive, and has included google results which I believe are misleading, as described here. Since original searches do not use quotes, they include synonynms, and so are inaccurate.

If you are not too busy, could you please, after reading WT:RFC/AAT#Table, consider restoring the table? Also, could you or some of the other administrators look more closely at the issue of google searches, which I think is central to the issue, and give some advice? Thank you very much :) --Cerebellum (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Answered at User_talk:Eraserhead1#Google. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I'm not an administrator. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 19:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. And neither am I. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

your advice on inappropriate postings?

Steven, I hope this is the appropriate place to ask for your advice (It seems so many of my attempts to post something are judged to be inappropriate)

This regards the WP article about Shi & The 10 Stone Lions by Chou Yuen Ren. The present article is entirely devoted to the linguistics of the work. I thought it would be good to have a section discussing the work as poetry as well. Even the article refers to it as a "poem", but makes no attempt to discuss this aspect. Rather than just revising the article, I felt it better to first put it on Talk to see how others felt. I did so here. That was shot down on the basis that I used a reference deemed to be "original sourcing" (despite the fact that my treatment of the work as work of poetry appears to be the only one in existence to this date.)

Next, I thought it might be useful to open a discussion on the Talk page about the poetics of the work (perhaps, I thought, that will eventually lead to someone including a section in the article on the poetics of "Stone Lions".) That was not only shot down on the basis that discussing the subject was against the policy for Talk pages, but was removed from the Talk page for that reason.

Perhaps the person who is doing this is correct. I can't say. But it serves as an obstacle to even introducing the idea that the article omits a very important aspect of its subject (probably the one that is of most interest to the general reader). I've pretty much given up. Do you have any advice?

I'm also pretty much giving up on participating in Wikipedia. All I've seen of it is people using rules to protect their biases and defeat the real purposes of Wikipedia - to provide good and accurate information. It's been a real time waster for me and I can't think of anything more apt to describe the Wiki process than to liken it to a novel by Franz Kafka.

(talk page stalker)Hey, Redslider, I saw your post on Steven's page and thought I'd reply (I hope neither of you mind!). The problem is that the addition of original research is against Wikipedia policy. The reason for this policy is that Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia's function is to report what is known already, not to publish new knowledge. We need our information to be verifiably sourced, and our sources to be reliable in the sense of published and fact-checked, so that we can be sure that what we host is accurate (at least in theory). It looks like the source you used was your own work, published by yourself, and that does make it a non-reliable source, since it hasn't been peer-reviewed or anything like that. So we can't use it as a source. It really is unfortunate that there has been little discussion about its poetry, but if there really hasn't been any discussion of it, then we really can't say anything about it. It's just the nature of the beast.

I hope you don't let this turn you off from editing, though; you just have to realize that Wikipedia isn't what a lot of people think it is. If you can accept that, then there's a lot of good, fun work to be done here, so please try giving it a chance! Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I must say this is uncanny. Not five minutes ago I was thinking "geez I have so much to do, I hope a talk page stalker can reply to this one" and here it is :-). Most appreciated. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My thanks too (as much for relieving Steven, as for helping me.) I understand about fact-checking and original sourcing, which is why I left the matter be and didn't argue the case. But it also seems to me that we are missing something here. Not all things that an editor might link to (even their own stuff) are 'facts' or 'assertions'. In the case of my essay on the poetry of 'Ten Lions', it is merely an illustration of treating the matter as a poem. There's nothing to be fact-checked about that. In the section I would have added, had I been allowed, I simply cite it as an 'example' of treating the work as poetry (and use it because it is the only example I know of that does that). So in that, 'original source' is being applied as though an assertion is being made and the cited material is in support of that. It is not, unless one thinks saying something illustrates an example of something needs to be sourced. If that's the case, WP has turned the meaning of sourcing into nonsense.

