User talk:Stevage/archive1

The Beatles' White Album

Just so you know, yes, the original cover was from a naked photoshoot. I can't find the actual photo, but I can find a photo from the same shoot. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/10/18/arts/17cnd-magcovers_184.jpg

interesting discussion here: http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=152

Just so you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.37.73 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to park/ranger pages

Hello Stevage. Recent edits to park/ranger related pages are not vandalism as you suggested. For example, Westerfolds park has wood barbeques, not electric, the Yarra Trail is a shared trail for all types of recreation users, not just pedestrians and cyclists. The suggested web link provided many useful links for anyone interested in being a park ranger. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and hoping you may reconsider future postings. Cheers from Ranger Rose. [unsigned, 203.87.38.44]

Fwiw, the link wasn't relevant to half the pages it was posted on, and it's just never a good idea to add a URL to 10 different pages. Stevage 20:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Queen (band)

On a more serious note..Stevage, please stop removing content from Talk:Queen (band). Many Wikipedians would like to keep track of what was said about a specific article, and therefore do not like to see it deleted. -- SoothingR^(pour) 15:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• I gave my reasons for deleting the paragraph from the Queen article on the talk page. TheImpossibleMan 15:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Queen talk page

Hi SoothingR, The Queen talk page seems extremely long and full of arcane discussions about parts of the article that no longer exist. I was trying to help by removing these, so a more useful discussion about the current and future directions of the article could take place. If you'd like to give me some ideas on how to be more helpful, I'd appreciate it, thanks. Stevage 15:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The talkpage is not that long compared to many other talkpages. See Talk:Main Page if you would like to see a really good example. Also, when the talkpage gets too long (as in..over 100 sections), an archive is made of the discussions. For example, Talk:Main Page/Archive 1 is an archive of old discussions on Talk:Main Page.
On the subject of being helpful, there are many ways in which you can prove to be helpful. You can help creating articles, fight vandalism, join WikiProjects..just take a look at the Community Portal for tasks and things you can do at Wikipedia. Once again, welcome! -- SoothingR^(pour) 15:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but in the context of the Queen page - call it my personal obsession that will last about 2 days. Would it not be helpful to delete the various messages like How Come I Can't Find A Site Telling Me The Dates For When Greatest Hits I Came Out!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They Are Very Good And I Am Only 11 And Like Them. or It appears that someone has managed to put insults in the article without my being able to edit them out. / Which insults are these, and where are they? You can edit any part of the article - just click "edit this page" up at the top. — Dan | Talk 05:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) ?

Perhaps there are even more useful things to do, but to actually undelete such deletions seems especially counterproductive? I appreciate your responses.

Let me start off by recommending you to sign your posts when you're done with a discussion on a talkpage, it's easier for others to see who said it. On the whole delete thing, I'm just applying Wikipedia guidelines. WP:TPG states that nothing should be deleted, rather, it should be archived. And since the talkpage of Queen (band) is not excessively large, I don't really see a reason to take action in the form of archiving, nor in the form of deleting. -- SoothingR^(pour) 16:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Bohemian Rhapsody

Thank you. One of my pet peeves is when a musical term is applied incorrectly. One only has to click the wikilink to read about what a ballad really is. There's nothing ballad about this song. There is a more technical term for the sections of these songs, perhaps "Exposition," but I think slow section is more appropriate when discussing a rock song.--malber 13:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

An argument could be made that these sections could be considered a power ballad style (not a true ballad). However, the term's usage was not introduced until much later, and it could be said that Queen and this song in particular introduced that musical style.--malber 13:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

How could it even be considered a ballad at all though, considering it's not about love? That section basically says "I shot someone, now I have to go and face the music, sorry Mum". I presume some copyright restriction prevents us actually putting the full lyrics in the page. It would be very interesting for the analysis. --Stevage 13:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it's definately not a ballad. For one thing, it's not in the third person. What I was saying is that an argument could be made that the section is a rock power ballad style (which again is not a true ballad), but I wouldn't say that because the term wasn't in use when the song was written. However, it's likely that this song was one of the inspirations for that style. This interpretation is, however original research. I'd like to see some references of credible sources for the interpretation and analysis section. --malber 13:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, http://queen.musichall.cz/index_en.php?s=sa&d=bohrap is promising (quick google for 'bohemian rhapsody analysis'...) ~

Melb panoramic comparison

• Since you were interested, I re-added the image back onto the web (re the melbourne talk page). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Melbourne and the schwa

Yes we do. the 'e' is almost a schwa. In fact Melburnian pronunciation on all words with the letters 'e' and 'l' is generally as a schwa. Try saying ' yellow elms held bells said Elvis' in Melbourne. Am I right? Lentisco 02:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Paris Page

(waving) Woo-hoo! I left a couple comments for you in the "work in progress" section of the Paris page - I finished a too-long but demographically concise History rewrite that perhaps could use your opinion and wordmanship as I myself am too "into it" to cut it up more. Anyhow I think you can do a better job of editing than I can.

Thanks, take care,

ThePromenader 03:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks there for the kind words mate, you got the right guy! :D - G^t 14:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy move

I replied on my talk page. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Skiing page duplication

Hello! Did you realise you turned the entire Skiing page, into two copies of itself? Anyway I've fixed it now...Stevage 09:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

wow, thanks. Interesting bug --

1. edit last section of a page.
2. remove entire section.
3. preview page. (looks fine, but has actually added full copy into last section.)
4. save page.

only happens if you bother to preview. won't happen again! thanks for catching it ;) ∴ here…♠ 19:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

DTS

Hello. I just tried typing DTS in the search/go box, it takes me to DTS, the disambiguation page. Maybe you last tried when DTS was a page for the sound system? Try it again and let me know. Qutezuce 18:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I see the problem. DTS redirected to DTS (disambig) but dts (Dts) redirected straight to Digital Theatre System]. I've changed the dts page to redirect to DTS now. Stevage 00:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Paris "suburban areas of interest"

Hi,

I agree with you. I tried to fix that section because it was easy ;), but you may of course move or remove its content as you wish. You're doing a great job on that page! Thbz 08:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Paris infobox

