User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 36

New proposed section for Huawei

Hello Steven, thank you for your recent help on the Huawei article. Since then, I have now written a draft for a short new section on Huawei's corporate governance, providing details of the company's current board. As you were helpful with my previous draft, I wonder if you would be able to read through this one (it is much shorter) and provide any comments or advise whether the section could be added to the article as it is. The draft can be found in my userspace, here:User:Bouteloua/Huawei Corporate governance draft. Thank you --Bouteloua (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Had a look, looks good. Well sourced and written neutrally, states the facts. Perhaps you could rethink the section title though. Apart from that, looks good. Feel free to add it to the article, perhaps under the history section? Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Steven. As you suggested, I have re-named the section ( now "Corporate leadership") and added it to the article below the History section. Thank you again for your help. --Bouteloua(talk) 15:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are once again welcome. :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 15:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

24

Hey, first of all, thanks for the Barnstar! You've also done some amazing work cleaning the 24 article, it's looking great now. As for your edit, the reason I changed some of the references to use work is because that italicizes the name, which any newspaper or magazine should be, while websites are not. I know when you think of The New York Times, you think publisher, but as the name should appear in italics, I use work. There's still confusion regarding work vs. publisher over on the discussion pages of cite web for awhile now. Not sure if you agree with my reasoning, but it's okay.Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't realise that. Go ahead and change it back. Yeah, it's been my goal for years to get the main 24 article to GA status, and I'm really happy with how it looks, but it's not quite ready yet. I need to rearrange some of the references, expand the reception and awards section as well as find more info on how the series started, and reword the seasons section, it doesn't flow well. I also need to work on getting Jack Bauer to GA status, which is going to be hard as the article is such a mess. Could use a hand there :). Would you be interested in joining the 24 Wikiproject? Steven Crossin^{The clock is ticking....} 23:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

With your edit, you actually changed all the references to use work, which italicizes all the names. Only newspaper and magazine names, like The New York Times or Entertainment Weekly need to use work, while website names like IGN or TVShowsOnDVD should use publisher, so they don't appear in italics. If you want, you could just undo both the edits, so it's reverted back. As for info on how the series started, there's a great featurette on the special edition version of the season 1 DVD called, "The Genesis of 24". If you don't own the DVD, you could probably find it online somewhere. I guess I could join WikiProject 24, although honestly I mainly just edit the main article, and the season articles, I don't often contribute to character pages. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, will fix that up. I've got the entire box set, but not the special edition. Will have a look for it online. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, I can't find it anywhere, but the info that it seems to give that I saw here is absolute gold, would fill so many holes. Any idea where I could find a copy? Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Found a copy. :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 15:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Great! Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Message on your user page

You say Nowadays, I've got a real life, and but due to gaining a new office job which provides a lot of free time, I will be returning to somewhat active editing, and I am happy to help out where I can.

I think there is something wrong with and but. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisG (talk • contribs)

Nice pick up. Thanks for pointing it out :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Your nomination to the Mediation Committee

I was pleased to see that you filed a nomination. When we had our discussion about what you might do with your time on Wikipedia now that you had returned, I was tempted to suggest that you submit a candidacy, but I didn't because I prefer to not push prospective members into the nomination process unless they indicate they are interested. As the Chairman, I do not vote on nominations, and I try to retain my neutrality in all other ways, but I hope you did not feel as though I was criticising your answer with my response to your Q1. Rather, I felt that you may have misrepresented yourself on the point about binding consensus, and I do like to help candidates to improve their answers if they have said something that could be misunderstood by the other mediators. In any case, your follow-up answer resolved that issue.

