User talk:Steamroller Assault/2010a

Re Franny and Zooey copyvio

I have responded to your post on the Copyright problems page. It seems that you are most likely correct. It is now a matter of restoring the article to its previous state before the copy-and-paste. That will take a little time. I am glad you caught this. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Cool. Based on this diff, I am restoring to a previous version to remove the copyvio. It appears there have been no major edits since that time, and a rebuild from that state should not be a huge problem. Steamroller Assault (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Toronto

You will never hear "U of T" outside Canada. If you say so, people would probably assume you're talking about the University of Texas at Austin. I'm from Belgium, and the university is often referred to as the University of Toronto or just Toronto. Just go to the university's bookstore, and you will see hoodies with "TORONTO" on it. (because I did) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.48.127 (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Articles of clothing are generally not considered reliable sources. If you can find a non-sweater-based reliable source for your claim, feel free to add it to the article. Steamroller Assault (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What's your obsession with "U of T"? Do you really want to be unknown, unrecognized? University of Chicago, University of Michigan, etc all accept that they are often referred to as "Chicago", "Michigan", etc. What's so different about U of T? Does U of T sound any better than Toronto? U of T sounds prestige-less anyway. Why don't you ask, in real life, a person from Europe, the States or Asia, if the University of Toronto is often referred to as simply "Toronto" or even "Toronto University" in his/her country?

• If you check the edit history, you will see that I never added "U of T"; I only removed "Toronto". You will also see that I haven't touched the article since then. I encourage you to use reliable sources, not anecdotal information for your claims. Other than that, I'm not sure how I can help you. Steamroller Assault (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The artists formerly known as Mikal

It wasn't my intent to conflate Mikal (UK artist) with Mikal (US artist) (aka Michael Gurry), or to prefer one non-notable artist to the other. I'd seen the name Michael Habron in earlier edits of pre-bifurcated Mikal, and found Michael Gurry by tracing user contributions, and based on the edit chronology I had assumed that Michael Gurry had renamed himself Michael Harbron before reinventing himself as Mikal until I saw the article completely change today. I'm sorry if I added to the confusion. Really I was only trying to sort out the Michael/Michael/Mikal chronology so that I could recommend pre-bifurcated Mikal and Michael Gurry to AfD without spouting nonsense about a very poorly documented artist. I mean, artists, of course. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not certain if these articles represent two or three separate individuals; a statement which also attests to how poorly the article creators documented these people. As you know, the other articles relating to Mikal (US artist) have been deleted via Afd, and I imagine that the name Mikal will probably turn up at Afd again, in some form or another. Steamroller Assault (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Will Gray Magician

Hi Steamroller assault thanks for the redirection theres another article which is just Will Gray this is the same and really the only one thats needed could you help me by deleting the others or redirecting them to Will Gray any help would be appriceated. vanishingrabbit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanishingrabbit (talk • contribs) 20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey sexist bitch, shut the fuck up

How dare you support calling women bitchy and moody, dumbass ... SoCath (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. My warning to you was regarding a personal attack left at User talk:Rachaelnmincey. Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Socks

Re your message: Probably not worth mentioning since Zany Zebu Redivivus was blocked back in 2008. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valve&diff=next&oldid=345072332

Hi Steamroller Assault:

With regard to the rollback on my edit (see above reference): the Valve page is in need of references, which is what I added. You cite my addition as a "spam reference", probably becasue the link is to a corporate website. However, you tolerate the presence of an external link to http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/steam-theory/types-of-valves.html on that same page, which is also a corporate website.

This is not the only reference of mine that you've reverted as "spam". I am not adding spam. For one, together with the references, I've been adding a number of high-resolution photos of valves on these articles, and most articles are void of decent any references, which is another value-added that my contributions to the different articles on spam.

You've also reverted my references on other valve pages, but you tolerate links to other corporations. On the Butterfly Valve article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_valve, you tolerate the manual-selling external link http://www.tpub.com/fireman/69.htm, similar to the Gate Valve article external link to the same site, on the Globe Valve page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe_valve you tolerate the Emerson Corporation's external link http://www.documentation.emersonprocess.com/groups/public/documents/book/cvh99.pdf, the control valve article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_valves is littered with external company links: Spirax Sarco's http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources/steam-engineering-tutorials/control-hardware-el-pn-actuation.asp, Emerson's http://www.documentation.emersonprocess.com/groups/public/documents/book/cvh99.pdf, Flow Control's http://www.flowcontrol.com/Animation/index.html and Samson's http://www.samson.de/support/enser002.htm. Same happens with Spirax Sarco's link on the Check Valve article page.