I once tried to make infoboxes for French cities that would be more simple (i.e. not separating city and metropolitan area information), but it is just impossible, because there are information that regard city (such as name of mayor) and information that regard metropolitan area (such as number of communes in the metropolitan area) that could not be mixed, lest it becomes too confusing. So I think it is better to leave city and metropolitan area information separate, in order to avoid confusions. I don't think the infobox is particularly long, so don't worry too much about that. Check for instance Template:Infobox Economy of the European Union. We're not anyway near as long as this one. If you check carefully, the Paris infobox is about as long as the United States infobox. Hardouin 19:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Celine Dion

This is probably a bother, but could you please take another look at the Céline Dion article. Ive taken the comments at the last FA and have tried to address them: Ive found many print sources, about 4 Books, more authoritative reviews:New york Times, Billboard.com, Los Angeles Times etc. Ive addressed her music, changes in sounds/genres, motivation etc. at the end of each sub-section, and Ive also added a "Image and Celebrity status" section at the bottom. Ive sent it to peer review for two days, but no reply. Comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 02:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Paris edits

About the architects, it is Bertrand Delanoë himself who said he wanted to gather the best architects in the world to build aesthetically acclaimed towers. I am just translating his words. As for "embalmed", again I am just translating the French word embaumé often used in reference to the muséificiation of Paris. Check for instance [1]. Hardouin 14:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "But please don't just revert changes made by others without discussion." Err... your changes in the first place were also made without discussion if I am not mistaken. If we set a rule, either we discuss everything before editing (very cumbersome), either we edit things without discussing it before, you tell me what's best. As for quotes, honnestly I heard it on French media at the time, and don't have a paper to quote on my desk. It's a very minor point really. If we need a quote for every single word that we use, we'd write two sentences a day. Let's quote figures, or controversial points, but not little details. Hardouin 23:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen Stevage, I really don't understand your insistence on this. If you start removing all unreferenced claims on Wikipedia, you might as well remove 95% of Wikipedia! We should only remove things that are pattently factually untrue. Besides, it's not like I said that the best architect in the world have built Paris or something. I just said the mayor announced he would call the best architect in the world to make towers. It's his words, he is free to say whatever he wants, I'm not passing a judgement, I'm simply doing copy and paste of his words. I never thought this could trigger suspicions of POV. Weird. Hardouin 23:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm easy, don't worry. Lol. The thing is, I have been submitted to such an intense level of criticism and bad faith from ThePromenader in the recent weeks that it probably made me more touchy now. I can't remember the last time I actually received words of appreciation for the tons of work I made on Wikipedia in the last two years (most of it outside of the Paris article). But then, I don't compete for medals or awards anyway. About the best architect thing, delete it if you wish. I am wasting already too much time on Wikipedia, and will not look for a quote for that. But please understand that the reason why I reverted your edit on this particular point is because the fact that the architects would be the most renowned in the world is central in the mayor project. The context goes like this: people in central Paris are opposed to building skyscrappers in the city because of the ugly towers that were built in the 1970s; the mayor wants to build towers to gain space; he knows that the only way he can have his project accepted is by convincing people that the new towers built will be aesthetically beautiful and works of art in themselves because the most renowned architect in the world will be gathered to build them. As you can imagine, I did not write all that kind of detail, the demographics section is already long enough. Hardouin 00:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I just came by to apologize for my quite angry post on the Paris talk page and say that I hope it doesn't scare you away. Your work has been great and we were getting a rythm there - please by all means let's continue. Never mind the "stepping on toes" - wiki is ephemeral and correctable; so should you cut a detail you shouldn't it can always be put back.

Myself I'm not really sure how to continue - You're the "text guy" and you arrange the facts that are there - Hardouin's the "fact guy" and he chose what went into the page. Me I'm somewhere between the two - "look, flow and fact". My problem is that, although my sources of knowledge are not near those of Hardouin's, I know more than enough to question picture presented by the choice of facts and my only problem is with that - but it only took me a bit of research to find concrete proof backing my misgivings. Actually much of my spare-time reading over the past weeks has been on Paris' economy, population, etc, in an effort to get a better overall picture so to better present an accurate summary. I am very studied in Paris' history and am even in the process of writing a book on the subject so no problem there. Anyhow, sorting out a confused interlacing of statistics, places named and regions involves rewriting, but my problem is that writing is not a thing I can do very well.

(looking again at above) As for my "bad faith" I think the only accusation that could be made against me is my having an overzealous sandbox page. All the same I had solid reasons for my propositions and even (very lengthily) explained them beforehand.

I hope that together we can work out a way of sorting out what to put in the page, its importance there, and putting it into text and into place. Preliminary discussions is the best way I can see, but it's true that this process can be slow and tedious. I hope I didn't talk your ear off. ThePromenader 12:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you were right to remove my accusation. However, Hardouin is a wily little creature and it is unfortunate that Wiki has little means of dealing with the likes of him. Looking at today's edits I see he also has a long memory - my first edits to the Paris page were to remove links to Disneyland and Parc Asterix, yet I ended up putting them back... come to think of it I've never managed to really change much of anything on that page. Whatever. ThePromenader 14:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing some reading on RfC and "good faith" and you might have even done me a service by removing my rant. So thanks. ThePromenader 19:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that it seems to have come to this conflict of three personalities. We all have different strengths, and different ways of working. I wish we could turn that into a benefit, rather than a hindrance in our work. But name-calling won't get us anywhere. Stevage 14:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Three personalities conflict? Don't get me wrong - I have no misgivings at all with the work you're doing! The motive for your changes is always quite clear, and you speak and listen to reason. My post wasn't name-calling, it was a direct accusation - or do you mean "wily creature"? Anyhow, yes, I must calm down. I just can't stand to see a page contain confusingly-written misinformation and be thwarted from doing anything about it. I've asked yet another user about this (whose work in the French pages is amazing) so perhaps with yet another first-hand-knowledgable hand we can get this sorted out. He has already been kind enough to contact Hardouin about his misleading error, so let's hope he listens to reason. Cheers. ThePromenader 18:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Paris History section

Hello Stevage,

Just a quick note as today I'm in deadline time. Again sorry for the History rewrite over your editing but as it was that section needed remolding - I did note it almost a week ago on the talk page and asked for help there - didn't you see this? Perhaps you missed it because the talk page is much too long - a second archive is surely in order. If you wouldn't mind I would much appreciate it if you can "tighten" my writing as a do have quite a tendency to get lost in the words and the details. My aim in that rewrite was to a) retain only events most affecting the growth of Paris and b) arranging them in a chain of events all can understand. Please, by all means, make it even more understandable and less long-winded, only the facts matter to me. As for the rest I'm not going to worry about it right now; the Talk page is long enough : ) ThePromenader 14:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Stevage, I've just had to touch up someone else's hastily-pasted reverts on the Paris page. Can you look it over for style? I spent a good lot of time patching things together but I can't say that at the moment I have head enough to catch all the errors. Thanks. ThePromenader 22:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've about had it. Another total revert down to the badly-placed photos. I can stand being edited, and even welcome it if it is improvement, but I can't stand having my edits replaced by the very errors I was trying to correct. This has been going on for months now, and I don't think its for nothing that there's only you and I attempting any changes there. Night. ThePromenader 23:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Pretty Pictures from Paris

The Paris administration section is back "down" and nice and tight again. I painted a pretty picture today (more than a week ago actually) and I'd like to show it to you : ) It's in the administration section of the Paris talk page.

