User talk:Stevenmitchell

Welcome!

Hello, Stevenmitchell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- JamesTeterenko 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey! Thanks for your post on Ezzelino da Romano. You were probably referring to me as "the one who is not confortable with English". Of course, I'm of Italian tongue... Why don't you edit it and improve the language? Let me know. Attilios 22:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're talking to me about the Mafia page - if I've done anything to it it would only be minor proofing edits, I've certainly not added any content to it. I have concentrated on Mafia articles that clearly needed cleaning up, and I have only used reputable sources to do so. If you don't like what's in the Mafia page then do something about it, it's nothing to do with me. C i d 14:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven- You might notice that the Democratic-Republican party was, during its existence, referred to as the Republican Party. You might also notice that I didn't change the link (which was to Democratic-Republican Party (United States), not to the modern Republican Party.) You also do not need a history degree to be a bit polite when leaving a message on a user page. Regards, Paul 20:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that I redirected an article you started, Graduated income tax, to Progressive tax, which is an already extant article that covers virtually the same topic. I did not do this for any personal reason or for retaliation, so please do not take it that way. Paul 20:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report from FairTax Talk... Thanks for pointing that out.

It should be noted that the National sales tax should not redirect to the FairTax as the "FairTax" is just one very specific proposal created by a specific group of people and is only a type of National sales tax. Stevenmitchell 09:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should be a disambiguation page. I'll try to find a description and look to see if we have any other National sales tax plans on wikipedia. Morphh 13:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I've redirected this to the Sales tax page as it was more appropriate. This page discusses a National sales tax more generically and includes information about the FairTax in the last paragraph. Morphh 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious, I was surprised to the the United States listed as one of the example countries which does not allow the publication of websites that promote certain views. Am I reading this wrong, or is there more information I need so I can understand this? Jfiling 23:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I know what you mean. I have many more than 5,000 edits (which only mildly interests me because I'm not an edits whore, and I have no aspirations to be an admin). Why do you say that Wikipedia says I only have 500 since March 6? (I actually have 500 since June 27 at the moment)--Esprit15d 13:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edits to the Primerica Financial Services article were intended to fix errors and inaccuracies in the history of Primerica. The previous versions of the article focused mainly on Travelers history, not Primerica's.

If you have insight into Primerica illegalities, please feel free to edit the article.Primerica 18:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live in a warring country, you do not. I risk my life by mere being in my homeland, you do not. I am in touch with Islam on a daily basis, you are not. Judge (and speak) only when you know all the facts and not out of politically-correct (and factually wrong) stereotypes. They will remain stereotypes and they will remain wrong no matter how many times they are repeated and no matter who repeats them. Because the truth is objective. Please read the Quran and the Hadithes first and do not waste my time. Though I am a staunch atheist and believe that all religions should be marginalized, I can say for sure that "Eye for an Eye" rule is not a violation of Golden Rule in any way. Golden Rule in its Jewish interpretation states: "do not do unto others things you do not want to be done unto you". It is a proactive rule, whilst Eye for an Eye is a reactive rule. When the harm is done it should be punished. Golden Rule is not an excuse for absense of punishment for a crime that already has been done. If you can't see this simplest difference, that shouldn't be my problem. And the least thing I want is to discuss this stuff with Western leftists. It has caused me enough distress for the last 6 years and I am not in a mood to continue this, especially after the latest f***ing war. Wanted to cancel my talk page to avoid these cases of forced discussion but the system fires it back every time. So please refrain from this in the future. --Aleverde 18:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, It was a mistake and I have cleared the warning message. Thank you for letting me know. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 09:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please see my reply to your post on the Talk:Takshashila University page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

u left a comment on my talk page asking why i live in UAE. I am not in UAE by choice.. I'm sorta stuck here with no where else to go. ironically enough, the locals here do whatever they please and tell the expats "if you don't like it, then leave" Shakespeare Monkey 09:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you are stuck there with no place to go. What do you mean by "the locals here do whatever they please"? Stevenmitchell 13:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, I've replied to your post on the Takshashila University Talk page. To be honest, (as I say there), I'm not even sure why that page exists, since everything there already appears on the Taxila page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the name of the page to Takshashila centre of learning. As I say on the talk page there, the evidence that it was not a university was overwhelming. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the Apollo article, you added these words to the description of the oracle at Delos: "and was provided by a priestess". unfortunately, i can't parse what you might have meant by this, and the addition makes no grammatical sense. could you please clarify that addition? thanks in advance. Whateley23 03:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can see you are a decent editor. Finish it off first- I reccomend writing articles in a personal sandbox in future, so that something like this doesn't happen again. J Milburn 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, seeing as you didn't finish it off, I have tagged it for deletion. J Milburn 01:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time please do not delete something while I am working on it... I got the following message when I went to save it:

User Wknight94 (talk) deleted this article after you started editing it, with a reason of:

Stevenmitchell 02:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As J Milburn said above, that article was sitting in a non-article state for over 24 hours. If you're going to leave them for that long, you should use a sandbox area (like my User:Wknight94/Stuff In Progress page). If you'd like the content that was deleted, let me know and I'll restore it to your user area. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder, when adding notables, put them in alphabetical order (unless some other order is indicated), add a capsule bio and (most importantly) provide a source to demonstrate a connection between the notable and the community. See the Bernardsville, New Jersey for an example. Alansohn 01:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been replied here. -- ehudshapira 17:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Uniroyal. It is considered vandalism. If you think an article should be deleted, please use deletion process, in stead of blanking the page. Od Mishehu 05:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mishehu, you should clarify words describing my actions... I merely removed the REDIRECTION link to Uniroyal since the company you were pointing United States Rubber Company to has been extinct for 40 years. It was my intention to add a new entry for Uniroyal that listed current information as the posting for U.S. Rubber doesn't include current information of the last 30 years or so, such as the company's ownership by Michelin... But, hey, you may think that give or take 40 years is up-to-date. I just thought it was highly misleading information and deserved its own separate entry that would incorporate the history of US Rubber since its origins pertain to your REDIRECTION, but not its evolution since that time... I still believe it deserves it own entry... Regards, Steve Stevenmitchell 21:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a redirection (rather than replacing it with an article or a disambig page) is still vandalism. Once you have an article to put there, you can replace the redirect with it. Od Mishehu 09:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC
--David Shankbone 18:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls watch out for vandalism in this article post your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.66.28 (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stevenmitchell! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | finger on pulse

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello-Could you please explain your edits in this regard further on the talk page, so that we can work it out there rather than having a revert war? Thanks. Cretog8 (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Caxton Associates, LLC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Apparition11 (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Apparition11. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Apparition11 (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit pages to add personal opinions, as you did on speed limit.[2] Novasource (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the question, but please, next time, try to be a little less accusatory in your remarks. Regarding your question, if you check out the Bill Walsh (American football coach) page, you'll see that he was never a choch for the Kansas City Chiefs. While the other Bill Walsh, was a center for the Steelers and then became an offensive line coach for the Chiefs between 1960-1974, meaning he was on the coaching staff for Super Bowl IV. Please see here. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. --Masonpatriot 01:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:180px-Margaret Hale00.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stevenmitchell. Regarding you recent edits of JV's novels Carpathian Castle, Claudius Bombarnac, etc. The novels which are already in say, [[Category:1876 novels]] should not be placed in [[Category:1876 novels]]. This is a standard WP policy, please refer to Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories for more details.Henry Merrivale (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence in Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories goes: ... articles belonging to such a subcategory should not be placed in the parent category also.

[[Category:1876 novels]] is a subcategory of [[Category:1870s novels]]. Thus, any article categorized in [[Category:1876 novels]] should not be included in the parent category, to wit in [[Category:1870s novels]].Henry Merrivale (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to check your talk page and watchlist there.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 06:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly constructive? This is just false information. Garion96 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is it just the "wars" part of that statement, or is your request about the whole sentence? Tnx. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 02:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 22:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, E Sanchez. I would put a reply on your User Page but it is total chaos and way to difficult to find an orderly place to post my reply. I created the disambiguation page because there isn't one, so I was creating a redirect, which you annoyingly and erroneously deleted - literally within 10-15 seconds of my posting it - so I can't even finish what I am doing. Please Sanchez, go find somewhere else to be incompetent - certainly do no interfere with something right while I am doing it. How I am I suppose to finish it. Get a grip, grow up and do something else... Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. If it sounds as if I am annoyed - you are right - I am... It's like having mice underneath your bare feet while you are trying to walk through a vegetable garden... Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is quite easy to reply on my user page. There's a cool little tab up there that says "New section". As for the deletion of Delafield (disambiguation), I believe it is unnecessary. The page Delafield is already a disambiguation page. Having the suffix (disambiguation) after the name is not necessary. For the record, I am not an administrator, and I cannot, nor did I, delete the page.