On another note, in my view it would be best if you said something about the ANI/ArbCom/administrator accounts incident. I know that it was a few years ago, and in my mind there is no issue there now, but the other mediators may not be aware of, or have forgotten, the context, and it is proper that candidates declare everything (so to speak). It is your decision, and I won't bring it up if you don't. Well done on getting your first support, and good luck! Regards, AGK [•] 20:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Anthony. I am somewhat surprised to hear that you were pleased to see me self-nominate to assist on the Mediation Committee. I thought you would've advised against it due to my severe err of judgment back in August 2008. As for your comments on my response to the first question, I didn't feel criticised at all. I do sometimes have a tendency of over-explaining myself due to fear of being too brief in my responses, however at times this does little except confuse. After reading it over my initial response, I realise that the explanation of my thoughts on the matter was not clear, and I appreciate you allowing me to clarify my response.

I'd like to add that I was quite surprised to see the comments below this section header, as opposed to what I was expecting. When I saw this edit on my watchlist (Your nomination to the Mediation Committee - new section), I was expecting to see something like "Your nomination to join the Mediation Committee has been unsuccessful, per the two oppose rule. I suppose that leads me to your final comment. It was not my intention to hide the matter that happened in 2008 from the committee, or to save myself from scrutiny on the matter, it is well within the rights of the committee to ask whatever questions they wish to regarding the incident. At the time of writing my self-nomination, I did consider adding an explanation of what occurred back in 2008, however I felt that as it was a matter which gained a large number of attention from the community, felt it unnecessary to comment on the matter as I assumed that all the members of the committee were aware of my background. Not wanting to open the old wounds in the two administrators that were involved also was a factor. Since seeing this thread on my talk page, I have had discussions with both Peter and Chet, and they are OK for me to bring up the matter, so I will do so on my nomination page now. I do hope that the committee will consider looking past my severe lack of judgment at the time, in light of my other contributions to the project and to dispute resolution, and my behaviour since the incident, but it is not my place to say. I can only explain myself to the committee, and hope that they can forgive my mistakes as a teenager and consider my nomination on the merits I present as someone who is assists in resolution of Wikipedia disputes. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My RfA

I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. Best luck for the future. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

		Original Barnstar
		Thank you for clearing my name in the sockpuppet investigation! MayhemMario 16:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I just stated the facts as I saw them. Think nothing of it. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 17:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Though what if, 'Nick Wilton' isnt Nick Wilton? MayhemMario 19:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI archiving

Hey. Just wanted to give you a heads-up on SPI archiving. In general I think we like to keep some cases around for awhile - say, a day or so - so that people who were paying attention to them can see how they were resolved. Also, I think it's better if clerks don't archive cases that they've closed. By having other clerks close cases, we have a sort of double check system to make sure that everything went accordingly. Other than that, keep up the good work. —HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That does make a lot of sense. I'll keep that in mind in future. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 18:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

HI!

Are you open for adoptions at the moment? --Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am. You'd need to be committed to taking the lessons at least somewhat seriously, as my adoption, while you're free to ask me any other questions you like, is a structured process. You should take a look at User:Steven Crossin/Adoptioninitially before agreeing to being adopted by myself. If you agree, let me know here and add {{adopted|Steven Crossin}} to your userpage, and note that I leave my comments here, generally without a talkback on your talk page, but I will do so this once. Regards, Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Steven Crossin

Thank you for your interest in joining the Mediation Committee. Regretfully, your nomination has been closed as unsuccessful per the two-oppose rule. The Mediation Committee cannot accept nominations from editors who have unsuccessfully applied within the past three months, and also cordially invites you to use the input given during the nomination process to improve as a potential mediator and as an editor. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 20:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your nomination Steven, I think if you continue to work in this area, specifically with MedCab, you could demonstrate you're ready for a move up to MedCom. In fact, if you do so I will sponsor you myself. Please don't be discouraged by this, look it as an opportunity to keep working at it and show things have changed since then. --WGFinley (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on my nomination. While I feel the past is more so behind me now, based on most comments, demonstrting my trust and skills in dispute resolution is something I have not done for quite some time. I will keep an eye out at MedCab (disputes there are few and far between) but will focus on other stuff (like 24) in the meantime. I thank you all for being open and honest with me. Cheers. Steven Crossin^{The clock is ticking....} 01:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

minor snafu on my talk page

There's a very minor snafu on my talk page. Someone who's very new copied something I'd posted elsewhere and pasted it on my talk page complete with my signature. I just wanted to know if it's appropriate for me to strike it out? Or is it best to just leave it alone? I already talked to the person who did it, so no concerns there.