Actually, while I'm at it, I tried cutting down and archiving the talk page a bit this evening but limited myself to "resolved events" - could you have a look at it too? One could get lost in there.

Thanks, take care,

ThePromenader 22:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Stevage, please check my message about ThePromenader's map at Talk:Paris#Administration. I don't have the appropriate photo editing software to edit the map, but if you have one you may want to try editing it. Let me know. Hardouin 01:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Paris administration tighten

I see you deleted the fact that there was no Paris mayor before 1977. Maybe we could also delete all the information regarding the prefectures. That info was introduced in the first place to explain why there was no mayor of Paris before 1977. In my opinion, if the goal is to be short, I don't think we need the prefecture information (both in Paris as a commune and Paris as a département). What do you think? On the other hand, I think we should leave the bit about the old Seine département, since it's important in relation with the current 75 département. Hardouin 11:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, about ThePromenader's map, I agree with you that the built-up areas could be removed altogether and leave only the administrative limits. Could you please take care of that? I don't want to edit the map myself, because I fear I am going to be accused again of article appropriation, if you know what I mean. Lol. Hardouin 11:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's very little work. What would be a lot of work would be to draw the limits of the built-up area according to the limits of the unité urbaine. But if the goal is only to remove the built-up area, it's very simple. For instance on MS Paint you just use the Eyedropper to pick up the color of the background, then you use the Fill tool to apply that color to the built up areas, and tadam, in two clicks it's all removed. Personally, I don't think that this original research is a minor thing. Within a week or two, this map will be everywhere on the internet, and basically we will be misleading people who will use this map as if it was true. Misinformation is far worse than no information IMHO. Hardouin 12:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Stevage, I have finally edited the administrative map. I have removed the built-up areas, which teetered on the edge of personal research, and I have put more information in the legend. The map is now purely administrative. Please let me know what you think of the new map. Given the high level of mistrust and accusations, I don't want to put the edited map in the article on my own initiative, and would rather have the opinion of another user before. Hardouin 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Old map

New edited map

Petite couronne and grande couronne don't have any official recognition, it's just a habit of language, but administratively speaking they don't exist, so I think it is better not to indicate them. Besides, the map is made such that if you want to color an area, you have to do it manualy, pixel by pixel, and it takes a hell lot of a time. It already took me a hell lot of a time to remove the built up areas pixel by pixel. Hardouin 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for interjecting, but what could one expect me to think of the above? Do you really think I went through all that work to make that map with the intent to mislead? Accusations of "personal research" - or basically spreading POV? Why was I not specifically asked anything? The manipulation here is elaborate. Why is the misleader accusing me of wanting to mislead? Why is this same person who does his best to thwart any changes to his work blithly appropriating mine, and getting another to upload it to boot? This is getting positively machialvellian. ThePromenader 21:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually Stevage, before we go any further, could you perhaps help in sorting out this problem between Hardouin and myself? We are in a standoff today most likely because I criticised his work before knowing it was his, and since then he has "drawn the line" at allowing my participation in correcting any of it. I'm about tired of this and would like to report it to mediation. But first things first. ThePromenader 21:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll do my best to mediate :) ThePromenader, try not to take things so personally if possible. By uploading your image here, you did license it under the GFDL, which encourages people to improve it where possible. Yes, Hardouin could have made more of an effort to get you to make the change yourself, but at the end of the day, he's taken an excellent image and made it even better. No one is accusing you of misleading anyone. The 'built up areas' probably aren't necessary for this administrative border map, and they'd probably need to be sourced from somewhere verifiable. That point is arguable (and either one of you could be right), but in the meantime, the controversial bit has been removed while the bulk of the image is the same as before. So in conclusion: Hardouin, please try and be more sensitive. ThePromenader, please try and be less sensitive. Thank you. :) Stevage 22:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words to start with : ) That image will get even better as I have exact data now, and this should please everyone. I'll upload it when it's done. Of course I knew that it could be used by anyone, that's why I uploaded it in the first place, it's just that I didn't expect things to happen quite that way. BTW, the GFDL is not the only licence I applied to it. ; ) ThePromenader 22:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nigger

"Nigger" is not, and has never been, a euphemism. Except until recently, and then only within the black community, it has been a racist slur. Denni ☯ 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'll second that ... it's not at all a euphemism; please don't use it as one. Courtland 03:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I know it's not a euphemism *now* (that's sort of the point of the article :)) I had thought it was less offensive once upon a time, perhaps because of Agatha Christie's "Ten little niggers" (since renamed). I'm happy to stand corrected. And it's a silly article to start a racism war on :) Stevage 03:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure if "less offensive" is the correct description, as much as "more widely accepted". Certainly today, the term still has its supporters in the Redneck Heaven corner of the US. Thank goodness that corner is drawing ever smaller as time goes by. What I find interesting is how the black community has adopted the term in-house. Interesting sociodynamics! Denni ☯ 01:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject AFL

Don't know if you've realised, but we've FINALLY got a WikiProject on AFL up and running. Write your name on the list of participants and let us know your thoughts. Cheers, Rogerthat 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Religious euphemisms