Perhaps I did act too quickly, but that is no reason to call me incompetent. Read up on WP:ATTACK and WP:CIVIL. I did what I was supposed to do. The deleting admin knows when you created the page, and how fast I acted towards nominating it for deletion. (S)he could've said, "hold on, let's give it a few seconds". But, I believe (s)he deleted it on the spot because yet another disambig. page would be unnecessary. Thank you. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 23:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you explain why have you put citations on the Sikh Empire page. Based on what knowledge. With respect, do you have any knowledge if Sikh history. Kindly enlighten on this, thanks. Wjkk20 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I put a notice that citations are needed, because there aren't any for most of the article. So I put a request for citations that would corroborate the historical assertions in the article. I did not add information to the article. It is a normal Wikipedia request that if you assert information is true (or has some merit of truth), then it needs to have some kind of corroboration from some other source than your own brain. I put up those citation notices to request that the information have some kind of secondary or primary source information backing it up... Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor, and indicate why you're reverting people's changes next time. Mintrick (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mintrick, sorry. I was reverting the edits that had replaced the section on Getty Images copyright enforcement issues which appeared to be well-researched and well-cited, and had been replaced with a generic statement that by any appearance looked to be a public relations statement posted by Getty Images themselves. Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Shakespeare talk page. There are one or two editors (I am one) who have long defended the Authorship issue as worthy of discussion. Unfortunately, the page (and article) are controlled by the old guard, who regularly insult, discredit, attack and bully anyone with an open mind on the subject. The subject used to have a longer section, but it was cut down to the bare mention that exists today (and only that was "allowed" to stay, in order to avoid a firefight during FA). I hope they don't scare you off, as it gets very lonely in the wilderness...Thanks again. Smatprt (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed those edits, too. 195.22.28.18 was blocked effective March 27 until Jan 26, 2010.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, and thanks for pointing out the block, Kww. I just submitted a checkuser request without realizing that the IP had been blocked. I'll withdraw it now. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Sweden was POV and unsourced. It still is unsourced, as the article you linked to does in no way say that the Wallenbergs dominate the country's economy, just that they're leading industrialists (which they are). Furthermore the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article - what you wrote into the lead, is not found in the article at all. The good faith part is called "politeness". It is policy on Wikipedia to assume good faith. It is also policy not to comment on the person, but on the contents - see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you want to debate the issue, please do so on the article talk page. -Duribald (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Can you point me to the section of the AHA website which has the same text I wrote verbatim? It is Fair Use to take the text of another website and re-word in your own words, add color, other points, etc. as long as you are not stealing their content wholesale. I looked at thier website and can't even find matching text. If you are going to accuse people of stealing you need a bit more than vague accusations. Jasenlee (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jason, I would gladly point out where that occurred but my comments were posted on February 4th in reference to an article that no longer exists. Apparently, the article was deleted and rebuilt by a Wikipedia administrator to its current status, later on February 14th, so the original article I am referring to is no longer available. However, if I thought it was plagiarized at the time, I probably still do, as it was an observation I had made at the time, but can no longer review my observation since the original data is not available. But it seems that on the Discussion page I was pretty explicit about what the problem was. I am sorry that you believe otherwise but I suggested that the article needed to be reviewed for plagiarism and it seems that someone concurred with that observation. Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make constructive edits then do so. But don't leave silly, sarcastic messages on my talk page. Read Don't be a dick.--Adam in MO Talk 00:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also it would also be nice if you made some sense..."as the companies you have left in the list are for the most part inconsequential now, as they were at the time"... They are inconsequential now, and were at the time, also ???? Check this out Doublethink, maybe it will help. Cheers :)--Adam in MO Talk 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Adam. Now I can see what that the problem is... First of all, the contrast you make does not qualify as Doublethink. If you can, you may want to check your application of logic. And two, I made the comment because you rendered the article quite useless... You may have thought you were contributing something when you made the edit, but simply showing up for the game doesn't contribute a touchdown... Your actions on the article were counterproductive to put it politely... Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page.--Adam in MO Talk 06:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Apparently, this user is still around using the above IP address, 195.22.28.18, as they just made contributions about a week ago using that account."

It is a public computer, don't you think? If you don't know then don't act like a whiner. But it is, and many other people like me use it, or used it until someone decided to play smart. What kind of twisted person goes whining on the Administrators about someone that might or might not have gone around their stupid rules? And in case you want to block this other computer too, I warn you that it is also a public one. 194.65.1.231 (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea who the user is above, other than an advisement I did a while ago about the use of the IP address to conduct malicious editing, seems to have ignited their anger. No one whined in the post, I even said I didn't care. I didn't block anyone, nor do I want to. However, the agony of this user's apparent pain prompted me to post a reply. Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dead external links#Repairing. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://traianus.rediris.es/topo01/surveying.pdf. --Gwern (contribs) 18:16 6 June 2009 (GMT)

Please don't blank pages. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't blanking a page - I was deleting a Redirect that should not have been assigned a redirect to begin with... Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's always been a redirect, and you blanked it. The page was white. There was nothing there. I know when there's a blank page. How long I've actively contributed here has nothing to do with the page being blank. And besides that, it's got wrong caps, so it wouldn't stand as an article, anyway. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who claims to know Wikipedia knows that blank pages are of no use. Since you refuse to allow a redirect to stand, I've put a db-empty tag on the page which you repeatedly blank. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal comments about me have no bearing on this situation. I have no idea why you feel the need to attack me, when it's you who are causing the problem here. If you can't be bothered to fix the article now, why not wait until it's ready to be fixed, instead of disrupting the page by repeatedly blanking it? I may not have been editing here as long as you, but I sure know what WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL mean. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Stevenmitchell. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that [3] was an appropriate addition to Talk:Lauren Conrad? As you know, article talk pages should be used discuss changes related to the article, not as a forum about the subject. Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 04:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am responding here, as you noted on your Userpages that you prefer a reply where you originally posted the comment... The previous comment that I was responding to was a rant about all of the personal data that was (as the previous writer noted) probably unnecessary to the article. I simply made a comment about her vacuous appearance in the photo accompanying the article. In and of itself, the article on Lauren Conrad probably should not be included in an encyclopedia to begin with, since being one of 4,500 actors/regulars currently on television during a given day, hardly qualifies one as notable. My comment, while a simple jest, was also disparaging the tabloid nature of Wikipedia and some of the contributions that have been made. To my knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to create a blog entry for a personage that would otherwise only receive any public coverage in the National Enquirer or Teen Magazine... If an article should be deleted for triviality, where would you post the comment other than on the Talkpage? Stevenmitchell (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, If you think that the article should be deleted, you could propose that it be deleted (if you think that the deletion will be uncontroversial) or start an discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Though, it appears that this has happened 5 times already ([4]) with the result being to keep the article. If you have reasons that weren't discussed, then another discussion is warranted. Thanks for taking the time to get back to me, and thanks for keepning the discussion all in one place.—C45207 | Talk 14:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, im glad someone can see this. unfortunately, i dont feel like fighting a sysiphean struggle with editors that are passionate about their article. i am extremely new to the collaborative process here, and how to get attention given to an article without making it personal. im just watching the article to see how it goes. thanks for noticing. I am watching all the articles with "unusual" in the name, most are really stretching WP article definition. i like rational criteria for inclusion in an article, and i think thats whats expected here as well. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to nominate for deletion. --JeffJ (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Government sources are in the public domain and can be used in Wikipedia -- see [5] DGG (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ogier (law firm), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogier (law firm). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cmichael (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remove the advert tag. Which claims in particular read like a direct advertisement to you? --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag you placed on Olympia Snowe a couple of months ago because I think the article Sparti (municipality) answers your doubts. Sparti can legitimately claim to be "Sparta" as that is the name that Sparta had in the dialect of ancient Greek that became modern Greek. If you still don't trust the source please let me know on my talk page. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for caring re: my loss. We go on, because it's all we can ever do, y'know? DS (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and re: that article that you were going to thank me for helping with -- you're welcome. DS (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude! What in the world are you talking about? Have you confused me with someone else? In any case, you might want to read WP:ATTACK before you come after me again. Cmichael (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Thanks for being a dick about it. Cheers. --Chris Brennan (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a bit harsh, don't you think? I am not calling you names... What I was saying was that as a professional astrologer with a "degree" in it, when you rewrite an informational piece of an article, shouldn't you have done a fair amount of research first. Since the issue we are talking about is so basic to the author and text we are discussing (and on another level obvious to those who have had even rudimentary exposure to Latin or Greek history or language - Quadri=four in Latin; Tetra=four in Greek) I was able to infer that you had a limited research exposure to the (Tetrabiblos) text - apparently aware of only one document, on which there are thousands... And were apparently unaware of its name usage of the last 1,000 years or so... So be it... Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you reverted an edit I made in error. You don't quote facts. You quote things that people actually said. In the case of a press release, if you cite facts, you don't need to use quotation marks. For example, if a newspaper says OJ Simpson was arrested for murder, Wikipedia can say OJ Simpson was arrest for murder without using quotation marks and that is not plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajhendel (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm jumping in here to contradict you, Ajhendel. If you use the exact wording the source does, you must use quotation marks. LadyofShalott 16:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven, please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Concerns about Stevenmitchell. Your comments there are welcomed. Kaldari (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at User talk:Kaldari#Should We Call You the Admin of Destruction.3F. Kaldari (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Epistle to the Romans People's Park Three Steles of Seth Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians Anthony Hercules Solomon Mansfeld Zostrianos Constantine I Fart Letter of Peter to Philip Bruck Music of Limousin Books of Jeu Sarah Allogenes Rufinus Storm

Cleanup Consumer finance 2003 invasion of Iraq Glass-Steagall Act Merge Deferent and epicycle Polar circle Corporate media Add Sources Battle of Alford Astronomer Mating system Wikify Post-materialism Palm Coast, Florida Thomas Sowell Expand Mani (prophet) Hever Castle Quantum cascade laser

