User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 14

Bertolt Brecht

I've been working on the Bertolt Brecht article, and a citation request was added for facts that you wrote for the article. If I come across a citation I'll add it, but I thought that since you wrote it you might have one handy. Thanks! --In Defense of the Artist 17:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

In principle yes, but it is likely to be an exhausting project and I wouldn't be able to help much. --Zero^talk 07:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Writing

Speaking of which, here's an entry from Denis Dutton's Fourth Bad Writing Contest (1998). It reminds me somewhat of the previous introduction to God and the current introduction to Beauty:

The precision of the shining of the light breaking the dark is the other-identity of the light. The precision of the absolutely minimum transcendence of the dark is the light itself/the absolutely unconditioned exteriority of existence for the first time/the absolutely facial identity of existence/the proportion of the new creation sans depth/the light itself ex nihilo: the dark itself univocally identified, i.e., not self-identity identity itself equivocally, not the dark itself equivocally, in “self-alienation,” not “self-identity, itself in self-alienation” “released” in and by “otherness,” and “actual other,” “itself,” not the abysmal inversion of the light, the reality of the darkness equivocally, absolute identity equivocally predicated of the self/selfhood equivocally predicated of the dark (the reality of this darkness the other-self-covering of identity which is the identification person-self).

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

3rrv board.

I reverted your recent edit there because it messed up the general formating and didn't provide any of the requested difs anyways. Please read the instructions there on how to post reports. JoshuaZ 02:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Funny pictures

Hi. Several days ago, you created a page Wikipedia:Funny pictures. On Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Funny pictures, the consensus has been that it should be "userfied", meaning, that it should be moved to a subpage of your userspace. For example, you could move the content of the page to User:Stevertigo/Funny pictures. Would you consider moving the content so that the page can be deleted? Thank you. BigDT 12:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to antimatter and baryogenesis

Hello. Your rewrites of the introductions to both antimatter and baryogenesis introduced significant factual errors, which I had to correct. While I recognize the value of rewriting introductions for style concerns, please consider putting proposed new versions on the talk page for vetting with articles where you may be uncertain about the content, rather than making the changes directly. --Christopher Thomas 20:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Integration Userbox

This user integrates Wikipedia.

You've helped out in the past. Add this to your profile if you'd care to: we must spread the word! Cwolfsheep 18:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Neat change. Cwolfsheep 01:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Economic nationalism

The 'redirect' from Economic Patriotism does not work. A redirect should redirect automatically, see Help:Redirect.Paul111 10:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Could you explain this? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Addition

Hi, I noticed that you were talking about Addition at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Conventions. If you meant that, for example, the early "Interpretations" section includes intrusions of too-advanced concepts, I agree; I wrote those parts when I had a weak grasp of WP:NOR and I got a little overexcited in explaining things from an advanced perspective. Ever since, I haven't been able to decide how to fix the section, and I've stalled on improving the article in general. Any ideas? Melchoir 05:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir

I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of another person by User:Demiurge], who has taken it on him/herself to delete all my edits (except one, see below re Robin Livingstone).

I used the (helpme) function and received this reply:

"Well since I have no way of verifying the truth of otherwise of if you really only started today (From my perspective someone who genuinely started today would say that, but so would someone who is trying to pretend they only started today). I suggest you discuss it with the person who believes you are a sockpuppet, I have no magic wand to make them believe differently." --User:pgk 15:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I contacted the individual (User:Demiurge) making the charges against me explaining that I was not who he evidently is mistaking me for, but I have not heard back from him - evidently he does not deign to communicate with me.

This boils down to some unfortunate coincidence:

a) My ISP is similar to some malfeasants, but all I can say, not being a computer systems expert, is that I live in Manhattan, NY, in a building filled with people with computers, some of whom undoubtedly use Wikipedia.

b) My new page edit (Robin Livingstone) was not deleted or recommended for deletion, and a former editor of that exact same page was none other than User:pgk -- talk about coincidences!! And why did not User:Demiurge recommend that page for deletion, perhaps he liked its contents, which would indicate extreme subjectivity and abuse of power (although what power he has as an administrator is not clear to me, as a first time user).