It's #7 on the contents at User talk:Cloveapple, the "Looking for Italian sources" but up until "My responses:" which is them talking. Cloveapple (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's a mistake, you should be fine to remove it. Striking it out might look like you're striking out your own comments, so just remove it with an edit summary. Steven Crossin^{The clock is ticking....} 23:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your kind help, several times! :) Thanks. WhiteWriter speaks 22:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The answers for Vandalism from Adoption

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Answer these questions on my talk page:

What is vandalism?

• deliberately adding, removing or changing bits on Wikipedia to make Wikipedia less correct

List 3 situations where a edit which could be considered vandalism, may not actually be vandalism.

• Section blanking, removing references, repeating characters

What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes?

• When it says 'possible libel or vandalism next to it.

How do you revert vandalism?

• You can either click undo and then submit or install Twinkle go to the page click Last edit then rollback vandalism

What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page?
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has beenreverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC) What warning template would you use if a user add the words "i really hate wikipedia!" to an article?

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use thesandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you add an article to your watchlist?

• Tick the box that says 'watch this page'

If you misuse such tools as WP:TW or WP:VPRF what could happen?

• I don't think VandalProof is usable anymore is it? But you could get blocked as they are your own edits, your accountable!

I've looked over your answers, and feel it might be best if you re-read the lesson and re-answer the assignment on this page. You seem to do a lot of recent changes patrolling, so it's especially important that you have the process down pat. Let me know when you've re-read over the lesson and answered the questions on that page, and I'll look over the lesson. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism 1.2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see my user contributions. --Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What am I meant to do for the assignment for this one?--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the lesson to give some instructions on how to complete the lesson. Please bear in mind that adoption isn't something that should be rushed. It's more important to grasp the concepts in the lesson as opposed to just getting them all done quickly. I'll have a look over your reverts. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional Huawei question

Hello Steven, thank you once again for your recent assistance with the Huawei article. I am continuing to work to improve the article and have written another draft, which I wonder if you could review and offer any suggestions or advise if it can replace the current section. I posted a note about it on the Huawei Talk page a week ago, but no editors have been active there since. Please can you also advise if there is a better place for me to ask for assistance in future, as I am aware that you may have other projects in hand. The draft is in my userspace, here: User:Bouteloua/Huawei_Competitive_position_draft and is a suggested replacement for the current Huawei#Competitive position section. Thank you.--Bouteloua (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. The draft looks good, fine to add to the article. For what it's worth, you've put together three great improvements to the article. I think it's pretty safe to say that if you make edits like the ones you have shown me, you're free to edit the article as you wish, no need to seek approval from other editors, and if someone else disagrees with an edit you make, you can then discuss it on the talk page, but I see no real need to seek approval before you make the edits. Having a conflict of interest is only an issue when it shows through your editing, but the edits you have made are neutral and well sourced. Keep up the good work. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Steven, I very much appreciate your help and advice. I have now added this section to the Huawei article, and will certainly follow your advice about future edits. Thank you again. --Bouteloua (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thepoliticalmaster's rollback rights

Hello. You have a new message at Thepoliticalmaster's talk page. Message added 21:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC). – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 21:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Blast from the past

Hello Steve, good to see you again. Kind of ironic that our paths have crossed on an SPI. Remember our old friend Lapsed Pacifist? Well they've since received a siteban for pretty much wholesale socking: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapsed Pacifist/Archive, turns out he had another account with couple of thousand edits on it then started another to violate his original arbitration, basically breaching it by a couple of hundred edits. Kind of makes all the nasty stuff thrown about by him seem all the worse now thats its compounded by hypocrisy. Pity Arbitration didn't listen to your suggestion of a siteban originally. 16:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that happened eventually, and while I didn't initially think he would sock, it was inevitable. I get a teeny amount of satisfaction knowing I was right :P Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI on User:Cláudio César Dias Baptista

On Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cláudio César Dias Baptista you mentioned the case can be taken to ANI if it occurs again, just thought I'd point you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive704#WikiHounding / Article ownership issues / Possible IP socks. which is from a couple of days ago. The user continues to evade his block by not signing in and using a different IP every time. Usually I try to assume good faith with this sort of issue, but my good faith kinda went out the window when they started the personal attacks on the AfDs. XXXantiuser ^eh? 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Steven Crossin/DRNnotice

Hi Steven. I don't dispute that the new noticeboard is probably an excellent idea. However, the notice template is a wall of text. Enquirers to our WP:EAR page are generally very raw newbies and don't even bother reading either the page's header instructions or the even read the very loud, red, few, concise, simple instructions I wrote in our edit notice, so they are not going to read this. It may be infomative for the helpers, but even with my 500 or so answers as a regular contributor to the desk, I at first found it a tad confusing. May I suggest that I proposes something more concise? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง(talk) 03:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious to know why you first deleted this post and then restored it without providing an answer :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and make the edits. While my ideas are thought out, it's not quite clear to some, and to make it clear sometimes I can be a bit TL;DR. Feel free to tweak the message as necessary. As for the rollback, was using my tablet computer and accidentally clicked rollback instead of clicking the talk page link :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll get round to it later today. My version will be a lot shorter because enquirers are just not interested in background, RfC, and trials, etc. , so feel free to re-edit if you feel I've overdone it :)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I would suggest also moving this tpl now from your userspace to Template:DRNnotice , add the standard transcluded instructions page, and preferably with a mention that the template should be transcluded so that any changes you make to it will automatically be reflected everywhere the template has been posted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Steven, if you want to start another board, I have no problem with that. But the notice you want to post on AN/I directs people away from AN/I to some other new unspecified board for both content and conduct (i.e. everything), so it's confusing. I'd appreciate it if you'd leave that notice off, and just advertise the new board in the usual places. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't intend the notice to be confusing, and the new board isn't designed to be for everything. The notice is supposed to notify admins on ANI that disputes filed there don't have to stay there, they can be closed and directed to the new board. I'm not suggesting the new board is a replacement for ANI, far from itm'but if people don't know that content issues and general conduct issues (the non urgent ones) then nothing would change, and ANI will still get clogged with the random crap it does nowadays. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It was confusing as worded, and might have discouraged people from posting. I tweaked your header to restore the word "minor" from a previous version. The problem is that the notice doesn't clearly define your audience or purpose, because conduct and content covers everything. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}22:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That said, there was a consensus at the village pumo in part one of the trial to have a notice directing users to an alternative forum as an option, because as a new board few will be aware of it. I'm OK with you keeping the notice off ANI for the time being, but please restore the previous wording, just omit ANI for the time being. As for "minor", who ever thinks their dispute is minor? The wording was changed after discussion on ANI. I want to be accomodating, but at the same time don't feel its right to make unilateral changes when the ones i've made have had quite a lot of support. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you can offer a new board, i.e. you can advertise it. But the notice was telling people not to post at AN/I, and telling "helpers" (whoever they were) to direct people elsewhere. You first have to get the board up and running, and that will tell you what kind of board it is. But it should only be offered in the meantime as an additional option. Can you link to where these discussions took place? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's wait until the board ks up and running before doing stuff with the other boards like ANI. The discussion took place here. Cheers. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi thanks, I saw that discussion. I was wondering about the discussion you mentioned above about redirecting people away from AN/I. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's in the same discussion and proposal. Have a good read of it, it lists everything there. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