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; which language do you intend by "sp"? -- Avi (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of yours, replacing with no explanation whatever, where I removed your many unexplained requests for citation -- while giving my reason in detail, is not acceptable.[6][7] If you challenge a specific statement left by dozens of other editors, have the courtesy to explain your reasoning. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's pretty simple. Each of those statements are opinions which require a citation. I would think that you are familiar with the necessity of providing citations for uncommonly cited "facts" in Wikipedia. Each of my requests for citations applied to very specific "one-sentence" information that was cited and are clearly not the work of "dozens of authors" but by either 3 separate authors or one single author.
• In fact, I had just read the week before about the Gutenberg Bible being printed on "parchment" not vellum, which directly contradicts that statement. Aside from that, the specific sentence I am referring to for the one citation says that 1/4 of the 180 copies of the Gutenberg Bible were on vellum. That is an extremely specific statement that requires a citation. Another is "all Sifrei Torahs are printed on Klaf." A third request for citation was honored by another editor (thank god for them). To my knowledge (and I am sure I can direct you to Wikipedia rules that specify it), Wikipedia is not meant to be a repository for "editors" to invent "facts". If you cite a fact, you need to support it. Each of the requests for citations (3) are about very specific information that is 1) not readily available 2) certainly not common knowledge.
• As it is not customary in Wikipedia to explain requests for citations of opinions or controversial facts ^{[citation needed]}, I did not post an explanation for what seemed obvious. But I see that you have a habit of removing requests for citations on that specific article and removed other editors requests as well ('human skins were used for vellum'). Why would you remove a citation request for such an obviously controversial statement. As a self-described "professional editor" I would think that your first requirement for esoteric facts would be a request for some research to support them... Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven, with regard to User talk:113.52.100.153, they only get blocked if they get reported, and you can only report them if they've been warned. I think in general complaining otherwise on the user's Talk page is probably ineffective, whereas warning them does at least get the process started. I do agree that it is very frustrating to see users getting away with stuff like this but one has to work with the system and that means warning and reporting. I have now warned that user (well twice actually: I hope that's legitimate). Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, thanks for your advice and help. Best Regards Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steven and thank you very much for the message - you're very welcome. I know it's hardly a significant result (yet) but I note that the IP address hasn't vandalized anything else since then. I think it depends a lot on the individual but sometimes a warning really does help. I also have an unproven and highly unscientific belief that the {{whois|whatever}} tag can help too, by reminding people that they are maybe a touch less anonymous than they might have thought. I wish I could prove this is effective but it's just a kind of article of faith for me really! :) Cheers, DBaK (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Gray Loeffler LLC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Ttonyb1. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ttonyb (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User talk:Ttonyb1, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ttonyb (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not vandalize you - I posted a serious question... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And when I went to post a response on your page (since you are the one who initiated this contact to begin with), then you prevented me (with an edit conflict) from posting a response to your page... How does that work? Are you the representative of an authoritarian police unit of some sort? Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• == Regarding Blocking Me Without Further Warning ==

How is it that you personally have the authority to block me without further warning? You may have the technical wherewithal to do that, however, that certainly does not give you the right or the authority... You proposed to delete an article which is BY ANY STANDARD on Wikipedia within the guidelines for article creation and perpetuation, and because you are apparently not intelligent enough to read and process what you read, you have the ability to unconditionally block me without any outside consultation? I don't think so... Unless we are living in Authorian Regime (and you may be - who knows, but I am not), I believe that blocking someone from Wikipedia requires input from more than one person (regardless of authoritarian that Wikipedia admin may feel or believe they are).

• I will explain the article very simply so you can hopefully grasp its content... I posted an article of a lobbying firm formed with some of the most powerful politicians and political support personnel and you have proposed (within seconds of my posting the article) to delete the article... Now to me, that means one of two things: either you have a political agenda to suppress information (which behavior does not belong on Wikipedia) or you are unable to process what was written (in which case you should probably not be an admin)... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Gray Loeffler LLC, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gray Loeffler LLC. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parents_Television_Council#Censorship_advocacy_group.3F

Hello Stevenmitchell! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 4 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Thomas H. Cruikshank - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you should have fixed this rather than just added fact tags. One of your fact tags was broken by the way, you finger slipped and you hit a ] instead of a } (something I've done). One of your tags was for something with a citation at the end of the paragraph, another was a quote which was very easy to find, the other I simply fixed by a copy and paste from the section on this at Olmec. A bit ironic in light of the section just above. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Doug. Had I had the time to do those fixes or known that the quote was on the Olmec page ahead of time or had the time to read Olmec page to realize that, I probably would have actually done that... It's amazing to me that you could read my mind and actually knew what my intention was when I did that typo. That is a phenomenal skill that you really need to take public. As for your reference to an irony "in light of the section just above," I have absolutely no clue what you are referring to. If you are referring to the "Unreferenced BLP" article/comment above, I did the article's start but never made an addition. Anyway, criticisms such as yours, along with the repeatedly misidentified assumptions they entail, are thoughtless, erroneous and counterproductive.

Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The billionaire Koch brothers, "Tea Party Puppetmasters" extraordinaire, having paid $100's of Millions in EPA fines over the last 20 years, duping Tea Party Groupies is not a game that they play for fun, they play for keeps. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=10

My thanks too Wikipedia® User:Stevenmitchell for protecting the "Truth".Have a Better Day. UBUIBIOK (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your Vandalism on Adam Hochfelder Article

+ Thanks for your vandalism on the Adam C. Hochfelder article. I am not sure what triggered the synaptic attack but you literally removed several references & all of the descriptions accompanying the references, leading someone else to post a

This article uses bare URLs, which are uninformative and vulnerable to link rot. Please consider converting them to full citations to ensure the article remains verifiable and maintains a consistent citation style. Several templates and tools are available to assist in formatting, such as reFill (documentation) and Citation bot (documentation). (Learn how and when to remove this message)

template. This is not the first time this has happened on Wikipedia from your "supposed" efforts, so I am not sure what possesses you to undo what someone else has properly done. But thanks for destroying the article. You are exceptionally talented... Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is unacceptable. You have not understood why Ttonyb1 has "removed several references and descriptions" in this edit: the reason, as is evident from his next edit to that page, is to run the reflinks tool, which is supposed to take any bare URLs in an article and generate full semantic citations from them using the {{citation}} template. Apparently on this occasion Reflinks has malfunctioned: I have now corrected that.

Along with this cryptic note, which I eventually ascertained as referring to this rant on my intellectual capacity, I would strongly advise you to reconsider your attitude. Repeatedly barking at other editors for perceived errors which are either simply mistakes or not errors in the first place is liable to get you blocked from editing. Indeed, if I see anything like the comment you left to Ttonyb1 again I'll block you myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of that uniform number-changing business, posted by somebody or other on that page, is that the number 44 seemed to have some significance to Aaron's career, at least to the superstitious (and I assure you, baseball is rife with superstition). Ol' Number 44 hit 44 home runs in 4 different seasons, and furthermore, his 715th home run, surpassing Babe Ruth's record, was hit off the Dodgers' Al Downing, who also happened to be wearing number 44. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, thanks for explaining that. If you can explain that on Aaron's page it would make that more succinct for others that wouldn't discern the superstition immediately, either. Regards. Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to find a citation for it, which could be tricky. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Or you could simply explain it. I don't think that a citation is especially necessary for something like that. I would think people would be happy to just have an explanation, since it's not really a controversial fact, per se. Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I was just going to say: Aaron hit 44 on 4 different occasions [8] and I saw someplace that he created a foundation called "44 Forever", so it's clear that 44 is significant to him, though I doubt it was when he selected it. It just worked out well. I think I can report the facts in such a way that it won't sound too much like OR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made some changes. Have at it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that you have edited a fair amount since I posted my talkback above. I'd appreciate it if you could explain to me your concerns because I am at a total loss regarding which article(s) you may be referring to. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going away - please can you respond. You seemed to be sure that I had done something incorrectly and it is totally unreasonable to declare such without a decent explanation or even a reference to the relevant article. How is anyone supposed to progress if you leave arcane comments? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing yet? I'm going to have to assume that you got your chastisement of me wrong and are too impolite even to apologise. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make the assumption you alluded to on my talk page. You appear to be rather confrontational and I would rather not deal with that at the moment. That is why I have not responded. It was a simple matter - so please just let it go. Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a simple question: if you let me know what article you think I messed up then I can learn. If you don't then your msg was pointless. I do not understadn why you have been reluctant to assist. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• because I am working on something that requires intelligence, not distraction nor confrontation...Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This is stupid, You seem now to be inferring that I am unintelligent (as you are not). Wrong, very wrong. I can see that you are doing a fair few edits across a wide range of subjects each day, so there is no obvious reason why you could not spare the time to clarify - it is not as if you were that involved in your "intelligent" project that you were unable to do numerous copyedits, small fixes etc all over the project. I'm starting to think that you were wrong and are too impolite to apologise. I've been through your edits around the time that you posted your first message here to me and can see no edits by you on articles with which I was involved. Your original comment therefore appears to have no basis: neither you, nor anyone else that I can see, altered any edits of mine regarding external links around that time. I must therefore assume that your conduct since merely proves my suggestion that you have since realised you were incorrect. We all make mistakes but a decent. honourable person will admit to them. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Again one more time. By intelligence, I was not referring to you nor your activities.I was referring to my own activities entirely. I do not have time since I am in the process of working on something which has nothing to do with you. If I thought I was wrong I would gladly apologize but as I am sure that I am in this case not, I have not apologized. However, I don't have time to reconstruct my activities or yours as to the original reference. Apparently, you are too aggressive and essentially nasty for me to reply or take out a period of time from the work I am doing on a theory to worry about your personal insecurities... Again, I did not make a mistake, I simply do not have time to bother with you...Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cop-out at worst and both inconsiderate + failing in the collaborative spirit of WP at best. You know, I know it. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding anthropology and soul. You certainly do not know much about philosophical reflection on man, where anthropology does not mean just a research of human skulls etc., but philosophical reflection on the nature of human being cf. Philosophical anthropology. Regarding Augustine himself, I must have taken from the Philosophical anthropology or W.E. Mann, Inner-Life Ethics, in: The Augustinian Tradition. Philosophical Traditions. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press. 1999. pp. 141–142. ISBN 0-520-20999-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |other= ignored (|others= suggested) (help) I will check the issue for more references and write you back.