I do not believe my edits should be vandalized by someone who simply suspects something, and I believe that there should be a checks and balances system to force him to reverse his destructive ways and desist until he is authorized to do what he/she is doing (he is not an administrator, which I have discerned from his/her own userpage).

Thanks for your help in this matter.

Jerry Garcia was the greatest 16:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Mediator!

I think I've made another user pissed. Refering the issue to mediation might be disruptive as it is so completely small, however could you please look at Talk:Cynthia McKinney and give some advice? Thanks Musaabdulrashid 01:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot

This is SB's edit. The following edit put the template on. The template is designed to warn if it is on an article page, it is not a seperate action. I have moved the template to a talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 10:07 13 September 2006 (GMT).

Bizarre summary of Net Neutrality

Dude, the Internet is a system of private networks, so there's no question of "privatizing" it. That happened fifteen years ago. Your one-sided summary, regurgitating some propaganda from a professional protest group, doesn't help and isn't NPOV. I suggest you refrain from mucking around with issues you don't understand.RichardBennett 07:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd ignore the heavy barrow this guy is pushing. By the way, he's nuking the intro entirely, making no attempt to compromise. --Calton | Talk 10:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-determination

I appreciate that you felt you were doing the right thing, however as I have pointed out on the [Self-determination discussion] page, you seem to have been mislead by the rewriting of the article done late last year. I only observed the article had been effectively vandalised a few days ago; the last I had seen of it I and the media and anyone talking about international affairs, human rights, or ethnic and regional groups could refer to the Self-determination article and know people were clearly told about this legal principle. I would appreciate if you were to undo your revert. Thank you.211.30.222.139 02:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation committee

As a current mediator who has also been active in the last few days, can I point you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Requests for mediation has ground to a halt, where concerns have been registered as to the current seemingly static state of the committee. Steve block Talk 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Kuniyoshi1.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kuniyoshi1.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Portrait

I'm going to revert most of your changes to Image:Joseph Smith, Jr. (1843 photograph).jpg. If you'd like add back some discussion of the Carter portrait theory, please mention the names of the scholars who originated or propound that theory (see Wikipedia:No original research).

Incidentally, I played around a bit with both images and I agree that once the Carter portrait is suitably rotated and scaled appropriately there is a striking similarity. I personally don't buy the theory that the images are identical, however: If you look carefully at the shading around the bottom of the nose, you can see that Smith in the Carter image is illuminated from Smith's right, whereas Smith in the Joseph Smith III image is illuminated from a point higher up and to Smith's left. 72.8.65.151 06:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your talk archives

May I ask why you have your talk page archives in the main talk: space instead of in the User talk: space? It is causing them to be tagged for speedy deletion as talk pages with no assosciated article (they will not be deleted, but they are still being tagged). Would you consider moving them into subpages as well? User talk:Stevertigo/Archive 1, etc. —Mets501 (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Of Possible Interest?

http://smithjcn.googlepages.com/time

JCNSmith 12:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk page archives

I moved and fixed your talk page archives, sort of. I took them out of the article space and put them as your most recent naming style so that bot doesn't speedy delete tag them. But that naming style is still wrong. Consider moving them to pages like User_talk:Stevertigo/Archive 1 rather than User talk:Stevertigo Archive 1. Something that starts with User_talk:Stevertigo/ including the /. That way, they are yours. --Kevin_b_er 19:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved them already. —Mets501 (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just war

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Just war, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Just war. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Since you worked on this article, just letting you know... Armon 00:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Committee

I've moved your name from the active mediators list to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Mediators Emeriti due to inactivity. When you return, feel free to relist yourself at Template:Medcom. —Guanaco 18:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

JNT

I have moved a page/sandbox you have created in the mainspace to your userspace. Please see User:Stevertigo/JNT for future references.--Andrew c 14:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This doesnt appear to a page I created. Please remove it. -Ste|vertigo 22:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made on Military terminology during November 20 2006 (UTC)

As much as I agree with you on the merits, please do not deface captions of pictures on that article. Based on your extensive history, you know better, and should set a better example. BusterD 23:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Troublesome FAR

Hi,

I notice that you contributed to the Systemic functional grammar article a while ago. Split infinitive is up for review as a FA, and I wonder whether you are critical of the content. I am.