DRN

So the new board's purpose is essentially to absorb the roles of CNB and WQA, and to serve as a generic dispute resolution forum. That seems fine on paper, but the fact that CNB and WQA are still operating with a vague notice about a new board that "can" be used is just confusing. Don't you think WQA and the CNB should be closed, with directions to use the new board? After all, we're trying to simplify the DR process, right? I don't see that this is covered by the original proposal for the board, but I do think it should be proposed that WQA and CNB, at least, are replaced by the DRN. Thoughts? Swarm ^X 01:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it'd be better to close off CNB and WQA, but there was some resistance to doing it initially by a user who thought that running both boards for a trial concurrently might be of benefit. In the proposal, it does actually state that after the first stage of the trial, the second stage would involve CNB and WQA closed with all enquiries to be directed to DRN, but I dunno how to proceed from here, as the board is yet to be used. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request SteveBot 5

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SteveBot 5 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 23:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Reminder for me to do

• To-do, add anchors to all 24 minor character pages and update redirects to link to specific anchors, as well as add info about the original CTU set to the 24 conception section. ref. Also finish off Ocaasi's images. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Steve: If you haven't already noticed or been told, your adoptee has been blocked indefinitely for disruption, and has just submitted an unblock request. Regards, AGK [•] 16:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony, I was aware of both facts, but still appreciate the courtesy notification. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Sorry I messed up with the formatting, but I did my best. I don't know what you mean when you ask me to restructure my post. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism 1.1

Vandalism 1.1 has been completed here under Vandalism 1.1, also will speak to you tomorrow on IRC. --Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Make sure you've read the lesson thoroughly and are happy with your answers, please also see instructions on your talk page in regards to steps to take from here. Thanks. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 16:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Gave-It-A-Shot Award

Slakr's Gave-It-A-Shot Award For taking the chance and giving it a shot when it came to taking someone under your wing and sticking with it, I hereby award you a bunch of syringes so that you can continue giving as many shots as are needed. :P Keep up the great work. =) Cheers, --slakr\ talk / 10:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ew, I don't like needles. =(. Thanks for the award though =D. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....}14:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello Mr. Crossin. Since you adopted me I feel that, even though it has been a long time since I asked you questions you will always be my de facto go-to guy here. Is it just be or is the AfD process here on WP at best flawed in serious ways that undermine any constructive progress and at worst an exercise in futility--initiated mostly in good faith by an editor who wants to see a page that fails to fit the criteria of an encyclopedia--whereby the "consensus" is essentially a voting contest and any and all cogent agruments are drowned in a sea of emotion? Just wondering if I'm the only one who feels this way. I'm basing this Q on my experience, so it's possible.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jim. Long time no see. Remember you're free to do the lessons at your leisure if you want to. In regards to AFD, it can get quite heated, I agree, but in terms of votes and all, there could be an AFD with 50 delete !votes, none grounded in policy, but if there are ten keep !votes, all excellent rationales and all well grounded in policy, I'd like to think the result of the discussion would be to keep. Admins aren't bean counters, and from my experience they're pretty good at making decisions on AFD. Things get heated on AFD, but at the end of the day it's up to the admin to look at the discussion and judge what the consensus of the discussion is. Hope that answers your question. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steve. Indeed--as expected--your reply is helpful and tinged with optimism. Alas, my experience with AfD has left me with little faith in some of the editors that "judge". It could be my cynicism. It could be my bad luck. It could be my lack of tact. I'll bet it's a combination of these, but sure as stars that are shining, my experience is my point of reference. Thanks.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You are, as always, most welcome. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see for my new answers

Hi Steven, my new answers are:

1. What are unregistered users restricted from doing on Wikipedia?

   Answer - Unregistered users are unable to edit protected or semi-protected pages. They are unable to create pages outside of their user talk page. They are prohibited from deletion debates or they may be allowed to comment but cannot vote.

2. What technical abilities do stewards have?

   Answer - They have the ability to change user groups and user rights across all the Wikimedia's and have been appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation, they deal with cross-wiki vandalism. Also if a Wiki doesn't have a bureaucrat, then they fill the shoes as the bureaucrat de facto.