The other case I mentioned seems even stranger, that the very narrow WP description of talk page, excludes the exploration of an element that is missing from the article (a discussion that might lead to eventual inclusion.) That's about the most stifled form of 'discussion' I can imagine. So no, I think I did give it a chance, and the evidence really seems to weigh on the side that its a waste of time for those of us engaged in serious work to try to contribute to Wikipedia. Too many catch-22's for avoiding things of importance, and too many people ready to apply rules without reflecting on their purpose. As is well known, the strict application of rules is a very good way to defeat their intent. It's like people who get killed every year because they couldn't bring themselves to cross a double-yellow line when a truck was bearing down on their side of the road. But good luck to you all. WP has just become a lot less meaningful for me, and too difficult to make any contribution. 71.193.56.126 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry to hear that; from how articulate you've been in this brief discussion, it seems like you would've had a lot to offer. But you gotta do what you gotta do; we're all volunteers here, so if you can't enjoy it, there's no reason to stay. I myself am sorry sometimes that it's taken me so long to start editing; I wish I could've been here in the earlier days when "ignore all rules" seemed to be the law of the land. But again, that's just the nature of the beast; as the project grows, so, out of necessity as much as anything, will its governing structure and bureaucracy. Not much to do but either slog through it or wash your hands of it, and both are totally reasonable options. I'm not sure if you'll read this, but I wish you luck in whatever you decide to do next. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Project Editing

Hello, I am a college student working with a group to edit a page for a class assignment. We would like to supplement the Candy page. I'm just making contact with you before we start this project. Thanks, RLHobbs (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi RLHobbs. Regarding this, you can send Steve an e-mail by clicking here. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, I'll keep an eye on the page. Let me know if you get stuck. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Improve this page

Hi, this tag has been attached to the Battle of Romani for some time. I was told that it was only a test and it would end early in February but its still on this GA. Is there any way to get this tag taken off?--Rskp (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you know anyone who can help with this problem? --Rskp (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, it looks like the page is one of the pages under trial with the Article Feedback Tool Version 5. It's there so readers of Wikipedia (who aren't very familiar with editing) can point out any problems they see, or make suggestions. It's not there because there's anything wrong with the article. It's part of editor engagement. The one that is overseeing the article feedback tool is User:Okeyes (WMF). Regards, Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 07:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, RoslynSKP. I'm not sure why the tests haven't ended; I'll drop the relevant staffers an email and get back to them. For reference, the Battle of Romani article has garnered zero feedback posts. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This continues a long sad sorry story of no cooperation and no communication. This is not the first time Okeyes gave a similar assurance, I'll drop the relevant staffers an email and get back to them. I wouldn't be surprised if it is yet another example of noncommunication. Why is it that these relevant staffers remain unknown? Do they even exist? Surely there must be someone who can provide information about this tag, the so-called test and when it will be finished. What other GA articles, if any, are involved? --Rskp (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how I can assist, or how it is of relevance on my talk page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 06:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Only reason is that I needed help to sort this out, and you were listed as the only administrator who was on line at the time, and I thought that an administrator might be able to answer my questions. --Rskp (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That's quite odd...because I'm not an adminstrator :-) Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I went to help and then to Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention and then to Highly Active Users in Oceania. You were the only person on line so I contacted you. Although I was following an administrator thread, I now see you are listed as a highly active user in Oceania who is not an administrator. Sorry. I was looking for an administrator and thought I had found one. Sincere apologies. --Rskp (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

S'ok. Though it's really Oliver that can help you here...he is the one working on the article feedback tool, after all. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 06:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse updates

Hi Steven! A few updates for you about Wikipedia:Teahouse, since you're one of our awesome Teahouse hosts!:

• The host lounge is open! Please take time to review the materials in the space and start contributing to the how-to pages. Your input is valuable. Not only is it great practice to get our minds thinking like hosts, but, you can also provide easy to understand instructions and sound bites for fellow hosts!
• Join the conversation by participating on the host lounge talk pages[3][4]. We also have an IRC channel now for hosts to get to know one another, develop your skills, and eventually the channel will serve as an additional help space for new editors!

• To visit the IRC channel: #wikipedia-teahouse ^connect (Feel free to ask me for help if you're having trouble connecting!)

• Let new editors get to know you by creating your Teahouse profile. Contribute your profile on the host page at the Teahouse! This serves as a fun way for new editors to get to know the people behind the usernames. You can post a photograph of yourself or an avatar, add a quote about yourself or something you enjoy, and share projects and activities you participate on wiki (with wikilinks).