If you look back through the history of this article, you will find that for a considerable period of time, there were examples of euphemisms of various sorts. As the article evolved, a time came when all example euphemisms were stripped from the article and moved to list of euphemisms (which, as you can see, has disappeared after failing an AfD). I was initially opposed to this move, but given the difficulty of maintaining a reasonable set of example euphemisms, I now support it. The problem with providing examples is that every editor insists on adding their "own" euphemism, even if it's known only to them and their dog (no criticism of yours - I recognised the terms), and things kept getting out of hand. This article is on my watch list, and I had to keep stripping not-so-common euphemisms out all the time. My feeling is it's best if we aviod the urge to give our favorite examples, but hey, this is a collaborative effort, and thanks for checking in with me! Denni ☯ 01:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Re your suggestion to comment the article: good idea. But let me hear your thoughts on providing example euphemisms. If they can be maintained without being overrun, I'm not averse to having them in the article. It's just, as I noted above, the headache in maintaining an appropriate list of broadly recognised euphemisms that's the problem. Denni ☯ 01:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Rodney "Gypsy" Smith

I am sorry for the inconvienience. I should have noticed that when I went to the link. Also I would suggest that instead of having the name of the page be Rodney "Gypsy" Smith, move it to Rodney Smith. Thanks RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dictionaries in the wrong project

Please do not encourage new users to work on mini-dictionaries in the wrong project. It only causes strife when they are later zapped, as they eventually are. We have a dictionary. It's Wiktionary. Please encourage people who want to contribute to a dictionary to contribute to the correct project right from the start. Uncle G 16:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. But it's a bit like telling people not to leave cigarette butts on the ground. There are bins for them, but everyone can see the piles of cigarette piles lying around. Stevage 17:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not in Japan you won't. And littering is a crime for a reason. Radiant_>|< 22:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

One liner

If you like, but in the meantime please stop adding to the top of every guideline and policy page you can find! I'm probably going to take it to TfD since I think it woefully misguided. -Splash^talk

That's why I've been proceeding slowly and cautiously. Yours is the first opposition I've met, so I look forward to hearing your ideas explained in a bit more detail. Stevage 00:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If you absolutely must add them, please try to be more much more careful in your phrasing. I've removed the most incorrect ones, and left the others in as a compromise. I don't want to rephrase it, since as I said, I don't want it to exist. -Splash^talk 00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was really most careful on most of the talk pages to ask people to fix the wording, while leaving the boxes themselves there. I'd really like to hear your objections. Stevage 00:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I already wrote them on several pages, including the template's talk page. It doesn't help that you are nevertheless adding these rather weakly phrased distillations to pages that are official policy: new people will come along and think "oh, so that's all I need to know", when it isn't all they need to know and it is often the wrong way to write the thing(s) they do need to know. -Splash^talk 00:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a little simplistic. No one ever thinks a summary contains the whole article. Otherwise the article itself would be redundant. Anyway, please stop removing the templates, and I'll stop adding them, until we get some further opinions on this. Stevage 00:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I will not stop removing erroneous citations of policies from their pages. -Splash^talk 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Very well, but you're making it harder for us to get real discussion on the topic, as soon there won't be anything to show anyone. Stevage 00:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Howdy. I don't know if you subscribe to WikiEN-l, so here's my post on this topic from there: [WikiEN-l] One line summaries of WP Guidelines and Policies. Blackcap (talk) ^{(vandalfighters, take a look)} 06:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

How long should an article be semi-protected?

I've raised this question here, as now it's actually real and happening I expect more people will want to comment. Dan100 (Talk) 15:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Check this

Stevage, before you go or after you return from hollidays, could you have a look at Transport in Paris? This article, created and mostly written by ThePromenader, is full of spelling and grammar errors, plus the usual long-winded sentences and style. I have corrected only the most obvious spelling errors now, but I don't want to spend more time on this. Plus I don't want to get embroiled into yet another controversy. So whenever you have time, please make the necessary corrections. Thanks. Hardouin 23:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

(sigh) I just left a message above and saw this. Have a look at the talk page of the Transport in Paris, then at the page's history to find out how it ended up there. Then by all means correct it. Night, daddy Stevage : ) ThePromenader 23:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Formula Ford

It wasn't me who added the paragraph. It was there before, but someone who thought having a paragraph on the popularity of F.Ford in the USA was more important deleted it. I'm not very big on mechanics either, but by having the engine connected to the chassis, the car's centre of gravity is lowered and handling is improved. The concept was pioneered by Colin Chapman with the 1963 Lotus 25 F1 car. Pc13 22:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Paris_streets

Stevage,

I just wanted to invite you to a project begun not so long ago - the "Paris streets" project. You can find its "home page" here. I would have asked you sooner but it made it through (but with flying colours may I say) a "proposition for deletion" process ended only today. Myself I have yet to begin as there are a few details to iron out first - typically naming - but this is a decision that could be quickly made. I'd appreciate your input. In fact, it'd be great if we could work on this together.

Thanks, take care,

ThePromenader 18:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia?

You took the policy tag off of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia?

Wow! I guess it's official then. The experiment has failed, expect the wiki to be terminated shortly. I'll email Daniel Brandt right away, He'll be so happy!

Kim Bruning 10:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing the template tag doesn't mean that the page is't "true". For example, I'll say it here: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. That doesn't mean I should add the {policy} template. That template should be reserved for a minimum of pages which explain the official policies that have achieved consensus by lots of people working on them. WP:ENC is silly, and even says that its purpose is humour, not official policy. Stevage 10:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that wikipedia being an encyclopedia does not or no longer has consensus from a wide range of users? Kim Bruning 11:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that usage of the {policy} template is restricted to serious pages about Wikipedia policy, which have also achieved consensus from users. You seem to be arguing that any page about Wikipedia which is agreed with by most users should be marked 'policy', whereas I'm sure you don't really think that. If you want to keep arguing this, please move this whole discussion back to the Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia page where it belongs. Stevage 11:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm ha ha only serious, as is the page itself. Originally, most wikipedia guidelines were like this. Taking yourself too seriously seriously harms your ability to adapt and deal with the real world. Kim Bruning 11:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion sought

Hey Stevage, you may want to have your say on the recent Paris economy edits of ThePromenader. Have a look at Talk:Paris. The discussion with ThePromenader is going nowhere, so maybe it would be good to have a third person opinion. In a nutshel, if you don't want to waste time reading the lenghty messages: ThePromenader edited the economy section to replace "metropolitan area of Paris" with "Ile-de-France région". You already know his aversion to the use of "metropolitan area" I think. I explained that few people know what Ile de France refers to outside of France, whereas the notion of metropolitan area is widely understood in English speaking countries. I also showed that the Ile de France région and the statistical metropolitan area of Paris are 99% the same (using 1999 census figures). Finally I also provided citations showing that economists and geographers frequently equate Ile de France with the metropolitan area of Paris. ThePromenader accepts none and calls this my POV. So now, that's when a third person opinion would be helpful. Hardouin 12:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Return of the Son of Paris