[1]

Tony 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Your RFM

A non-Mediation Committe member has requested to take your case (I'm assuming as a preliminary step to joining the MedCom). If you could please take a look and either accept or reject this, it'd be great. Thanks in advance, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page of the RFM, but I figured I'd repeat the text here. "I volunteered to help with a couple of mediations because I saw that the medication committee was backlogged and I have some experience/education in mediation (although never in an online context). I didn't apply to be a member because I want to want to throw myself into a few mediations so I can get a better idea for the time commitment and such.

As far as the particular topic, I don't really have a specific interest in it. I do have a degree in political science, so I'm somewhat familiar with the topic, but my interest here is in dispute resolution, not in seeing a particular result on this article. As such, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to lay out my own personal view on what should happen. If you're still interested in working with me, I'll start a talk page (unless you both prefer email or some other method) and we can get started. Cheers, JCO312 18:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on my talk page. You make a good point about being upfront with ones personal views on an issue. I'm going to start responding to messages on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Geostrategy page, so that it's all included in the discussion. Cheers, JCO312 01:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that I put the wrong link above (which I've now corrected). I've started a talk page for this mediation at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Geostrategy. Whenever you're able, head on over and we can get to work. Cheers, JCO312 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How to add composer to show template?

How do I add the composer to the Mod Squad show template?Dogru144 00:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your tips were great. Thanks a lot; I'll try them. Dogru144 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Rocket Man

I have reverted your recent changes to Rocket Man. They represent a more methaporical interpretation of the song, and unless you can provide citations supporting that this was the original intent of Taupin and John, should not be included. The more common interpretation, given in the current article, should stay even if the writers intended otherwise, because that is how the song has been referenced. Michaelbusch 21:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand how a pop song is interpreted is very important to you. Lots of people have strong emotional attachments to particular items, such that they dislike contrary views.

However, on Wikipedia, we tend to defer to the compromise solution of representing all points of view. This minor policy is called NPOV.

I will not argue the point, as its just an interpretation, but I take no shortage of pleasure in reminding people that it is a great error to think Wikipedia should value pruning more than planting. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 00:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no particular attachment to the article, and I understand your last point. Thank you for the reminder. But I must give you one in turn. In this instance, you did not follow NPOV, because you deleted the common interpretation and put what I assume is your own in its place. More generally, neutral point-of-view is not the same as presenting all points of view. Please remember the caveats: 'all significant views that have been published by a reliable source'. This is why I asked for citations. Michaelbusch 00:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Msg

What is the point of Template:Msg? Is it needed at all? --- RockMFR 22:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:NickBergAP.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NickBergAP.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Strothra 21:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Graphics Lab

I saw your name listed on Wikiproject Illustration or the list of graphic artists, and I thought I'd let you know that a Graphics Lab has been created on EN. Based on the highly successful French and German graphics labs, it seeks to better organise and coordinate our graphic design and photo-editing efforts. Up until now, there has been no common space on EN where users could ask for maps, charts and other SVG files to be created. What's more, the Graphics Lab has discussion boards, tips, tools and links; in sum, a good common workspace. Come help us out! The infrastucture is already in place, and now we need participants. :) --Zantastik talk 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fake news

The article, Fake news, has been suggested for merger with News satire. Since you were a major contributor to News satire I would like to know if you support the merger. Please leave me a message at User talk:Natl1 regarding this matter. --Natl1 13:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

television theme composer & infobox television

Hi Stevertigo. Thanks for your earlier reply and tip for modifying the television infobox.