Very exciting things are taking place, and we'll be opening the Teahouse no later than Monday. Feel free to ping me on or off wiki, and I can't wait to work with you to welcome new editors with a warm cup of tea :) SarahStierch (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks(giving)

Thanks for hanging in there at the Thanksgiving DR. Looks like things are stable now. Well done and your commitment to the Project is both inspiring and admirable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your kind words. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Still an adopter?

Hi Steven, was wondering if you're still adopting newbies (like me)? Seems that contacting adopters directly is more effective than the user box seeing the list of people waiting for an adopter :-)
I'm looking for someone to teach me about editing, mostly adding to existing topics and helping keep article quality up (anti-vandalism, etc). I think I have the capabilities to contribute usefully, but lack in the Wikipedia skills.
Thanks, Mythio (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I am still adopting, indeed. I'll be happy to take you on bord.I take it by now you have seen my adoption program, which has a fair bit in it. I normally like to start off with an introduction. Your preferred name, your interests, what you hope to achieve on Wikipedia and what you hope to learn. I'm Steve, I mainly focus on fictional articles and dispute resolution, and I hope to improve the processes by the end of the year. Tell me about yourself? Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That's great, thank you! My name is Stan, which I prefer over my nickname. I mainly use it so people can't Google my name to find me everywhere. I'm a student of computer security, so hope to contribute content mostly in the areas of computer science and mathematics. I also have a great interest in history, ranging from about the Roman empire till the current day. I enjoy checking and commenting/correcting pieces of text and, hopefully, I can make myself useful in another area of Wikipedia, like dispute resolution or the clean up project. However, everyone has to learn the basics first so here I am :-) Not sure what else there is to include, but feel free to ask if you want to know something I didn't mention. Mythio (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stan :-). OK, so I think we have something we can start with. My lessons can be a little bit tiring at times, and there's no rush to complete them, but over the years I've found them pretty effective at teaching people the ropes. The one that most start out with is the Policies lesson. It's by no means a substantiative summary of all our policies, but it does give you a decent overview. Have a read, your first "task" is to read over that page, and write a short paragraph here, about what you learned, in your own words. But the most important thing about Wikipedia is to try and have fun. :-) Oh, and remember to add this page to your watchlist. I tend to reply here all the time. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I'll start to work on that assignment and post here when it's done. I've added this page to my watchlist yesterday, so am already getting the emails from it (on my phone, so able to respond in a timely manner within my "awake" hours) :-). I had a question, I've tried giving some input on one of the issues on the talk page of the WikiProject Mathematics. Is this something I'm allowed to do while an adoptee, or should I refrain from doing certain things until passing a few (or all) of the courses? Mythio (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to do so :-) Adoption doesn't restrict you in any way. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Reading the information about the various policies of Wikipedia I think the most important lesson to be learned is that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort where editors have to work together. To do this, policies are in place, but most of these are open to interpetation depending on the situation. When editing and/or contributing, it is important to use common sense and think about whether what you are adding to Wikipedia is indeed relevant. I think that Make edits boldly has special merit, since it allows everyone to contribute. It is also important to keep that in mind when commenting on other people's contributions; anyone can make mistakes. From the remaining policies on the page I gather that it is a good idea to keep several of the well known and important rules as a basis when dealing with other wikipedians; assuming good faith as the starting point, which goes hand in hand with being civil. Lastly, I think that for any contribution it is important to keep in mind WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. It is a good starting point to check your own or others contributions. (End of assignment paragraph)

I was reading the WP:CON policy and it seems to be very vague on one of the most crucial points: when is consensus reached.. Especially this sentence "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.". From what I have seen from some consensus discussion, it seems to be determined more by the number of votes for or against a certain edit rather than the quality of the arguments given. Wouldn't that be contrary to the idea of the policy? Since you're active in WP:DR I'm guessing you deal with this more often :-) Mythio (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good summary of the policies page. Most of the time, using common sense will steer you in the right direction, over time you will pick up on policies. I've been here for ages and I still don't know it all.