NB. If you by chance represent a materialistic view of human nature, it would be kind, and indeed quite natural for a neutral stand, if you acknowledged that there has been a couple of millennium long tradition of European academic thought distinguishing such an element as human soul in our being.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why you've marked the statement with a 'what' and with an edit comment that it is speculative. It is speculative since it is a theory, however the speculation is on the part of reliable sources rather than wikipedia editors. The wording looks clear enough. Could you explain your tag (on the article talk page)? Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 13:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See reply at Talk:George Weston. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work finding the dead link. I copied and pasted the title of the dead link article into Google, and the first hit was the new URL, which I then re-copied into the article. It took about 5 key strokes and 10 seconds :-) I guess equally as much work as adding dead link messages into the article. Sort of a how many people does it take to screw in a lightbulb.. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations. You are the lucky winner. While you're work on Wikipedia is focused on topical topics such as this which are probably the most prevalent and current links in Search Engines such as Google, I do mostly history (especially ancient history) research and economic theory which entails extraordinary amounts of time searching for even a gleem of information, let alone a "live link." But, yes, I suppose because of your suggestion, I either will add One More Step to what is for most articles very time consuming or the next time I will just ignore it and won't do anything... It's always worthwhile and constructive hearing nasty, sarcastic comments from superficially involved people... Thank you... Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article (and a source used there) at Post–World War II baby boom, the peak birth rate for the US in the baby boom context occurred in 1957. Now perhaps that level was bested decades later by a much larger population, but that would still make 1957 the peak year for the baby boom. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Demographics of Singapore article, other than being someone's opinion, doesn't cite any factual basis from any sources at all. Yes, the citation for the Post–World War II baby boom article does say that, but as citation of that article as a source is a garage-band assembly put together by some unqualified guy off the internet as the author of the cited article themselves, it makes for a highly questionable, if not outright unreliable source. You really need an actual reference that has some genuine validity... I would assume there are legitimate sources for verification... Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You left {{npov|date=August 2011}} for the article Human_Action. Could you please explain which sections contain npov? I would like to clean up the article to the point that we agree it is neutral.
Of course, this discussion will resume at the article talk page.
J_Tom_Moon_79 (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2000 rate (49 births per. 1000) is about half the peak rate recorded in 1957 (96 per 1000) -- National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 49, No. 10 (9/25/01). You can add this where you find it necessary. To me, it is general knowledge. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously, you didn't comprehend the initial reason for my insertion of a "citation needed" in the article, for a fact which is clearly not common knowledge since it is statistical. I don't know whether you have ever actually done a research paper, but to assert a "fact" requires some form of substantiation, otherwise it is simply opinion... And since this is not an issue requiring the construction of reason, but of fact, than it requires a citation...

Yes, I could have Googled it but I was using Wikipedia which essentially defeats the purpose of using Wikipedia, if I have to do my own external research... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, it is certainly not "dubious" as you suggest. (I have written papers for several employers, including the Department of Energy.) Cheers. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well then, simply put a citation with your claim. It shouldn't be too difficult for someone who has already done the research. But the fact remains, statistical claims need a source (citation) to base it on, otherwise it is opinion or hearsay.... Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I undid this change, because there is good historical evidence showing that the state systematically sold mining rights to people "driven by income-maximizing instrumental rationality". For instance, [9] or [10] or [11]. Where did you get that counterexample from? I'm curious and would like to read any sources that have covered it from a different angle... bobrayner (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Bob, I perused your references and if you are going to make changes to my edits I would at least appreciate that if you believe you are correcting something I have done erroneously, that you at least get the centuries correct. Also, just for clarification while you are talking about outsourcing of services of the mines that may in fact be true, however, the mines themselves during the Athenian Empire were in fact, owned by the state. I am sure that you have heard of Themistocles and his famous proposition to the Athenian people, which in concert, created the Athenian Empire’s military might. I should add that the ownership of the Laureion mines by the state during the Athenian Empire is in countless academic books and articles which can be easily found on the Internet. I had left the preceding line’s comment there because it seems supported by evidence, but to remove the statement clarifying the ownership of the mine itself, is entirely misleading and appears to be motivated purely out of an otherwise intellectually snuffed agenda. Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an unusual way of framing it; for a state to lease out mining rights - so that mines were controlled by whichever investor had bid highest - is much more akin to what we would now call privatisation. There are many modern privatised industries where the state retains nominal control/ownership of a key resource but the actual work is done by a third party. And, of course, when a state confiscates mines operated by third parties which had paid for the right to mine, that is usually called nationalisation.
  • I would still like to see an actual source which supports your version, rather than vague handwaving.
  • I'm not sure why you complain about an error in centuries; could you clarify? As far as I can see the only timing error was in the claim that the mines are owned by the Athenian state, which is out by 24-25 centuries. bobrayner (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point about the difference in centuries was that the high point of Athenian civilization occurred during the Athenian Empire which is when the state – all of its male citizens (which in a slave society is still limited) – had ownership. The slaves, however, who provided the labor were, to historians knowledge, not all state-owned and in fact, may all have been privately-owned. That is considered the highpoint of their economic success, not the 4th century of Plato or Aristotle (when Aristotle may have been one of the wealthiest participants). The reason for my contention on this issue is that it is not at all clear historically that private-ownership is more effective over group-ownership. It is only succinct to those who adhere to that dogma. There are actually many successes in both corporate and population endeavors such as mutual insurance, or employee-ownership, which is a considerable departure from direct private-ownership. Philosophically, there are many flaws with the concepts of both capitalism and Marxism that have required a reworking for many years, but have been totally neglected by both the right and the left. The most readily identifiable problem is the incongruities that exist between capitalism and democracy. They are two facets of near contradiction. But undoubtedly that is for another, probably future generation to determine...Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, Bob, you need to read much more before we can discuss this further. I have left your changes unchanged. Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Privately held company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Four (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Prosody (linguistics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emphasis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Regal Entertainment Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LBO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Invention of the telephone, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Thomas Watson and Alexander Bell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you said in the talk page of Red Cloud's War. The message you left; "Wikipedia is very inaccurate, blah blah blah..." was somewhat insultive. Also, you said that the US would be a different place if the Indians had not "picked on" the whites, but the whites "picked on" the natives much more often than vice versa. If you're not familliar with the Sioux Wars, read Bury My Heart On Wounded Knee.--Seonookim 07:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Seonookim, I do think that Wikipedia is very inaccurate in much of its coverage whether political, historical, economic or even in the breadth of its coverage. However, I also think it has virtues such as convenience that other tools do not provide.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Texas Jack (South Africa), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johann Rupert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barron's (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isabelle Adjani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Weiss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Brooks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Patrice Motsepe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Rubin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eagle Scout and Boy Scouts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pinnacle Foods, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Van de Kamp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that on Talk:Caste system in India you put your comment in a strange place, breaking the order of the postings, so I moved it down--as a general rule the most recent post should go at the bottom of a talk page section. Also, it may not be very helpful to reply to a discussion where the most recent response was over 4 months ago, but that's somewhat up to you. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• But if you moved the comment then you relegated it to absolute meaninglessness and I am assuming if what you say have done is what I believe you did, then it is without any context. Thanks for the advice and if I need it I will ask for it. You are going to actually ask me about or worse interfere with my private habits are you? Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I posted it in a logical sequence. In my language that is a consistent flow of logic. I had already considered your placement but it did not make sense to me to do that. Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eike Batista, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fast Company (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. 21 Ja.I. c.28 is an Act of Patliament, the 28th Act passed in the 21st year of the reign of James I. It is in "Statutes at Large," which is in law libraries. When I have time I can go and look at what it says in more detail for you. Richard75 (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Richard, thank you. I was looking at the article actually for information on the historical person and wanted to pursue more data, so that is why I asked. I will post this on your page also. I appreciate your help. Regards. Steve.Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I tried to look up the Act today and I couldn't find it, and the reference I gave must be wrong. I can't remember where I found it. I have edited the Sanctuary article to change the reference to a link to this page instead: http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/coroner4.html Richard75 (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Chamberlain (journalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libertarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Automation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mechanical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Betsey Stevenson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lawrence Katz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go around spouting bad faith about "quasi-knowledge" how about you get some real knowledge of your own? Check out Sematech's very own [12] and [13] pages along with their own website. They are headquarted in Albany and all the phone numbers for contacting anyone in the company happen to be in the 518 area code... which is the area code surrounding Albany, not Austin. [14] and the [15] profile of CEO and President Dan Armbrust... I assume he knows where he lives and works and does not commute from Albany to Austin every day...97.85.242.177 (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the conversation here on your page as I edit from an IP address and therefore not always will it be me nor will I always be at this IP. So anyway, I assumed you would realize this was in response to your ill-informed rude comment on Talk:SEMATECH, since that comment of yours was less than a month ago... You must be too busy to remember something that happened so soon or to have time to research by going to that article, since it was the title of this thread. But it seems from your comment on that talk page that research is not your forte.97.85.242.177 (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, my comment was not rude - quite different from your obvious nastiness. Secondly, it was not ill-informed. The person posting the comments above me also alludes to the headquarters location of Austin, Texas and cites a location on the website for that, that is still current. I was concurring with the editor that posted it. If that has changed, then it has changed. So be it. Secondly, even though you just posted your Linked-in URLs above (Sematech's very own [16] and [17] pages along with their own website.), they don't seem to work saying "We're sorry but the company you are looking for does not exist." or^[1] "profile not found." How difficult is for a "top researcher" like yourself to copy a link and post on a page. Why is that? It can't be too hard for you can it? However, now that Sematech is such an unimportant organization for the American economy, the organization is as a whole, an afterthought to what it was originally created for. But if you could rub a few neurons together and go to their website, you would possibly (there are obviously no guarantees because of the difficulties you have had until now) see that Austin is also listed as a corporate headquarters. Now that the organization has been so reduced in importance and has instead become a public relations entity, it really doesn't matter. But hopefully, you can generate some electrical current from your neuronal activity to be able to do that. But being that you can't and won't even identify yourself other than an IP address, I really don't care about any opinion you may have... But thank you again for your ignorant, hostile and nasty comments. Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