Stevage,

Sorry about this. The meaning of Hardoun's writ has been clear to me for over a year now and I have been trying (quite naively) to convince through posting the facts and reason the wrongs in the page. To no avail. I have filed for mediation, so you need not be our "daddy Stevage" in all this (grin) - but factual input (resources) would indeed be helpful. If you would like to verify some of what I've pointed out, you could have a go at fixing it. If you do succeed the "dispute" tag will go - but if you don't want the headache I understand. For now I wait for mediation and will work on other articles. Here's hoping we will be able to "improve Paris" normally one day soon. Cheers! THEPROMENADER 02:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about compiling a list of reading for you - if you're interested. Nothing specialised at all - encyclopedias and institution weblinks. I really wish I could convince you, but for that you're going to have to read. It is quite obvious to anyone French that "our" (grin) Paris article paints a fantasy picture, but getting others knowlegable to contibute in my stead has been a chore. I have just begun another "tour de France" a few days ago, and although I have yet to find contributors I have managed to garner some support - have a look at my Talk page. This latest "drive" is recent so we will see.

I am damn sure of the wrongness of the Paris article, and willing to put my propos to any test. Once the article does get the attention it deserves from a consensus of informed people, it will be corrected, but IMHO everything between here and then is just a waste of time. I would like to make corrections myself, but cannot for obvious reasons (that themselve have yet to be addressed properly). Have a look at my last Economy edit and tell me what's wrong with it. So for the "revert fun" and page appropriation matters Hardouin and I have a pending mediation, and the article has a tag to draw attention to its inaccuracies. This is the shortest route to resolution. "Personal problem" mediation is a less urgent matter. but once the Paris article inaccuracies are gone (or my inaccuracy claims are proven wrong) the tag will go too. THEPROMENADER 10:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me be honest. I do not understand what you are trying to say. I have read all of your comments. I do not understand what you are trying to say. You allege "writs". You allege POV. You allege "fantasy pictures". The best I can do is say that you're not happy that the term "Paris" is sometimes confused with "Ile de France", or that figures that apply to IdF have been misapplied to "metropolitan area". You would be more effective in your goals if you would remove your waffle and write more clearly. Instead of complaining about who did what to whom and when, why and with what murder weapon, stick to: "In this section, term X is used. Term Y should be used instead. Term X means "...", whereas term Y means "...".

You say I need to do background reading to understand the topic. I say you should be able to present the information in a condensed format. We do not ask our readers to "do background reading" before reading the article - in fact we do the opposite. We *are* their background reading. Anyway. Stevage 10:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, if I was to tell you that the Demognitz city of Slobovia covered a thousand square miles and had the 64th largest economy in the world, you would most probably say "sounds fair" until you learned better. If you are too tired of all this riffraff to look into what I'm talking about (which would be perfectly understandable), then don't worry about it; I have asked others to look into it. All the same I see by what you wrote above that you understand me perfectly, but best keep the fact dispute separate from the "murder weapon" of my being prevented from making corrections. I consecrated a section to waffle-less X != Y. I don't expect anyone reading the article to do background research, but I expect that those editing the article would. THEPROMENADER 17:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeing the below - I confirm Hardouin's "aire urbaine" and IDF numbers. For the rest, you're being led by the nose. For example, most French people don't know what an aire urbaine is, let alone a metropolitan area - I would like to see Hardouin take this one to the French Paris page. I do not want to eliminate the aire urbaine; I want it to be used correctly where it is needed - I suggest you look in the Paris history for my Economy edit. In the meantime I will try to make my arguments clearer on the Paris talk page. All this walzing - I almost feel sorry for you. Let's keep the Paris discussion on the Paris talk page where it should be. THEPROMENADER 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that your only objection to using the term "metropolitan area" is that French people don't use it? Am I correct in understand that your only objection in the whole Paris article is the use of the term "metropolitan area"? Am I correct in understanding that you placed a "the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed" banner on the Paris article because of a query over the use of the term used to describe the boundaries of the city? Please, let's have some perspective here. Stevage 18:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you are not correct in "French people not using metropolitan area" - more "never use aire urbaine" and "don't know that aire urbaine exists" and "no citable references in existence use aire urbaine" - this is only part of the "Neutrality" issue. There exist no factual references for many of the facts and terms indicated, such as "Paris Metropolitan Area GDP", nor can there be. Again this example is only part of the factual contestation. THEPROMENADER 20:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Just so we're clear: Hardouin has been extremely clear in using the term 'metropolitan area' to mean both "aire urbaine" or "ile de france". You wouldn't suggest that "ile de france" is not a used term, would you? Now, the critical question you still haven't answered: What term do you want the Paris article to use? Simply objecting to other terms isn't getting anyone anywhere. Maybe there is no perfect term - but we have to use something. Please try and be constructive here. Stevage 20:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I would like the article to use Paris where appropriate, Paris agglomeration where appropriate, Île-de-France where appropriate, and aire urbaine (commuter belt or metropolitan area) where appropriate. Not aire urbaine everywhere. The aire urbaine is a statsic few know about and has no common use at all. Yet everyone knows and uses, as Hardouin said, "Paris region" or "Île-de-France" to describe the "île-de-France." "Aire urbaine" can be a substitute for neither. I cain't make it much clearer than that. Night : ) THEPROMENADER 22:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems there isn't much of a problem. The term "aire urbaine" appears exactly four times in the article. Twice in infoboxes and once in the text (all preceded by "metropolitan area"), and once in a reference for a statistic. If statistically speaking, "Ile de france" is almost identical to "aire urbaine" then I think your complaints about the use of one or the other are rather spurious.

I simply don't think the issue is important in any real sense. I have no idea where, say, the precise limits of Melbourne are, and this has never posed me the slightest problem. If I tell someone the population of Melbourne is 3.5 million, I don't stop and think about whether that's a statistical division, a formal administrative boundary, or some artificial line based on contiguous urban build up. If it was important, then I might come to Wikipedia for some sources and go and follow those up.

So perhaps you ought to concentrate your energies on adding your relevant URLs, which you collected on the Paris talk page, to the "References" or "External links" sections of the article. Or on something that matters. But not this. Stevage 10:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You're totally missing the point. Aire urbaine" is presented as an equal to "metropolitan area", or as being one and the same.