They are also updated at the page here. I hope you don't mind, I've nicked your old signature. PoliMaster ^Talk/_Contribs 21:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy issue

Hiya, I hear what you said about discussing the issue on the homeopathy talk page, believe me I have tried. I stated why this was impossible. Its not about a difference of opinion its about one group of people domminating and failing to discuss with reason, balance and in a reasonable manner. Have you looked through the discussion on the page? Cjwilky (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did look through the discussion on that page. I did look through the discussions on that page and it did seem to me that it had been discussed in length by the other users. They gave reasons that was grounded in Wikipedia policy, and made sense, so it is something that you need to discuss with them. Hence why I closed the discussion on DRN. It's best to discuss the issue on the article talk page. If after a while, there are still issues, you can always file a case at the Mediation Cabal later, but only after the issue has been thoroughly discussed. Take note, simply taking the case to the Mediation Cabal if you don't agree with the discussions on the talk page will not get you far. Discussion is the key point here. They have made points on the talk page, so it's important to respond to those points. Cheers. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You can see the tone of the discussions then. I have responded to the points raised. Their responses to me are often off topic and usually ignoring the logic of what I have said, keenly illustrated in the topic I highlighted. You suggest I discuss this, I think I have and all I have in return are "we have come to a consensus, move on", and even "Cjwilky, you weren't "accurately" anything, what you were doing is called cherry-picking and special pleading. Do we need to warn you any further about tendentiousness? Or shall we move straight to escalating blocks for disruption?" In anyones book, that is bullying and rather than getting into endless repetitions of the issue and pointing out the smokescreens and manner of their replies, I felt to move things on more productively asking asking for a bit of help was the best way. Cjwilky (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, an ed there decided to close the dicussion with threats if I were to continue. Don't quite see how that squares with what you have said. And don't know what the deal is here about who has 'authority'. Cjwilky (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, but I noticed the link you used in the conclusion went to WikiProject: Shopping. I think you meant Forum Shopping, and as such I changed the pipelink for you. If my assumption was incorrect, please feel free to undo it.Hasteur (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a shopping Wikiproject? Heh, yeah, I meant forum shopping. Thanks. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please mark...

Hi Steven, can you please mark Vandalism 1.1 aswell? --Thepoliticalmaster 17:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do later today. You should also have a look at the wikimarkup lesson :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Please mark as soon as you get a chance as I want to correct any mistakes.--Thepoliticalmaster 08:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Aron Magner question

I'm pretty sure this [1] edit should be reverted so no article talk page info is removed, but I'm not sure I should be the person to do it since I've done a little editing on the article in question and spoken to him on his talk page. And if I wasn't asking you this (in other words if I wasn't an adoptee) where would I be looking for an answer or who would one ask? In other words is there a standard approach? Or is it play it by ear? Also was the suggestion I gave him on User talk:DrewGranchelli ok? The article he was working on had a COI tag put on it and he's said twice he's the person's publicist.

I originally started following this article when it was on New Pages. When I'm looking at New Pages for speedy deletion candidates I often end up watchlisting some articles that look they might have issues or might develop issues down the line, to see if I can do anything to help. (I've got some more general stuff I want to ask/talk about, but for now I'll stop and just stop & leave it as questions about the specific situation.) Cloveapple (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Involved or not, people shouldn't edit or remove content from other people's talk page postings to remove content or change the meaning. If you encounter issues, the Administrator's noticeboard is a good place to go for some general issues, there's the new dispute resolution noticeboard for assisting in resolving Wikipedia disputes (created by yours truly). Sometimes there's no specific place to go for things, but a general forum to go, such as the content noticeboard. For now, I suppose you can always come to me though. COI is definitely an issue, and the article should be watched closely for issues regarding the content because of this. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm even more confused now. Are you saying the edit is fine? So it is ok for an editor to go back and edit their own article talk page comments days later to take out information? I knew it was ok to refactor one's own statement on an article talk page soon after writing it before anyone has replied yet (maybe clarifying or taking out typos), but I somehow just assumed a later edit wasn't ok. I guess I has assumed erasing one's own article talk statements was a no, partly because I thought that same editor had already erased the same statement and had it reverted by another editor, but on reviewing the history I had it wrong. An IP had erased that same statement and been reverted. Cloveapple(talk) 13:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