As for consensus, there's no concrete definition of when a consensus is reached. It quite often can turn into a vote, though ideally, it's about strength of argument relating to Wikipedia policy. For example, three very week "delete" votes should not outweigh a very convincing "keep" vote that is grounded in policy. But how users and administrators judge and weigh consensus differs among us. There's no real bright line when it comes to consensus. Hope this explains "consensus" a bit, but probably won't do much answer the question. There's no clear answer I'm afraid :-) Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright thanks, I didn't expect a really clear answer but this still gives some insight in the process :-) So whats next? I just start doing lessons in random order and if so do I keep posting on your talk page? It seems a bit akward to me, perhaps we can set up a dedicate page for it on your or my userspace? Mythio (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's your adoption page. Most people start out with either the Copyright, Permissions or the first vandalism assignment. They're a good read, so feel free to take your time :-) Poke me if you get stuck, or have any questions (and feel free to ask any questions whenever. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I put my solution of Vandalism 1.1 on the page, but I guess you have it on the watchlist by now :-) Mythio (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed. Will grade it later today. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats fine, no rush. I see your swamped :-) Mythio (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

All graded. Well done :-) Sorry about the delay. How have you been going? Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 09:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Delay is not a problem, I will just keep working on other assignments while waiting for grades. I'm doing ok, tried to make some small edits here and there but have had a busy week with school work. As for adoption program, I'm working on wikimarkup now mostly, getting familiar with it. I've also started researching a bit to rewrite the equation article, I think it will be a good article for me to start with in learning how to get an article to good article status. What do you think? Mythio (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Writing good articles is tough. I've done a handful but it's hard work :-) I found a really thorough checklist here which has just about everything you could fix, and while it may not all be necessary, would make the article a great one. Sorry about the delay :-) Poke me when you've done the wiki markup one. It's a good lesson, since you will be using wiki markup all the time. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 10:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation help

Hi Steven, I was wondering if you could assist me with the Med Cab case I'm mediating. This case seems to now be getting nowhere and it would be good to have some advice on moving it on and getting towards some sort of closure. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi ItsZippy. Did you try notifying the parties on their user talk page? Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

^That's probably a wise idea. If that doesn't work, just let it close. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've notified them a few times and they either come to make one post then leave or don't reply. There is one person there who is much more active that the rest - he seems to be the only one interested. I think I'll send one more notice, then close it if it goes nowhere. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If you've already notified them before, close the case, then notify the parties it's been closed. Occasionally works as a shock tactic. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 18:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No.. no.. I much rather that you suggest to the parties that they either watchlist the case page and respond to queries in timely manner or the case will be closed if the parties don't discuss. Just give them a lightweight notice like that and see what happens. If nothing happens, then like Steven said, close the case. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Teahouse is Open!

Hi Steve! Great news: The Teahouse is open for business! We're ready to start inviting new users, answering questions and inspiring one another. If you haven't already taken a look at the links provided in the most recent Teahouse update, posted on your talk page, please do! Don't forget to add yourself to the Host page if you haven't already. What's next? Inviting hosts and reporting your invitation information.

• Please familiarize yourself with this brief rundown of your responsibilities as a Teahouse host.
• Use the invitation guide to invite new users and report your invites.
• Make sure you have the Q&A page on your watch page and dive in when answers get asked! Feel free to ask your own questions - either seeking help or inspiring others to share their projects, ideas and inspiration for editing.

See you at the Teahouse! SarahStierch (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Steven! Just dropping by to let the hosts know about some new suggestions I've made based on interactions at the Teahouse thus far. Please take a look when you can! Thanks and see you at the Teahouse. New suggestions regarding Q&A participation for hosts. SarahStierch (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, sounds good :-) Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

• News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming

• Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative

• Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention

• WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction

• Featured content: By plane, by ship, and by stagecoach: Featured content goes trekking this week

• Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open

• Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

joining

would you like to join our diccion?Its here User talk:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Walter55024--Walter55024 (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've commented there, but I'm not sure what discussion I am joining to be honest. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

i will tell you on that page.--Walter55024 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)