I'm sad to say that due to your recent bad-faith edits to Clarksville, Albany County, New York reverting me (I was in that instance that IP address, though not always is that IP address me), I will now keep a close eye on your contributions. Please do not revert people's additions or deletions to articles when those additions and deletions are in accord with Wikipedia's policies and consensus, regardless of whether IP or not or your personal disdain for an editor.Camelbinky (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussions at one place as I've asked you before. If I start a conversation here, please continue it here. Do not ever again post on my talk page. Per Wikipedia etiquette once someone has asked for you to keep off their talk page you are required to not post on it again. Thank you. And yes, you may answer on this page instead of mine the question I am burning to know the answer to- are you retarded or high? If that offends you, please remember you called me nasty and other insults, so report me all you want. And no I am not a banned user and there are (including that Clarksville article) dozens and dozens and dozens of articles that I created and/or expanded greatly including being the author of more than a dozen DYKs, I even am the author of over 90% of the content in an article I ushered through GA. I don't say this to brag, I state this because you state that all I am is a vandal and have not contributed anything of substance... I'd say creating an article from scratch and getting it all the way to GA status is quite an accomplishment and a good contribution.Camelbinky (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I called you nasty simply because that is who you are in your verbal expression. It is not an insult. Your comments above are malevolent and incendiary. It is apparently just your nature as you repeatedly demonstrate. "Nasty" is also what other Wikipedia editors have regularly referred to you as, in their wars with you over the last year (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - of which by the way seems to be your only contribution to Wikipedia for that one year period). But regardless, whatever emotional and psychological issues that you are overwhelmed by are not my concern and I do not want them to become my concern. Please, as I asked you on your talk-page, leave me alone. If you harass or stalk me, I will have you banned from Wikipedia. So in keeping with your own verbiage from above do not post on this page as "per Wikipedia etiquette". Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wade Hampton III, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Planter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fashoda syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Denise Eisenberg Rich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to South Pacific

Pueblo Revolt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Peaches

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added a numeral which is quite displaced there. The president does not appoint anybody as "the nth" office holder, he appoints to an office, usually to succeed somebody else, no number mentioned. The numbering is unofficial, and done after the fact, by outsiders. In the infobox, I left the number, because it is unimportant. In most cases the "amateur historians" who do the numbering are mistaken anyway. Do you have a reliable source (per [[WP:RS}}) which uses these numberings in some official list? Then please give me a link on my talk page. Kraxler (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The list I was referring numerically to is Governors_of_Montana_Territory#Governors_of_Montana_Territory, which is, in fact a Wikipedia product. If you don't believe that we should be using Wikipedia-created products as a point of reference, that is another matter entirely, since that would abrogate any contributions to Wikipedia altogether. I do not know what the "president's appointment" has to do with the topic of my inclusion of a number preceding the person-in-question's position, since that is not how it was utilized in the article. The president actually makes an appointment and Congress confirms it through a vote, bu

Please be aware that Wikipedia can not be used as a reference per se. The list in question should have a reference for the numbering, which I doubt. It might br WP:Original research by the wiki-user who made the list. If you write "...Carpenter was appointed by President as the 6th Governor..." it leads to understand that the president actually used this numbering, which is not true. The appointment documents do not use any numbers. I suggest you think about what you are writing before you actually write something. Kraxler (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • There is no reason to be nasty unless there is no way for you to control yourself. Only if you are intellectually-challenged would one think that the positional number of an appointment (that is voted on by the Senate) is specified in the presidential appointment itself. Of course, the appointments don't use any numbers either. If you live in the U.S. you might also notice that the sequential number of presidents does not appear on the ballot either when you vote - what does that have to do with anything? And why are all of your contributions to Wikipedia done outside of Wikipedia formatting which requires that all of your contributions be Wikified? I am asking this because somehow in that little space above your shoulders you have decided that you are the God of Wikipedia with the authority to intercede in other people's contributions. Yet, you cannot build a single article that properly references the information that you are mysteriously contributing. Why don't you use references in the traditional academic format that they were intended in? And why, since you insist on protocol, aren't they in reference format? Every article you have done, has to be redone... Why is that? Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. The format I use is desribed vewry well in the pertaining guidelines. Nothing needs to be wikified. Feel free to add info in any way you like, but be careful not to add incorrect or nonsensical items. FYI: The numbering of the presidents of the US has been debated by Congress, and it was by Congress resolution that Grover Cleveland was numbered twice. The numbers of the New York governors are used on the official website of the office, numbering governors with two non-consecutive tenures only once. Add a reference for the numbering of the Montana territorial governors, if you want to use them. Do not use them in the text (for the above stated reason), only in the infobox. Kraxler (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Kraxler, please speak in English. Before you start dictating to others whatever it is you dictatorially believe about what is permissible or not for Wikipedia, you need to learn how to write and speak English, so that you can communicate in a basic format. The contextual format that you use to cite references applied to articles - which in your case are generic sources - necessitates that other people have to rework your contributions or post templates, to make them legitimate.Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't worry. Other users understand me perfectly. Nobody is/will be reworking my contributions. Farewell. Kraxler (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • But everyone will, in fact, have to redo your contributions (and probably have been doing so since you began contributing to Wikipedia) because your contributions are unreferenced in a way that cannot be used either by Wikipedia or academia... Just for your edification global references haven't been used since about 1900 or so... We now use in-line references, even with specific page number referrals... Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have been repeatedly reverted for two reasons, on one part, WP:WTAF, on another, lack of citations to support the claim. As one who lived through the start of the networked era, I don't recall DaVinci Systems, though I recall a handful of other LAN based e-mail systems that fell by the wayside once WAN communications came into common use. One who goes back to being an early adopter of Elm and happily embracing Pine when it was released and used UUCP to literally route messages around the world for fun (quite a few of us did that in the early middle age of UUCP). For the claim to stick as you placed it, you'd need to write an article on DaVinci Systems and include information on their e-mail system, with plenty of citations reliable sources. Hope I've helped a bit.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:TEDickey Hi. I guess you are not very familiar with earlier forms of technology, such as DaVinci email? Is it that you do not live in the U.S. or maybe you were not born at the time period that you are asserting some form of knowledge over, which of course would make you entirely unqualified to even offer an opinion? Is that the reason why you wasted my editing time with a revert of information that you obviously are entirely unaware of? Please explain your lack of knowledge and whatever reasoning you can muster. Thank you. Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TEDickey (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's be clear. I am not attacking you. I was trying to post a reply on your webpage, where you had reverted my initial posting, and you deleted that as well. While somehow you have etched into your brain that your thoughts - and only your thoughts - are to be considered in this process, I am suggesting that there are other people, such as myself, that ought to be considered as well. Do you think you can handle that? Or are your attacks and actions, the only thing of viable consideration? Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not attacking you, nor did I in my post on your page. I asked you for an explanation which by your actions, you obviously have ignored. I do not know if you have perceptual difficulties or not but that ultimately is not my concern. But the strength of your comments on my page, come across as threatening to me, which I think is unnecessary and inappropriate... Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wireless, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electromagnetic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DRAKON, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drakon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not a categorization expert, but just in case it helps: Concerning Common sense I suppose it was listed as a Latin term because one specialized way of referring to a type of common sense discussed a lot in philosophy is "sensus communis". So that term redirects to this article and discussion of it makes up a lot of the article. (The Greek term koine aisthesis is also important to the article.) I am not seeing any easy way to separate these three search terms into 3 articles as they would always overlap 90%. But maybe I created confusion by moving the foreign terms out of bold type and the first sentence. I did this because there is a problem treating all the terms as exact synonyms.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andrew. I actually made the change on that page, not as the final answer but so that someone with the expertise and experience could re-add its link to the Latin philosophy phrase page. Rather than spend the time trying to figure out a way to do so, I figured there may be people with prior experience doing so. I agree and understand why someone would have initially added it as you point out regarding the Koine Greek, but I think the initial link was probably done by someone who was too lazy at the time, also to provide whatever conversion is necessary to put it in Latin. By removing it, I was hoping to motivate someone with the knowledge and skills to post it properly on the Latin philosophy phrase page, to keep the page consistent with the posting of an all Latin phraseology. I suppose I should have provided at the time or still can provide a Talkpage explanation of what I have undone and why. Stevenmitchell (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steven. I posted a reply to your remark on the article talkpage. Basically, I am not sure if I can help, but if I can, let me know more.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, Hi. Both you and I appear to be uncertain of how to execute this. I didn't have any ideas offhand on how to achieve a conversion from English to Latin. I only know of the Wikipedia:Help desk or posting the 'Help me' template {Help me + 2 outer brackets} on your personal Talkpage or the article Talkpage which alerts people to the dilemma. Regards... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...work on the Symbol Technologies page in the past, so wanted to alert you to a discussion I'm starting on the talk page. Thanks! GRUcrule (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solar cycle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aurora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. t's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John M. Kennedy, Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wilson Lumpkin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the Cherokee Indians from Georgia By Wilson Lumpkin, Including Speeches & Correspondence, 1827-41), New York, 1907]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this article is written like an advert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrCellular (talk • contribs) 08:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Because it is a simple list, with no explanation accompanying it, as if it is a listing for products such as would occur for an advertisement... Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vyasa may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• lived around 3000 BC,<ref>"Legacy of the Elder Gods" by M. Don Schorn, p.256 {{Verify credibility}}[</ref>{{Verify credibility}} [although most of the scholars cite that the period of Vyasa was between 1800 BC and 1500 B.C.<ref>
• Dusharaj,<ref>According to legend, Vyasa was the son of the ascetic Parashara and the dasyu) Satyavati and grew up in forests, living with hermits who taught him the Vedas ,from the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Illyrian Revolt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dardanians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. I am not sure how to report this, but the page you previously mentioned had some biased tampering with, appears to have been edited again. Look at the edits of thecorelian. My apologies if this was the wrong place to post. Likesthisproject (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've undid your removal of the redirect tag because the target article, Jim Inhofe, appears to have James Inhofe as the real name, and the redirect falls under alternative names. If you have any comments or questions, please leave a message on my talk page. KJ ^{click here} 06:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave my comments on the talk page of the article. There is no reason for Wikipedia to actually name an encyclopaedic article by someone's nickname. That is why I removed it. In actuality, the alternative (nicknames) ought to be redirected to his full name as is done for nearly everyone else. Even articles on sports figures are usually titled by their full name. But I will put comments on your talk page as well, as per your request. Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article titles used for subjects are the most commonly used name. For example, Lady Gaga's real name is Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, but the article title is the nickname since that's the common name. In this case, it looks like Jim Inhofe is the COMMONNAME, so the titles seem correct in this case. KJ ^{click here} 07:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's still wrong. Nobody knows who Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta is other than her mother, and Lady Gaga is the name that made her famous so that is appropriate, as is Madonna's since virtually no one would know her by her real name. However, in the case of real people and not stagenames, it seems inappropriate, certainly illiterate and uneducated to title an article by his nickname, especially when he is not generally known by that name. It is the same thing for New York U.S. Senator, "Chuck Schumer" which is purely his advertising name, promoted by his marketing staff, since his name that he was known entirely by for most of his political career, and until very recently, was "Charles". However, to humanize him, as "Jim" Inhofe's staff has done with him for marketing purposes, rather than James for which the other 49 states and the international population know him as, is both misleading and essentially promoting informalism as an accepted format for an encyclopaedia. And informalism ought to be attributed to poor scholarship and simple, less educated work - not an excuse for poor workmanship... Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same thing with politicians. William Jefferson Clinton is titled Bill Clinton, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. is titled Al Gore, and whatnot. It doesn't matter whether that name was created as a marketing ploy or not, but which name is the most verifiable common name. Please be aware of WP:OFFICIALNAMES, an essay on this topic. If you wish to challenge the consensus, that's fine, but please do so at the policy talk page. In this case, it looks fine; people aware of the subject's 'real name' would be able to find the article, as well as the people who only know the subject by the nickname. KJ ^{click here} 23:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of largest world's largest islands. Since you had some involvement with the List of largest world's largest islands redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Regarding this; please don't. --John (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it a while, discussed it with others, and blocked. You've had plenty of warnings. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steven