And you're yet to provide some sort of other definition of "metropolitan area".

Still you miss the point. There is no suitable "other definition" for metropolitan area. The Paris page says "aire urbaine" == "metropolitan area" - as one or the other, the term is inappropriately used.

The article contains invented and factually wrong information. "Almost the same" is not a suitable argument to support this twisting of statistical data to other ends. Find the facts yourself before deciding what facts are acceptable. Have a look at any encyclopedia, English or French, and find the terms used there for Paris. Look at the French Paris article for lord's sake.

Twisting to other ends? Which ends? What goal could possibly be achieved by using "metropolitan area" instead of some other term? Looking at the French page wasn't particularly informative. What am I looking for in particular? Whether French people say "aire urbaine" or not? It's a totally irrelevant question. French people don't say "French fries" ("frites françaises"??), but it doesn't stop us calling them that.

I really wish the problem was as simple as "french fries". What would you say should you read a page on Melbourne to discover that your city extends to a limit you never knew existed (no matter the word used to describe it)? This is at once the problem and the "other ends".

I am reinstalling the tag for the time being as it is totally justified and appropriate. Read Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute and Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute - almost all of the prerequisites for posing the tag are met on both pages. I suggest that you verify the right and wrong before deciding what's "acceptable" or not. You "won't see the problem" until you do. THEPROMENADER 10:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear god. Before, there were three people actively working on the Paris article. Because of your objections to a term, you have now put two of them completely off side. I trust this achieves your goals. Stevage 10:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This goes far beyond a simple "objection to a term." One cannot take a little-known and little-referenced statistical area, "translate" it into a "general limits" term well-known and often used by English speakers, and use it to supplant the well-known (to the French) and everywhere-referenced administrative Île-de-France region. My aplogies, but you are quite hastily trying to mediate a situation without informing yourself on the topic being discussed.

Have you tried the Wikipedia Ircle channel yet? I think a live discussion on this would be extremely useful. THEPROMENADER 11:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to continue our conversation tomorrow but I can't very well do it from the blackberry - here's hoping I'm not too late in returning. In the meantime please read up on Paris. Putting things right is not complicated at all, but proving things wrong is. If I could just place the correct terms without being reverted I would - although it looks as if things may soon change for the better there. If you should learn the right and wrong of all this first you may have better luck. In the meantime, cheers. THEPROMENADER 22:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Had a bit of a think about it. I think you're making a massive mountain out of a tiny molehill. Sorry, but I don't think I'll spend any more time on it. If you could simply express your objections clearly and simply, without accusing anyone of anything, and without using such figurative language, you might get somewhere. I genuinely believe your issues with the page can be stated briefly. However after all this time, I still don't understand them. Sorry, but I give up. Best of luck to you. But I've wasted a lot of time on this and I don't think it's worth it. Stevage 22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally understand. All the same I don't call supplanting four administrative and widely-referenced demographical division terms with the badly-translated name of a little-known statistical tool without any added explanation "a molehill".

You give up just when you were just beginning to look into the question - I do regret this. Never mind though, it will all be sorted out soon. THEPROMENADER 09:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I came across this little gem of an article that may make things clear to you in a way that I have been unable to achieve until now. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, too late! :) Stevage 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it was just for your information. ; ) THEPROMENADER 20:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Figures

I saw your message on my talk page. I also read your comments on the Paris talk page. You say you have problems finding exact figures for the metropolitan area of Paris. Let me give you the figures, so you can have a better grasp at this confused debate. All figures I give you here come from www.splaf.fr, an excellent French site using only official census data.

• Aire urbaine of Paris, a statistical area which is the French equivalent of "metropolitan area": 11,174,743 inhabitants at the 1999 census
• Île-de-France administrative région: 10,952,011 inhabitants at the 1999 census

Of the 10,952,011 inhabitants of Île-de-France in 1999, 10,842,037 (98.99%) lived within the limits of the aire urbaine of Paris, while 109,974 (1.004%) lived outside of the aire urbaine of Paris.

Of the 11,174,743 inhabitants of the aire urbaine of Paris in 1999, 10,842,037 (97.02%) lived within the île-de-France région, while 332,706 (2.97%) lived outside of the Île-de-France région.

Do you still follow me?

What the figures show, is that the aire urbaine/metropolitan area of Paris and the Île-de-France région are almost identical. When economists and demographers do not possess data for the aire urbaine of Paris, they use data for Île-de-France instead, because both areas cover each other almost perfectly (more than 97% the same).

ThePromenader wants to delete all mentions of the aire urbaine/metropolitan area of Paris and replace them with "Île-de-France". I think this is spliting hair in four. Most people outside of France are not familiar with "Île-de-France", whereas English speakers understand what "metropolitan area" means. I also note that French people themselves almost always refer to Île-de-France as the "région parisienne" (as in "mon fils habite en région parisienne" or "la région parisienne abrite XXX sièges sociaux d'entreprises multinationales"), because in their mind the Île-de-France région is simply the metropolitan area of Paris.

Please answer on my talk page if you have comments. If you want to know more details on certain aspects of this, just ask me. Hardouin 13:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Totally disputed" tag

Hey Stevage, the "totally disputed" tag has unfortunately been reinserted in the Paris article. You removed it, but ThePromenader re-added it. I removed it, but he re-added it again. What should we do?

I am reading your message above, and all I can say is do not despair! Wikipedia is often like that, "prise de tête" like the French would say. A third party with fresh vision and no prejudice is strongly needed at the Paris article, because this two people "dialogue" with ThePromenader is going nowhere and is really driving me nuts. So, "haut les coeurs, et prend ton courage à deux mains"! After all we are working for the enlightenment of mankind. Noble task worth some sacrifices. Lol. Hardouin 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. There's a lot of work to be done around here, and I'd rather invest my energies somewhere else. I genuinely believe TP does have a point there somewhere - but he is almost incapable (sorry, TP) of expressing it. SO, it's just too much work really. The only thing that personally bothers me in all this is the totally disputed tag. It's just offensive. You see it from time to time on genuinely divisive or controversial topics like abortion, gay rights, creationism...but Paris??? Houlà! Et au pauvre malheureux qui va se mêler dans cette triste affaire, je te souhaite bon courage! Stevage 07:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Stevage, I know that I try to describe several things at once - the factual "wrong from right" took time to unravel and my arguments have yet to "settle down" into something pointed. I will refine as soon as I can. For now the "singling out" of the most glaring errors - citing of nonexistent statistics for example - is done, and, thanks to that tag, since I am (*cough*) unable to make corrections, anyone who cares to verify them can. This allows my beacon to stray; I have projects of my own to work on, and filling up Talk pages with tiresome details takes time, you know : ) THEPROMENADER 21:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I, in the strongest possible terms, urge you to either remove the tag, or fix the problem. I strongly disapprove of your placing the tag, then wandering off to let "someone else" fix it. Get your mediation done, and get whatever the problem is resolved, and get the tag off. It's an embarrassment as it is. Thank you. Stevage 21:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't be "wandering off" anywhere - and I find that the article as it is is an embarrassment. It would perhaps be a good idea to separate problems for now. Very well. I will be attempting once again to fix the problems this weekend. THEPROMENADER 21:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Diplomacy?