People are free to edit their own comments as they like. When I saw the comment, it looked to me like someome else had removed the content from their posting. Removing comments of your own, while can be misleading and is not generally something that is advised to do, isn't explicitly prohibited. If people type up something, then think better of it, they're free to change the wording to make it reflect what they meant to say, if that makes sense. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that totally makes sense. I get it now. I'd drawn some wrong conclusions from a couple situations I'd seen in the past. (I'd twice seen talk page comments get deleted and then that deletion reverted by someone else, So I'd gotten the wrong impression.) I'll restate it in my own words to be sure I have it right: Anyone can edit their own comments however they choose. No one should edit or remove anybody else's talk page comments. If somebody chooses to delete some of their own comments nobody should revert that change to put the comments back. In some cases editing or deleting one's own comments might not be optimum but that doesn't mean it's not allowed. (An exception to this is that you can choose to blank or archive all the stuff on your own talk page if what you remove is not a current block or sanction. Outright threats can also be removed.) Did I get that right?Cloveapple (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I'll just note it's preferred to strike out comments you change your mind about, like this: I like chocolate ice cream I actually like vanilla ice cream. But it's not prohibited to remve comments either. Rewording something you wrote is different, if everything that had been reworded had the original wording struck out, Wikipedia would be a mess. Make sense? Steve Public (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Abortion lede

Please take a look at the abortion lede.71.3.237.145 (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Inputboxes and level 3 headings

Hi Steven! I saw that you were testing the inputbox on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header. Unfortunately it broke the "add section" button, and I've reverted it back to the old version. I'm guessing that you were trying to find a way to make the inputbox text affect the level 3 headings we were talking about, is that right? I've been reading through the docs, and I'm afraid this isn't possible. At the moment inputbox can only make one heading at a time, and it can't pass variables to templates either. The only way to get that behaviour at the moment is by using a template, like for example the one at WP:CHUS. Did you have a look at the template I made? I can make it simpler/more complex, or change the wording, if that will help. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll play around with the settings a bit later, but basically what I was trying to have the input box info go into the template you made, so if "Harry Potter"" is put into the infobox, it would put itself in the template you made, under the{{article}} field. Make sense? Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to do the same thing myself, but unfortunately it turns out that it doesn't work. All the inputbox does is modify the URL, and there's no way to put information from the URL inside a template that I know of. It should be possible to do it with javascript, but I haven't got any idea how to program javascript. (You can always turn it off on the user end as well.) From the looks of things the inputbox extension isn't being updated too much either - probably the best thing to do here is just write very good documentation and leave it in a prominent place. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In the past I've been able to create templates using intricate code, and it is in theory possible, but will take a lot of testing for me to do. I'll see what I can come up with. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. If you work out how to do it, let me know! Feel free to edit/steal the template I made too. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Another thought - you could do it quite easily if you made each thread a separate page (like at the WP:AFD daily logs). This would, however, require that we transclude all the newly created pages on the main noticeboard somehow, which might mean writing a bot. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it would be too hard for people to keep track of that way. I'll work on the template over the next few days, I helped write {{aiv}} three years ago so with some effort I should be able to come up with something. I'm off to bed, will see any replies in the morning. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the one I wrote is just about finished - it could maybe do with some more tweaking, but I don't think there's really any need to duplicate our efforts. I wrote some documentation for it - have a look at User:Mr. Stradivarius/NewDRNsubmission. The missing link would be getting it to work with the inputbox, of course... I had another look at the documentation and I still can't see a way to do it, so maybe I'll go and ask the folks at the village pump. I definitely agree about the separate pages idea, by the way - it seems like overkill for what we are trying to achieve. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that looks pretty damn good. I'll play around with it. Good work. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Marking Vandalism 1.1

