User talk:StefenTower

Re: Internet democracy delete debate

Comment: was the new text based around an actual term because my interpretation of your comment is that a concept was made to fit internet democracy. -- Graham  :) | Talk 02:50, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: I've updated the delete debate with a response. -- Stevietheman 05:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Semi-direct democracy

Thanks for catching that. I've really got to diversify my boilerplate messages so that mistake is less likely. -- Cyrius|&#9998 07:59, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome  :) -- Stevietheman 14:47, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Handbags

• I replied to you at the handbag company vfd debate, but thought I would explicitly tell you so here because it is hard to follow changes on vfd. Pcb21| Pete 10:17, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Democracy

I am happy you added rule of law! :-)) /Tuomas 01:17, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

Nice clean up on global warming, Stevie. You are "the man"! --Uncle Ed 14:04, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your cleanup was much more comprehensive. So, no, you're really "the man"!  :) -- Stevietheman 14:46, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Global warming

You have violated the three reverts rule with the Global warming article. Please stop this edit war immediately. David Newton 11:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

William M. Connolley is the culprit you want. He was the one doing wholesale reversions of people's work. I was defending the best interest of the Wikipedia against such rogue efforts. You may want to do more research next time you make an accusation. -- Stevietheman 13:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I left exactly the same message on his user page. You BOTH violated the three revert rule. It takes two to have a revert war. Had you reverted three times and then called in outside help that would help that would have been different. However you reverted the page at 16:18, 16:55 and 18:05 on 15 July and again 06:11 on 16 July. That's four reverts on the same article within a 24 hour period, hence the admonition and my protecting of the page. I did exactly the research required to make the accusation I did. David Newton 16:40, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK. I stand corrected, technically speaking. However, sometimes rules enforcement gets in the way of addressing problems. From what I understand, William M. Connolley has a substantial history of POV contributions, and his rogue efforts to erase somebody's work certainly has some kind of rule against that (I would hope).

Further, I admonish you for using such needless authoritarian language against someone who is normally a good player (namely me). -- Stevietheman 17:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He certainly does seem to rather be the arrogant type. Global warming is NOT undisputed in the scientific community. I have a masters degree in chemistry and I do not consider it to be a proven fact. The problem is that the models do not accurately predict current conditions in many cases, so that leads to the conclusion that there are lots of unaccounted for factors out there. With that situation it is bad science to claim to have a theory that explains everything. David Newton 18:31, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stevie, I hate to say this but David is right about the three-revert rule. But since you apparently had never heard of it before, you might well bristle at finding out about it so suddenly. Er, David, have you read Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies lately? ;-) --Uncle Ed 14:30, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I knew about the rule. I broke it on purpose. Maybe they should throw me in jail.  :) -- Stevietheman 17:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, don't be silly. Just take your break and come back when you have more time. --Uncle Ed 20:03, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'Sexual slang' page

I see you've been editing the Sexual slang page. Please see Talk:Sexual slang and comment (on that Talk page, not mine) if necessary. I'd like to standardize the page as much as possible but different people seem to have different ideas. We need to hash them out. (I'm sending this same message to everyone who's made multiple edits to that page in the last few days.) - dcljr 05:23, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Going on break

I'm going on an extended break from the Wikipedia, as I've been spending too much time in here, neglecting other chores that *have* to get done. My monitoring will be restricted to my user page and maybe a few other select articles. I apologize to those I was discussing various matters with in talks, but I really have to bow out for a while. Take care. -- Stevietheman 17:54, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

rv on Sexual Slang: not me!

I recently added a number of slang terms to the Sexual Slang page, which you regularly update. I checked back again today and noticed in the history that you commented "rv to last edit by 68.71.226.203", but the vandal (who modified the page after me and before you) is, in fact, 218.79.107.46. I'm fairly new to wiki, so I don't know what the policy is for reporting and banning vandals, but in any case I'd rather not be blamed for something I didn't do. --68.71.226.203 21:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What I said in my comment is that I was reverting to the last edit by you (68.71.226.203). That isn't blaming you, but rather saying that your edit was the last one that was acceptable. Re: vandalism, see Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. I had noticed that the 218.79.107.46 user only posted once, so I didn't bother reporting. Now, if he had continued vandalizing in an out-of-control manner, that would be another story. -- Stevietheman 22:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Stopthebus18

Seems to have been improving his behaviour *slightly* over time. After some talking, he tidied up his user page at least, and you're not mentioned on it anymore. I worry whether he'll ever make a good wikipedian, but we'll keep talking with him, and see what happens.

I hope this news makes you a bit happier. :-)

Kim Bruning 21:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)