Stevage,

I do have to say that your 'diplomatic input' through all this has been rather frustrating - if you don't understand the problem, how can you expect to suggest what's wrong or right? If you don't read the WP:NPOVD and WP:AD how can you say the tag is not justified? It is through most every reason indicated there for its use! Read especially How to initiate an NPOV debate. Both tags and inaccuracies are embarrassing, but at least tag shows that the page's contributors intend to fix things.

Well noted. I've tried to be a diplomat. Not a subject expert.

The errors are one problem - fixing them is another. If I could spend an hour or two one morning making corrections without worrying about later seeing them reverted without justification, I would, and no doubt the quality of my work would better. Do you really think it normal that one can totally revert the work of another without proper justification - and this without ever engaging in the pre-emptive discussion asked for well beforehand, or providing any reference proving the validity of the reverted version after? This also you seem to ignore.

I think both you and Hardouin could improve in the ways you work on Wikipedia, yep. :)

With the tag I hoped to 'corner' some pre-emptive discussion - but now it looks as though we're off for another round of 'stall and revert'. The fact that there's a pending mediation case may make things different this time around - here's hoping.

For what it's worth, I find such a tag highly provocative and divisive, and more likely to do harm than good. For what it's worth. Stevage 19:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

THEPROMENADER 09:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Devils Tower

Hi again. After a rummage on my hard disk, I found the following image ...

Devils Tower National Monument

It's taken from the same location (or nearby, can't remember), but I oriented it to get more of the surroundings in (though it does tend to dominate the locale). Hope this is of interest. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Template merge

Because you can achieve the same result with a single template. There was only one word of difference, and any such page already has a big honkin' {{guideline}} or {{policy}}. Radiant_>|< 20:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Or you could create an extra parameter, e.g. {{nutshell|policy|description of policy}}. There's some precedent for avoiding templates that are mostly redundant. It's not really a big deal, but what I'm trying to avoid here is that someone changes either the "policy" template or the "nutshell" template to a guideline instead (or vice versa) and that this will lead to further confusion (there's enough confusion about policy/guidelines as it is). Anyway you're welcome to revert the merge if you really want. 23:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thank you for deactivating the how-to category link on my user page. Kinda embarrassing that I didn't think of that .... --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 14:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Peacock words

Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms has been part of the Wikipedia style guide for 2+ years. Unless you know of some process that's formally rejected this style guide, please don't mark it "rejected". --ESP 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:POL

Thanks, and I'm glad you got around to summarizing the lot of them. Keep up the good work! Radiant_>|< 07:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, thanks. As a newcomer, I greatly appreciate your hard work, which has saved me some time in getting up to speed. --TJ 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Verifyability

I pretty sure that I am coming off as a pain in this discussion on the 'verifyability' page. I guess that was just my response to what I saw a absolutist additutes. Anyway, I wanted to say that yours was the most reasonable voice I heard in that conversation. See you around. ike9898 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Singapore MRT Fines.jpg

No durians. Priceless. Melchoir 05:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at template talk:welcome

Hi Stevage. I decided to reply here, as you may not notice my reply in that place.

My primary objection to including Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes in the welcome template was that it needs a bit more work. You believe that that article is useful enough for any newbies to see it, so then you could polish it a bit first before asking again for it to be included. I don't have a monopoly on the welcome template, so if other people also react positivley, and since you are asking something reasonable (replacing a link, instead of adding yet another one) it may go in.

And I would like to give you a friendly advice. Please take it that way, even if your first reaction may not be positive, I do mean it as a sincere suggestion. I think you should be more careful with your comments, so that even when you don't agree with somebody, your comments don't sound like a bitter remark by an irritated user, but rather as constructive suggestion or criticism. Again, just a suggestion. Thanks, and you can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne University Student Union

Hello. I note you deleted what seemed to me to be a highly relevant link to a website I publish about MUSU and its liquidation. You might not like its "POV" but that doesn't justify removing the link, its relevance cannot be disputed credibly. Do you disagree? DarrenRay 23:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on the MUSU talk page. Don't go jumping to conclusions there! :)

Good onya for getting in and reworking the article without getting involved in the POV waffle. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have moved Melbourne University Student Union to University of Melbourne student services as the first step towards merging this group of articles. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Try to verify

Wikipedia:Try to verify is the product of discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability and discussions on Wikien-L. It's not something that appeared out of whole cloth.

Do you find anything to disagree with in the content of that piece? Or is adherence to process the standard by which you make judgments? (I know that sounds disputatious, but I'm not trying to be. I'm just trying to clarify why you made the change, since I come from the age of "rules to consider", not the increasingly bureaucratic world of today's Wikipedia, and don't really understand what constitutes a "consensus" nowadays.) --The Cunctator 22:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

University of Melbourne student services

I doubt the ettiquette of Wikipedia or rules allow you to unilaterally remove my merge proposal for the article, so please don't do so again. I'm trying to constructively sort out a situation where an article has been devised that is a total mess, is riddled with political bias and factual error is taken to a higher level, hopefully by editors who aren't pushing an anonymous/pseudonymous agenda. Please respect the suggestions of others. DarrenRay 21:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking for articles to work on?

Hello, Stevage. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 22:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between DarrenRay, 2006BC and others. You are being named as an involved party. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated discussion

Hi, not sure which reverts we're talking about now but I have removed the TotallyDisputed tag as we're not far from something that's OK. At least by me.