When d'ya think that you'll get around to marking it as I want to correct any errors?--Thepoliticalmaster 17:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Abortion

I think absorbing that into the move request discussion is likely to make the case unwieldy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, just dumping the current discussions about about abortion in with the move discussion wouldn't work well, but having two disjointed discussions about a similar subject could be counterproductive. It might be a better idea to place one discussion on hold until the other is resolved. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot question: template replacements

Hi, Steve. A couple days back your bot appeared to be replacing a welcome template I placed on IP user talk pages with a different welcome template. I'd appreciate it if you would look at the relevant threadhere and clue me in. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not a programmed function of the bot. Could you provide me a diff of the bot doing this? Cheers. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are three: 1, 2, 3. And the list goes on. There are a lot more. Rivertorch (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Er, the text looks absolutely identical to me, see this. Your edit and My bot's edit. It was merely substing templates. Seems fine to me. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That one does look the same. Checking further... Rivertorch (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You'll find they're all the same, all my bot is subst existing templates, doesn't change the content. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Steven, I'll have to apologize. I have searched high and low, expanded my watchlist to go back far enough, scoured my browser's history...and I cannot find the diff that prompted my query more than two days ago. I even checked the template histories and came up empty. What I remember seeing then was distinctly different text between the versions; I investigated and found it belonged to a completely different template. (Fade in Twilight Zonemusic) Since I'm not prone to hallucinations and have never experienced anything like this before on WP, the only thing I can think of is some really bizarre server error that screwed up the diff. I recently have been seeing occasional anomalies in the ways diffs are displayed, but not any that affected the actual content. <shrug> Sorry to waste your time. Give your bot a reassuring pat on the head from me. Rivertorch (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It happens. I was sure it wasn't a bot error, as all it does is change the template from the unsubstituted version, to the substituted version. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello...

Are you ignoring me deliberately? When are you going to mark Vandalism 1.1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoliticalmaster (talk • contribs)

Nope, just been severely tied up. Will do this today. Steve Public (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

meh

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		what you do here is simply amazing. — Ched :  ?  16:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, thanks Ched. I do my best. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That new Dispute resolution board seems to be really working out well. Congrats on that ... great idea. Hope the family is doing well. Cheers buddy. — Ched : ?  02:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope everyone else thinks so too, it's nearing the end of it's one month trial and I'll need support from the community to start stage two of the proposal - closing WQA and CNB with posts going to DRN. Family is doing well. FYI, you might want to take a look at the Mattisse SPI case again, there have been developments. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

OH? ... hmmmm ... you have the link handy? Have had a ton of email on very similar topics. Kinda funny in a way, but sad too. — Ched :  ?  03:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Case is here Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

D'oh ... all I had to do was look at my contrib history. lol — Ched :  ?  05:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• OH .. and drop me a link when you need support for the new board. — Ched :  ?  05:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		PoliMaster talk/spy 17:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

At one point are we in the mediation process? The proposed move was closed, so where do we go from here? Can I post my support for your move ideas? NickDupree (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, discussions at present have stalled, but that move request was closed part way through the mediation as no consensus. From here, we wait for more comments, and poke the parties in a few days if nothing's happened since then. Feel free to add your comments as you wish. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Spi

Hi Stephen. You mentioned in the Mattisse SPI (although I never saw the Mattisse connection) - "Behavioral evidence will have to be looked into here, but I assume it will take a while to look into. Still looking over contribs to see any possible connections." - there is some added detail on my talkpage, please have a look and assess. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Though it's all over my userpage, it still suprises me that some still misspell my name :) We're looking over the case now, will give updates on the case page when we've looked it over. Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Steven please excuse that. Off2riorob (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, that's alright :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanna say "hi." "Hi." OnionWeedle (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh, hello :) Steven Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

For your late nights on IRC! PoliMaster talk/spy 20:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)