I thought I was supposed to be warned first, according to the above statement by John?

I see that you were warned by Tedickey (talk · contribs) on 8 August 2013. Please be aware that administrators are not required to issue a fixed number of formal warnings; gross offenders that are found 100% disruptive are blocked promptly and permanently. Any warning or temporary block is meant to give the editor a second chance to come back and be part of our team. Also, civility is one of our core tenets and we do not mean to encourage someone offending a second person to wait for a while until some grace period for his civility warning is over and then offend someone else.

Regardless of the outcome of your unblock request, please assume good faith in other editors and comment on the contribution instead of the contributor.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Codename Lisa that would have been relevant had I realized that Tedickey (talk · contribs) was actually an Administrator but there is no indication on his Talkpage that was true at the time or even now for that matter. But thanks... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the section above headed "On personal attacks" -sure, quite old but relevant. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at your last two posts to editors' talk pages. You really need to restrain yourself. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how this verbiage is not a personal attack. And let's just note that in these edits of mine I removed such tripe as "Like the modern day “Indiana Jones,” Calvert was also worried..." and such off-the-cuff and irrelevant accusations about Schliemann as "He was later found to be a war profiteer, involved in the black market and a smuggler." (Maybe he beat his wife too?) Now, I don't really care if you called me "semi-knowledgeable" making "illiterate contributions", "minimally informed", et cetera--the garbled prose of that comment is only one reason for those insults being like "water on a duck's back", as one other editor called it. I like the gift as I like the giver. One way to show your good faith would be to click "thank" for this edit by Dougweller. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As a point of reference I have added the original post to the Talk Page which caused my block from Wikipedia, so there is some historical reference for what actually took place here at the time. As there are a number of articles on the Internet in professional or commercial magazines or blogs and even on Wikipedia contributors' pages that pertain to this very issue (of course, not this specific circumstance), I have added the detail to accompany the accusation. As the Wikipedia editor I was punished for criticizing, added their comments above, I will not rebut them (at the time, as part of my punishment, I was prevented from posting a reply or a further explanation), as the criticism I wrote at the time was clearly out of my own frustration with the lack of effort that some editors do to replace content rather than taking the time for a deeper investigation and referencing of what they are changing, and instead I added emotional content as a response on my part, which is in the long-run, probably equally unproductive, and damaging to what ought to be a more conciliatory environment of collaboration on Wikipedia.

This is a Very Damaged Article

The Wikipedia contributor, Drmies is extraordinarily destructive with her/his contributions (deletions only) to this article - particularly with originally well-referenced entries about information (these are not my edits) that I was taught by the anthropologist, John Shea, in his Introduction to Archaeology course at Stony Brook University. In keeping with the traditions of illiterate contributions that abound on Wikipedia by semi-knowledgeable contributors (primarily driven by their emotions) that take precedence over more knowledgeable contributions, this article is essentially destroyed by one of Wikipedia's more frequent (and obviously minimally informed) contributors. If anything, this article ought to be cited as a vivid illustration of why real encyclopaedias will always need to be produced for societies to continue a literate population...Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charley's War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlie Wilson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Point72 Asset Management, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Millennium Management. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this looks like vandalism to me... If it was you on the wheels, you may want to add 69.249.177.15 to the list of your occasional IPs. -M.Altenmann >t 09:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also the text "===A Note on the Potential Value of Wikipedia:===" looks like a broken section header. Cheers, -M.Altenmann >t 09:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted on your Talk Page in December, thanks for pointing that out. It was in fact vandalism and the other was a broken header. Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carlo Marsuppini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Humanist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shinnecock Reservation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• is the furthermost east of the two Native American reservations in Suffolk County; the other being [[Poospatuck Reservation] in [[Brookhaven, New York|the town of Brookhaven]]. It lies on the east
• [http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=36 2010 Census for New York (you must choose State: New York, County: Suffolk, Area: Shinnecock Reservation]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Texas Revolution may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• army staged a surprise assault on Santa Anna and his vanguard force at the [Battle of San Jacinto]]. The Mexican troops were quickly routed, and vengeful Texians executed many who tried to surrender.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fuendetodos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zuloaga. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carl Menger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Prague. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Planisware, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Browser, SQL Server and European Business School. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Max Baucus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip Morris. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bermuda National Library, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Online catalog, Workers Voice and Royal Gazette. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gorkha Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bahadur Shah. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dead Sea Scrolls may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

documents that shed light on the rules and beliefs of a particular group ([[sect]]) or groups (within greater Judaism, like the [[Community Rule]], the [[War Scroll]], the [[Habakkuk Commentary| the Dead Sea Scrolls|publisher=Israel Antiquities Authority|author=Pnina Shor}}</ref> || 1967 || > 15,000 | The [[Jordan Museum]] – Government of Jordan<ref name="The new Jordan Museum"/> || 1947–1956 || > 25

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al-Mourabitoun (militant group), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algerians. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I assume you have read the Manual Of Style that I linked to regarding over-linking? This explains how over-linking detracts from the over-all legibility of the article, and buries the words that do benefit from linking among words that really don't. It says; "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from." and that it is not usual to link "Everyday words understood by most readers in context"

So the question is, which of the words you linked may not be understood by most readers, and help them understand the article on Saudia Arabia better? Snakes? Camels? Sheep? Shrubs? You added 23 links like these to a single paragraph. I perhaps may link bulbuls, but that's only because it is not a word I know, but almost all the others are familiar to most readers. They do not need clarified, and most of them are so generic that they tell the reader nothing at all about Saudi Arabia.