Please note that you are tolerating "External Links" to corporate websites, but my links are "References" to an article on valves on our site. So, external corporate links with no value-added to the text of the article are ok, but explanatory additions to the article with citations from corporate sites are not ok?

Sorry, I can't see a convinving reason for deleting my references (citing them as corporate spam) but tolerating a dozen other corporate links on those very same pages. To me, that's an inconsistent application of the external link policy.

I look forward to receiving your response; I trust we will be able to deal with this constructively.

Thanks Heather Smith

Hi there. Thanks for noticing the other spam links on those pages. After your block expires, please feel free to follow the guidelines set at WP:EL and remove them. Also, you should take a look at the conflict of interest guidelines before proceeding any further. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new

I have removed the abusive message given to an abusive suspected sockpuppet. Happy editing! Minimac (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for me. To be honest, I don't mind leaving up notes from the soon-to-be-blocked subset, but it's all cool. Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Eurobeerguide

Sockpuppet Eurobeerguide knows about the blacklist. That's the whole point of his recent attacks, to get my website onto the blacklist. If you look at the earlier history of this sockpuppet you'll see that originally he tried to remove my website directly. Now he's taking this approach. Just to make this clear http://www.europeanbeerguide.net/ is my website and I am not responsible for these sockpuppet spam attacks. The sockpuppet has a weird obsession with me and has spent the last 18 months attacking any wikipedia edits I make and leaving abusive comments on my blog. His attacks have got a bit more subtle, but the object is still the same: to remove any links to my website from wikipedia. He recently left an abusive comment on my blog saying exactly that.Patto1ro (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What a bizarre way for someone to spend their time. To be honest, I was suspecting something like this because of the obsessive nature of the edits. Hopefully he'll soon grow tired of this ineffective tactic and go back to cataloging his collection of toenail clippings or whatever else turns him on. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ONTORULE

Hi. I'd like to ask you why do you consider a copyvio my text on ONTORULE? I'm in charge of the dissemination activities of the project, so I have the copyright of that text. Adnd the whole consortium agree to donate it to the wikipedia project. So, I wonder which is the reason to such edition? Thank you. Sergio Fernández (talk) 9:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to import text to Wikipedia, it must be compatable with CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses. The text in question came from a fully copyrighted website. Please read WP:COPYRIGHT for the relevant policies, and WP:DCM for instructions on how to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Since we (ONTORULE consortium) are the owner of that content, we can contribute them to Wikipedia with the license that we want. Check discussion page. Kind regards, Sergio Fernández (talk) 9:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the same applies for Fundación CTIC article. Sergio Fernández (talk) 9:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken, but there are very simple ways to fix this issue. Because the material you are using is copyrighted, you must follow the instructions for Donating copyrighted materials in order for it to be published on Wikipedia. Until those instructions are followed, and approval is given, fully copyrighted materials cannot appear here even if you own the copyright, which of course we can't prove until you follow the instructions at WP:DCM. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and I urge you to take the steps to fix this. Until then I am removing the copyrighted materials, and the template, which very clearly states that it is a template for files only, and not articles. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flutter (film)

The original predictive stub 2-sentence stub for Flutter (film) has now been expanded and better sourced to show that the project has moved from pre-production to principle filming. Might you support it being sent to WP:Incubate for a few weeks? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's cool with me. Steamroller Assault (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Bob Hale (Houston Association of REALTORS®)

I have nominated Bob Hale (Houston Association of REALTORS®) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

BJCP

I have re-enabled Special:AbuseFilter/232. Please keep an eye, I may not be around too much until after the weekend. --Dirk Beetstra <sup>T C 11:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Celebration of life day

I've stumbled across your listing for the "article", but you need to complete the process if you want significant participation in the discussion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Twinkle can be a bit buggy at times, creating incomplete nominations. Thanks for finding it. I'll tie up the loose ends. Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Donzaleigh Abernathy

Hi there.

Re. recent additions to Donzaleigh Abernathy which you removed; I spoke to a user in the help channel (at length), and what happened is this;

Donzaleigh (talk · contribs) added something somewhat promotional and unreferenced, several times. They did not understand Wikipedia policies on WP:BRD etc. They were warned.

Their friend, Madamewus (talk · contribs), then tried to add exactly the same thing - and was blocked as a sock.