One outstanding issue though is Dean McVeigh and I don't really know how to deal with that. I think we have an absurd situation where dozens of news clippings speak to his notability, the article is neutral enough. It's been up in the user space as a draft and no one has even made a suggestion to change it. That's why I get a little confused about the activity in reverting it but there's little interest in participating in a discussion. I am a compromiser by nature, training and experience. That's what I'm looking for but instead I'm dealing with unilateral edicts and no one willing to engage in a debate.

I'm very willing to engage in debate, and indeed I have done so at the talk page. Still waiting for some replies. Stevage 12:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's frankly not enough for people just to assert their view and insult me or attack my motives to attempt to get their own way.

Of course not, but be more specific, please. I certainly have not "asserted my view" (other than expecting neutrality and good-faith from editors), insulted you, or attacked your motives (other than stating the obvious, which is that as an involved party, and based on the edits you have made, you are apparently attempting to make these articles more sympthetic to your view of the events). If you're talking about other people, then you're on the wrong talk page :) Stevage 12:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I continue to be open to discussion. The University of Melbourne student organisations article seems to have fewer mistakes and less bias than it had but is far from perfect.

I would like to see more proof of your openness to discussion. In fact, any discussion of actual elements of individual articles would be great, rather than just vague accusations of bias. Stevage 12:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I took off the Totally Disputed tag as a gesture reflecting the improvement and some hope that things will improve further.

An odd choice of gesture, if you ask me. The page is still very far from acceptable, in terms of neutrality and sourcing. I would rather see you restore, for example, some references to the Optima property deal. If you have reasons for believing there should not be any, please "debate" or "discuss" them. Rather than just reverting such additions. Stevage 12:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The article still needs a clean up. I'm not game to do it in these circumstances but encourage anyone to try. DarrenRay 10:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

With respect, that's a bit of a cop-out. You're at least partially responsible for "these circumstances". If you'd like to stay away from the article altogether, that's fine, but we'd appreciate your input. Just try and do so in a more productive way. Thanks. Stevage 12:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree it's a cop-out. I think we all need to contribute. But boy oh boy, it's not easy. The page is being used to attack people and Wikipedia is strongly against defamation, perhaps there's some unknown exempting of articles about student unions. There shouldn't be. When I remove the violent and aggressive language inserted by some, it is accused of being 'weasel words' a term I don't even understand but I assume means not tabloid enough. If this is an encyclopedia project then it should be treated like that. At this stage many anonymous people who won't put their real name to what they are writing are turning the variously titled student organisations at University of Melbourne articles into little more than a vehicle for attacking rivals. --2006BC 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, a couple of points here. First, again, you might as well drop the "anonymous people" argument - it just won't wash here. Most Wikipedia contributors are "anonymous" and this does not present any problems at all to the project. It actually helps, if anything.

Next, attacking and defamation are not the same thing. The Hitler page accuses him of genocide. Is that an attack? Maybe. Is it defamation? No, because there are decent sources to back it up. What attacks do you see? Be specific and we might be able to get somewhere.

As for violent and aggressive language, well, examples would help. If an Age article said Bob Jones had been convicted of fraud, we would said that hed been convicted of fraud. If someone has been established to have done something wrong, then we report the fact, if it's relevant. Stevage 07:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation marks and spaces

Hi, thanks for your fix to the punctuation marks template (space character -> space (punctuation)). I can't believe it escaped me! --Gennaro Prota 13:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

University of Melbourne student services

What is the point of changing the redirect from this page to a page that does not exist? Am I missing something, but I saw a similar redirect the other day and the article was not created. --Bduke 23:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Rugs Galore

You might be interested in this article. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

SafeSpeed

Which? magazine of October 2004 contained a critique of the one in three claim, including the key facts here. I can probably find a copy somehere to email you for verification but it's copyright. Just zis Guy you know? 21:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA

I am sorry to inform you that I am de-listing your current Request for adminship due to lack of support. Please, don't let this discourage you from editing, as you are still a very valuable member to our encyclopedia. Thank you! Moe ε 04:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Since your RFA was made in good-faith rather than in bad, in was readded. Moe ε 04:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Gmail

about your talk:gmail#Lead section too short, there you go. ;-) enjoy fixing my grammar. :P --Caue (T | C) 15:33, Saturday 2006-04-1 (UTC)

Capitals for birds

I replied on the project page, but you can also read the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life (and several other scattered places around wikipedia). Hope it helps! Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

you can unprotect Melbourne University student organisations

I think the dispute has died down now. I don't think anyone has any immediate plans to rename. :) Stevage 16:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes you're right, and thanks for reminding me (I had sort of forgotten :) ). --bainer (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

List of fighting game terms

Excellent point you made on the talkpage. I'll place it up for deletion as soon as some other user's put in thier two cents. -Zero^Talk 15:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Responded on my talkpage. -Zero^Talk 16:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yay, Great job killing and interesting and informative article, particularly when the information could of easily of been relocated. Good Job doing a disservice to Wikipedias readership. While you're at it, why don't you take a stab at List of Mega Man skills and attacks. :) :) :) --Kayin 02:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the information should be relocated. If you need help getting it back, ask an admin. Stevage 09:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Neologisms

Hi there, a while ago you made an edit on the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 00:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Quantum dot

Sadly this failed it's good article nomination. Please see the reasoning here. --Celestianpower ^háblame 23:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA

I saw your comment on the project page and was just about to nominate you (as you seem like a great editor to me) though you might want to wait a couple months before applying (or accepting a nomination from someone else) - its just another reason for people to oppose (sigh, I think I was the only editor in the last 2 years to pass on a 2nd RfA a month later). Keep up the good work though, and once people have no more reasons to oppose, I'm sure someone will send a nomination your way :-) -- Tawker 23:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:HeidelbergTun-edit1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HeidelbergTun-edit1.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA thank you

Dear Stevage, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:PanoChambord2work3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PanoChambord2work3.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture peer review

Hi Stevage - thanks for your message. Just wanted to let you know that I've seen it and that I'll try to have a proper look this evening... I'm supposed to be revising for exams at the moment :)
Cheers, Yummifruitbat 13:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've uploaded an edited version if you'd like to take a look. Hope that helps :) --Yummifruitbat 22:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

re: User:R. Koot/Esoteric programming languages

It's not an AfD yet. I'm going to try and do some merging and improving of esoteric programming language first, hoping that that it will smooth the process when I do put it on AfD some day. Cheers, —Ruud 22:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)