Hope this explains why I identified it as overlinking. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I point out in my original note to you, I may have been overzealous with linking shrubs, for example, but mongooses and sand rats, are not deserving of Wikipedia links? I am not offhand familiar with either species... as I am not readily familiar with the gazelles, hyenas, wolves that are endemic to the Arabian Peninsula. I do know that their animal life is particularly distinct and unique because it is a desert climate. However, you may think deserts deserve commonplace status. Certainly, the distinction of camels, with the Arabian type (Saudi Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius)} distinguished from Bactrian camel - since certain camels are indigenous to Saudi Arabia, and are not common household items would have added to the article. As such I think you could have been more judicious and selective in your reversion, rather than erase the entire effort that I did... Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To answer your original question, yes, I have read the Manual of Style... Yes, according to the Manual Of Style that you refer to regarding linking, nearly all of the links should have been included, with the exception of maybe shrub... The Manual refers to generic words that have no specificity germane to the article, which would probably apply to broad phyla-level nouns such as birds, snakes or herbs but I would say for the other more specific terms such as falcons, or eagles, or hawks, for example, that may, according to the specific language used in the Manual of Style article, be a gray area, which is much more of a judgement call than any clear enunciation of an applicable use... The determinant is not whether you are familiar with a word or concept but what the link adds informationally to the article or topic under discussion. Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The more specific links you've added make much more sense. IMHO it's still a bit overlinked, but that's a matter of taste that I'm not going to dispute. Happy editing! --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. Out of consideration to and to accommodate your concerns and objections to what you regarded as overlinking in this section is why I added the specificity to the links that I did... By adding some specific anecdotes that elucidate the uniqueness of the wildlife (which as you pointed out initially was probably not characterized by the generic wildlife (and their terms) that was for the most part initially referenced in the article) I wanted to highlight the potential unusualness without detailing all of the wildlife uniqueness that is endemic to an environment as different as the Arabian Peninsula... Regards, Steve Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already pointed out to you, the statement is already referenced in the body, and any number of other sources exist to back it up. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the Search that you demonstrate above from the Internet has absolutely nothing to do with the referencing of articles on Wikipedia, unless they are actually posted on Wikipedia... It is a fairly elementary concept to grasp... That is why we request citations for either facts or, in this case, speculative conclusions... And no - it is not referenced at all, in the article - Anywhere... Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenmitchell, read the whole article or do a CLT-F and type "cave". You'll see it mentioned twice. The first is in the lead section, which you tried to flag. The second is in the body of the article, where, like everything else in the article body, is correctly cited to its source. Lead sections should actually not include footnotes to citations, since it is a summary only of what is stated and cited further down. Prhartcom (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, actually, Prhartcom, it is not referenced further down (which I had actually checked at the time). Had it been referenced I would not have posted its need for a citation. It is only stated in a single sentence that is most likely the invention and embellishment of Curly Turkey in the article. And it is totally unreferenced anywhere in the article (especially further down where the following references refer to different arguments having nothing to do with Lascaux at all), and yet it is part of the summary "opinion" that only a highly speculative argument would present. Even in evolutionary psychology, which tries to stretch associations, there is no suggestion that comics have any link whatsoever to cave paintings in Lascaux or any other European cave illustrations. It is the assertion of the editor who contributed this "observation" or "conclusion" and it is theirs alone... But is there is certainly no reference - legitimate or otherwise - in the article... Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's sourced to Gabilliet, p. xiv, and I've already linked you to a heaping pile of other sources above and in my edit comments. If you don't like it, take it up with your shrink. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added five more sources to Gabilliet, and could easily add piles more. I've also deleted your trolling on my talk page and Talk:Comics. Further trolling in this vein will not be tolerated. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't post the template...not exactly. What happened was, there were two templates already on the page, and AutoWikiBrowser combined them into one when I made my first pass. Either way, I've had a look at it, and don't agree that it doesn't meet notability. But then, I'm an inclusionist. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I too am an inclusionist, so I was uncertain as to the origin of the templates posted or what reasoning may have been associated with the template posting for the article in question. The author the article is about certainly seemed worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia... Thanks for advising me of what incurred the posting... Regards, Steve... Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

funny i found your page as i was considering this. E. O. Wilson discusses how humans are a eusocial species, only equalled by ants, termites, etc. however, its obvious that not ALL humans are equally social, let alone eusocial. i think your comments on the origins of libertarianism/anarchism point to people who are significantly less social than others, who dont see themselves as part of a highly connected web of comprimises and allowances, partially implemented ideas, etc. this may even be related to autism spectrum/asbergers. such people can apparently amass great political power influence, probably through not having to invest any energy in healthy social relations. we really cant let societys direction be determined by bell curve outliers. many social animal species have been observed to spontaneously make unanimous decisions once 50% of the group has chosen it, and 66% for vital decisions like finding a new hive location for bees. just some thoughts. enjoy if you like.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Mercurywoodrose. Thank you for your insights. I apologize for taking so long to reply but I have been preoccupied with a particular project lately and have had not had the time to provide attention to the thoughts that you have shared here on this page. I have not even had time for Wikipedia. However, I will reply fairly soon, and advise you on your page when I do, hopefully with some detail to your observations.Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Waheed el Solh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saida. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are Mexican archaeologists, authors of an Atlas of prehispanic Mexico.[18] I don't understand why we can use it however, perhaps the original has an appropriate licence. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Doug, if you can reference the text, Atlas del México prehispánico, (Spanish is my worst language) then I don't have any objections to its inclusion. It should be referenced in that article to be included as a resource for that Wikipedia article... I am actually surprised that something as valuable as that resource, was never translated into English. Regards, Steve. Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven. I see you commented on the St Brice's Day Massacre querying how useful the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is as you have to pay for access. In the UK we get free access to the DNB through our public library, and you should be able to get a free sub through The Wikipedia Library. I see Oxford University Press is shown as open. I find I can generally get access to online historical journals, unlike scientific ones, which are generally not available without paying. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to José Félix Estigarribia. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ssangyong Cement Industrial Co., Ltd has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on Ssangyong Cement Industrial Co., Ltd, you will see the log entry: "16:21, February 27, 2017 Premeditated Chaos (talk | contribs) deleted page Ssangyong Cement Industrial Co., Ltd (Expired PROD...)". Which means you should contact User:Premeditated Chaos. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you can ask for this to be userfied while you try to improve it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Snuggums. I was quite clear regarding what I was doing with the date ranges. An endash has traditionally been included with date ranges. I am going to verify what has been a longstanding formatting standard of Wikipedia, whether it is still in use, but I believe that you are mistaken, since date ranges and a mechanism to provide ranges need to be included in biography articles. As you seem to work on musical articles, it may not have been included in those articles because they are generally not considered significant biographies, so you may not have seen it in use. But I am going to check out Wikipedia policy first before I do anything further, as opposed to your run and shoot approach. Regards. Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I being notified on December 3rd, when these elections began on November 27, and voting ends in 1 week from today? Was this delay in notification (invitation) intentional or simply the result of a malfunctioning bot? Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ShopLocal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Staples (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from 173.244.192.0/19 has been blocked (disabled) by Elockid for the following reason(s): Server-multiple.svgThe IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host provider. Since the web host acts like a proxy, because it hides your IP address, it has been blocked. To prevent abuse, these IPs may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

This block has been set to expire: 15:03, November 29, 2020. Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've sent an email to you showing your current IP and several links that show that this does not appear to be a CenturyLink IP but one that belongs to Hosting Services Inc. You might try rebooting your modem.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Berean, As I have noted in my email to you, the address that I am associated with by the Block is NOT my address. I haved provided data from my machine's IP config below for your viewing. It is the same data that I sent in an email reply to misreported IP address that you are showing. That information I was able to obtain myself from the IP block info. However, the Wikipedia techie that created that tool is no longer with Wikipedia but his faulty technology still is. I have no idea where the Wikipedia tool being used, obtains this information from. Any of the IP address tools reporting, that you have sent me, denote a location that is not even remotely close to where I physically am now or live. I have never been to Utah or Kansas. Something is amiss. Thanks, Steve. Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless LAN adapter Wi-Fi:

  Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . :
  Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::8c80:ffc6:faa5:e075%6
  IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.4
  Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
  Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1

Wireless LAN adapter Local Area Connection* 11:

  Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . :
  Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::7017:e48f:95be:77ce%18
  IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.137.1
  Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
  Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . :

Ethernet adapter Bluetooth Network Connection:

  Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected
  Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . :

Tunnel adapter Local Area Connection* 13:

  Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . :
  IPv6 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 2001:0:9d38:953c:1c63:9d:520b:26c9
  Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::1c63:9d:520b:26c9%17
  Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : ::

• • According to Wikipedia's more reliable tool used to check IP blocks, I am not reported as blocked by Wikipedia. Berean, you may want to check that yourself to denote what is really going on technically. I hope that you do, because I cannot change anything that is internal to Wikipedia. MY IP address is fine, my login name is not associated with any blocks. This is a Wikipedia problem, with an errant tool gone awry. Please help. Thank you. Steve. Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block log

Blocked users From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia See also the list of autoblocks

Find a blocked user IP address or username:

Stevenmitchell Hide account blocks Hide temporary blocks Hide single IP blocks Hide range blocks Items per page:

• What IP is reported to you by this non-WP tool?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you added a ^{[dubious – discuss]} tag in the population_note infobox parameter with no other text. I can't tell which source(s) you are referring to. Perhaps it would be more helpful to place the tag directly following the reference (s) that are dubious? Or add the source in the parameter and tag it? Matuko 17:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of labor issues and events, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Wurts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pleasant Mills (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Stevenmitchell, I just noticed your recent remark at Talk:Donald Trump#The Art of the Deal. If you wish to edit Trump-related articles, please proceed carefully, because they come with a minefield of administrative restrictions. Cheers, — JFG ^talk 12:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. You made a Bold edit on Deep Space Climate Observatory; You were Reverted by User:Huntster; All of this is great, to this point.

You started a discussion on Huntster's Talk page a month ago and quickly escalated a simple discussion into multiple attacks on another editor.

Your initial comment was a bit rude, and did not assume good faith. You then continued and went to attack mode: alleging that Huntster was acting "insis[ing his]is the only one that counts in this matter", of "believe that you own the article and have the final verdict on the article". There is no evidence of that.

If you have a content issue you'd like to dispute: take it to the article Talk page and discuss it. You have not taken the topic to the Talk page to see if you might build a consensus for your position in the article prose. You have insted attacked another editor, now on three occasions. Please stop this disruptive behavior.