Madamewus came into the IRC help channel, and I explained all about policies etc; they requested an unblock (see their talk page), and they now intend to explain what they would like to add on talk:Donzaleigh Abernathy, and they will provide references.

Therefore, please could you look out for their discussion there, and comment on it. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Lizzie Fricker

Hi. I have declined this speedy deletion, as I think (between the article and the author's remark on the talk page) there is enough assertion of notability to pass A7. I am by no means sure that she meets WP:PROF, though - feel free to take to AfD, but give the author a little time to work on it - I have pointed him to PROF. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The article was seven hours old when I tagged it, and there wasn't much substance to it when i did. I'm interested in seeing how this article grows now that the OP has been informed of notability guidelines. Steamroller Assault (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I don't criticise your tag, or mean to imply that it was hasty - it was the author's "hangon" and response that made me think it should have another chance. I just meant, don't AfD it straight away. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Rob Atha

See comment in discussion on this page. I don't know why a change is necessary to the wording proposed in the last revision, which is factually correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.234.193 (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Will reply on the discussion page. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sleepy Sun

Oh man, you tried to delete my Sleepy Sun page. But, oh man, look's like it's still there. Oh man!

Thanks for adding references to verify notability. I fixed the citations for you. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Extreme 19th

Hello! Your submission of Extreme 19th at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ErinM (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Danielhipresurface

Probably should block this user. Has recreated advert user page again. RJ (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the recent recreation of this user page isn't the comprehensive webpage that was originally deleted, but rather simply an external link; I've removed the link and clarified my final warning to this user. But keep a lookout if he does anything like that again. Steamroller Assault (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Extreme 19th

On April 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Extreme 19th, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion warnings

Hello, don't forget to warn users if you nominate articles they have created for speedy deletion (eg. Trinken). It gives them a chance to make their case for keeping the article using the {{hangon}} template, and even if deletion is inevitable, at least gives them an explanation why their article has suddenly disappeared! Regards, --BelovedFreak 10:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. A couple slipped by because it appears that Twinkle hasn't yet caught up with the new Wikipedia format. Steamroller Assault (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(And I was a little lazy.) Steamroller Assault (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

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) 17:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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

AfD nomination of Black swan story

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

SeaWell Networks

Hi, you deleted most of the page I created for SeaWell Networks because of copyrighted material lifted from the SeaWell Networks website, but my company created the website for SeaWell and wrote all the content. How can I get this resolved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonTimp (talk • contribs) 20:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Even though your company wrote the content of the SeaWell website, it is owned and fully copyrighted by SeaWell ("Copyright 2010 SeaWell Networks"), and Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted works. However, there are other issues to be addressed here. Please note that Wikipedia is not a place to promote a company. There are many other sites on the internet that cater to this form of advertising. In addition, as you have been hired by SeaWell to build a Wikipedia page, you have a significant conflict of interest. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged here, as it is generally always the case that such an editor cannot write about their given subject from a neutral point of view, which is one of the cornerstones of the project. If it is the intent of your company to promote businesses through Wikipedia, I'm afraid your efforts will not be met with much success. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi. You offered constructive criticism a while back on an article I was writing. You were blunt but very fair, and I appreciated the help and your even-handedness. Are you an administrator? I'd like some input from you, if that's okay? --AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not an administrator, but I know a pretty decent amount about how this place works. I'd be happy to offer whatever insight I can, however limited it might be. I'm also going to pop by the Charis Michelsen page, just to see how things have progressed over there. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Someone has been going into the Charis Michelsen page and posting endless numbers of people she supposedly has worked with, but with no citations. Also, some uncited info has been posted to it as well. I edited out some of it but haven't been to it lately.

Neutrality Dispute

Hey, I posted this on the other talk page, but I'm not sure if it updates you.

Thanks for some of the clear up. I went back in to a number of areas you cited and attempted clean up. I've read over the article and aside from some editing of various sections I'm having difficulty understanding how it reads like a PR piece (if you still believe so). I did a bit of research on other contemporary writers and found very similar outlines in life, work, themes, etc. Suggestions, or how can we best remove the "neutrality dispute"? Cjdw (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Cinoman

Your early work on the article Susan Cinoman encouraged me to look futher, and in my finding additional sources begin additional improvements. Might you care to assist further? Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking pretty good now? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Great work. You took it from just barely squeezing by notability requirements to a legitimate article. One can only hope that the original poster refrains from re-adding exaggerations of notability. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And there are so many more sources too. Thanks for the assist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)