You made a Bold edit; it was Reverted. Don't turn that into an attack on another editor. N2e (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC) N2e (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the delay in replying. Thanks for misrepresenting my comments and the period of time referenced. The period of time was less than 3 weeks - not a month (I thought you claimed to be a precisionist), and based on your comments, the content of what I said was never perceptible to you and went completely over your head. But instead, you have to prove my point about the bullying and gang problem on Wikipedia. The person that you are referring to, whom replied on his page to my comments, is in fact, an administrator, and had my replies been verbal attacks would have done something about that. I was merely trying to demonstrate how shutting my opinion or any person's opinion down, is a form of bullying and way too frequently a tolerated form of bullying on Wikipedia. But it appears you cannot grasp that. My original edit was a very minor edit and ultimately doesn't matter much to the content of Wikipedia. My response however, was meant to illustrate and articulate how the content and many Wikipedia articles are controlled by cliques of people, that only accept contributions and editing from their little groups, and it is their decisions alone that determine what can and cannot be done on their editing territory. It is a very real problem on Wikipedia. They use the watchlist to make sure any edits that occur on what articles they follow are subject to their review and approval. Just as an example there is a "word processing" article on Wikipedia that will not permit the addition of popular word processors used in New York City years ago, because 5 editors that control the article have not heard of it, despite providing 4 references that attested to its popularity at the time. So that article will forever remain incomplete. That is but one example. There are thousands of others. It is probably why there are so few encyclopaedia-caliber articles on this portal and why universities will not allow Wikipedia to be used as a reference... Regards... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New WP:CONSENSUS Building. "Greek" or "Hellenic" precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by _HELLENIC_KINGDOM">Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)_HELLENIC_KINGDOM">[reply]_HELLENIC_KINGDOM">

"Eventually, humans will be merely instruments that are totally unnecessary for technology to continue."

Severall writers and musicians have already expressed similar beliefs for decades, that we are merely cogs in a machime. Eleni Vitali, for example, had a hit song in the 1980s with the lyrics: https://lyricstranslate.com/en/%CE%BA%CE%B9%CE%B2%CF%89%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82-arc.html:

• I am a component of your machine
• and my son is the spare part !
• He'll be ok for a lifetime at your service,
• he's made of perfect material !

• I was born with a why,
• [a why] hidden within the heart.
• Which dudes do I serve ?
• Which ones have me wound up ? Dimadick (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Howe, 5th Viscount Howe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Clinton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability guidelines at WP:GROUP.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ifnord (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ifnord (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have admittedly posted this series of insults on a very obscure page, or I'd be tempted to block you straight away. But if I see you violate the no personal attacks policy so egregiously again, on any page, you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

	Nice to meet you ~
	~ Thanks for your edit on Barnes and Noble ~mitch~ (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mitch. Nice to meet you too... You are welcome... Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stevenmitchell. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Albert of Riga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag, and remember that all stub tags go at the bottom not the top (WP:ORDER) and they don't take a date parameter. Thanks. PamD 08:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the {{Expand section}} tag is for when a section of an article needs expansion, so isn't appropriate here. There perhaps needs to be a tag for "OK there's lots of info in the infobox but please add it in prose too" but I don't think there is! "Stub" means that the whole article needs expansion, anyway. The {{unreferenced}} tag left by an earlier editor was incorrect so I've now changed it to {{refimprove}}, as there's just the one ref. The article also needed a References section heading and a {{reflist}} to bring the refs into place, which I've done. Thanks. PamD 08:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was your device offering predictive text, but "duplicity" is probably not the word you wanted in your edit summary: "duplication" perhaps. PamD 09:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "duplicity" wasn't my first choice but it still worked ok in that capacity, in the context of double or twofold. But as far as my other attempts to post a comment on the article, were not because the article did not have enough references. Who cares about references in the article, when there isn't any data to go with it. Unfortunately, I do not know what template to post on an article that is devoid of information, to encourage additional information, so I posted "stub" on it. (And yes it was in the incorrect place). Unfortunately, I was locked out of my new computer (it freezes for periods of time) at that point and I was unable to make the corrections I had intended to do to fix my edits. But Pam, thank you very much for your assistance with my edits... Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my version of English "duplicity" is strictly negative, deception, double-dealing, that sort of thing! It already had a stub tag, albeit a long way away below that enormous template. There was some data in the infobox, which I suppose either of us could usefully have transcribed into the body of the article. If the population is actually 62 as stated, there may not be a lot more to say about the place.(Just checked the Italian wiki article: twice the population, 125, but a 2001 figure, while the 62 is from 2018. Rural depopulation in action.) I found an entry on the local tourist board website but it didn't have anything to say except that it existed, and the town council website will do for that. Ah well, there are worse problems elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Happy editing and stay safe. PamD 14:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Spanish wiki, which ought to know, has a 2019 population figure of 79. Actually I've now found an interesting article - if my Spanish was better I could do more with it but I'm confident enough of the "smallest and oldest" quote which I've added. PamD 14:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. How do I undo the damage that you have done in the deletion of an article that was ready to be published? I have requested several times to have the draft that you deleted restored, per the Wikipedia instructions that you provided, with zero responses over the last 3 months. How do I actually get this thing restored? Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the problem that there were 2 draft pages produced? The first which you deleted, and the 2nd which was a restored deleted working draft (connected to the 1st) that was erroneously deleted prematurely, and restored by the deletionists and that had been developed further and was ready for posting? Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Stevenmitchell, Here's a draft i found Draft:Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund, i am however not certain if its the first or second draft. It is imperative for you to know that when drafts are left abandoned for over 6 months it automatically qualifies for WP:G13 under abandoned draft, Read WP:NOTHOSTING. I hope i've been able to assist you. Lapablo (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenmitchell, Since you've started edited the draft again i believe that is the right page. Happy Editing. Lapablo (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lapablo, thank you for your assistance. I believe what was restored was the latest revision... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... as described in the edit summary of this edit? The source is archived and the percentage shown in the article was incorrect, but the reference does indeed exist and the data was corrected. Am I missing something? Alansohn (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked the original URL link that leads to You’ve found data that haven’t been released yet. italic text, rather than the archived URL. And, yes, the numerical fact cited was wrong, which I had eventually found the URL of. Apparently, you were correcting your own effort from 2 1/2 years ago... Thanks. Take Care. Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Accenture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stevenmitchell. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. One of your recent edits to the crack epidemic article doesn't appear to be sourced and (furthermore) isn't reflected in the main body.....ergo it is inappropriate for the lead section (see MOS:LEAD).Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made the edit on a cellphone, so I can't reference it (because there are no tools and I don't offhand remember the syntax for references) until I have access to a PC. But it was common knowledge that no one publicly called it a health crisis. It was underpinned by the Broken Windows ideology that emerged and was promoted in the subsequent years. In NYC, it was the foundation for Rudy Giuliani's mayoral campaign. There was never any mention of a health crisis in NYC or across the country, at the time, at all. The urban poor - being Black and Hispanic - were just weak, angry and violent. 'The "ghetto" was out-of-control and had to be stopped.' But I will add references (of which now there are many specifically on this topic) and probably add a section for its application... Thanks. Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with what you said (that's why I didn't revert)....but we always need RS (and the LEAD to reflect the body).Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don’t know all the details about what is going on but comments like

It's OK, this user practices edit warring as a means of intimidation... It is how he bullies his opinion to make it the accepted standard, regardless of article citations that actually challenge that standard.

Comes off as WP:UNCIVIL and goes against WP:NPA.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this? What article is this in reply to? 18:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven, thanks for your comment on Talk:Bob Knight#Bobby Knight?. If I could ask more specifically though, what do you think of the idea of opening a wp:move request? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert

I have no problem with backing a move request if that is what you would like to open. I have read the arguments for keeping it Bob Knight and I can see their point as well. However, I do want to add that for many people who grew up watching him coach, few of us would ever think of searching for Bob, unless there was a redirect added to include Bobby, which is how most seemed to have known him. It would be like having an article titled Jack Kennedy vs that of his full name, or JFK, both of which he's better known as. But if you want to start a move request, I will back it, although I am fine with it as it is as long as there's a redirect set up. I haven't tested it for the Redirect. Cheers. Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Stevenmitchell, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed this was some sort of misclick, or accident, no problem, esp if by a noob. But immediately reinstating it? You know that's not how policy pages are changed; and I suspect you also know that the suggestion that admins frequently delete articles solely because of their authority ... it is the reality of how Wikipedia functions at the editor level does not reflect broad consensus, and indeed is completely at odds with accepted practice. I suggest taking your suggestions to the talkpage and gain consensus. Serial (speculates here) 11:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:NOT. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenmitchell, since you continued to edit while ignoring the request for a comment at the noticeboard discussion about your behavior, I'll have to assume that you are aware of the issue, have read the summary provided by Ivanvector and can be blocked without a need for another warning in case of further point-making disruptive edits on a policy page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --18:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User:Stevenmitchell and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

You've been around a while, so I was surprised to see you add a citation needed tag to a sentence in the lead. Leads don't need sources if the statement is sourced in the body of text. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would have only done that because I didn't actually find it in the body of the article. I haven't rechecked it though, since your post here. Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer examination, I thought that the conclusion that is posted in the article lead, was not confirmed by the information in the body of the article. The statement "Pope Francis went on a pilgrimage to Turin on 21 June 2015, to pray before and venerate the Holy Shroud and honour St. John Bosco on the bicentenary of his birth," seemed to contradict or call into question the veracity of the lead statement, "Currently, the Catholic Church neither endorses nor rejects the authenticity of the shroud as a relic of Jesus." That statement certainly didn't seem to coincide with Pope Francis actions of making a big show of going to the shrine. I believe it was the strength of the stated assertion that appeared to me to be contradictory with his public behavior. I was unable to access The Economist article, to verify the reference. And the lead statement seemed to be more of an editor's opinion, than a public stance by the Catholic Church. That's why I thought the statement should be either referenced or removed. Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug. Since when is a Deadlink reference, and an inaccessible reference in an article, a viable reference within an article? In other words, you are saying that we have to take it on faith, without any evidence, that the claim in the article is actually properly sourced, despite there being no visible evidence to support that claim? That is why I initially posted the notification that the claim needs an authentic reference denoting its "authenticity." Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 15:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User:Stevenmitchell and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Homo erectus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Wish you could also add a direct link, but oh well. Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But I corrected it, anyway. Thanks for the notification. Stevenmitchell (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User:Stevenmitchell and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User:Stevenmitchell and is being posted here due to a redirect.)