I am having a doozy of a time entering theme music composer to the television infobox. I tried to add it on the syntax section of template:infobox television and my edit did not result in the addition of theme music composer. Any tips? Thanks. Dogru144 14:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your tip to make the phrase read as one word did the trick. Thanks so much.Dogru144 00:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Strike zone.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Strike zone.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 19:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Homer Lea

Homer Lea hasn't disappeared from the article, but he's just mentioned under "other geostrategists". This is largely because, while brilliant and insightful to a rare degree, he doesn't seem to have had much influence on larger geostrategic thought like the other authors have. Indeed, he's referred to as a "Forgotten American Military Strategist." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perceval (talk • contribs) 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Image:Worldspace coverage map.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Worldspace coverage map.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 08:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell

I noticed you removed the verylong template- do you think you could explain your reasons on the talk page? i put it on there because i wanted to discuss it- i don't really care whether or not there is a template but i still would like to discuss it. thx Acornwithwings 20:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

CIRCA

hi! i saw that u put new pic in Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army. why dont u put it here?

thank u, Doronef 14:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You are free to do so. Just get in the habit of including the full info (including who uploaded or edited it) on the commons page. -Ste|vertigo 00:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing style

Um... could you try to be a bit more careful with your editing:

• you make quite a few spelling errors; please use spelling checkers and do proof checking before submitting
• you're obviously editing without any kind of plan (15 consecutive edits on a mature article is completely unnecessary), please do all proof checking before submitting
• I've rarely noticed you reference anything, whilst your edits often seem to make claims that may be dubious and are uncheckable. Referencing every paragraph is not too much.
• Please don't use slang like 'telecom' to refer to telecom companies or the telecom industry. It seems to be a slightly pejorative term. It's unencyclopedic.

WolfKeeper 09:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ill keep these in mind. I dont think "telecom" is pejorative, or even improper style. -Ste|vertigo 03:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

MedCom

Nice to see you back on the committee. :) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you could throw in your opinions on the nom's waiting on the Medcom page, that'd be great too. Thanks. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

RfM/Jews for Jesus 2

Good evening (GMT time); as you may be aware, I have already began mediating the above case on behalf - but not as a member of - the mediation committee. However, it appears that you have decided to mediate the case. Therefore, I am contacting you requesting if you would reconsider; I am more than willing to accept whatever course of action you choose to take - I have no authority in the committee, but I did specifically request User:^demon to prioritise the consideration (and therefore acceptance) of this case so that I could have a trial case with regards to my current medcom nomination.

I would also be willing to co-mediate; although I would like to take the driving seat, it would be great if you (so long as you choose this double mediator course of action) could guide me and perhaps to surface your opinion when you see fit.

I am very anxious to take this case - I have already sped up the process of getting the user's acceptance signatures, as well as setting some ground rules and commencing the mediation's talk page. I await your response, which is eagerly anticipated and will be accepted with respect and without uncivil dispute.

Kindest regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Geostrategy Mediation

Percy would argue that are you pushing an "agenda" of your own, namely, attempting to declare something to be POV and then "fixing" it by inserting original research and your own commentary. You might be right, he might be right, but I fear that saying things like that will accomplish nothing more than making each other angry and moving us away from resolving this. Hopefully we can stop, as you pointed out, this going around in circles. Cheers, JCO312 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

RE Believer

Why did you pointlessly move an article, and put a redirect in its place? unless you plan to fix all the links you just messed up I'd suggest moving it back. --E tac 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. A pattern is beginning to emerge1Z 01:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no reason to move the page though, you could have just put a link to belief at the top of the believer page rather than moving the existing "believer" page and creating a redirect to "belief" from where it used to be. It should have at the very least, been discussed first. --E tac 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But now that you have moved it, when you look at the what links here section, it lists all the articles that link to the page belief as well. How will you determine which ones are meant to link to the band, are you going to look at every single one? Also if moving the page was neccesary I'd suggest moving it to Believer (band) rather than Believer (music). However, I don't think it was, something such as "for believer, as in one who has belief, see belief" could have been added to the top of the page rather than moving it. --E tac 05:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I think it would have been better to not move the page in the first place. --E tac 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Because no page for Believer existed, it doesnt need to be tagged band, no page for Believer still exists, therefore it didn't need to be moved. --E tac 05:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was such a redirect required in the first place? --E tac 05:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That being said this is an encyclopedia not a dictionary, do we really need believer to point to belief at all? --E tac 06:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well so far you are the only one to raise this issue with this page and honestly, would you find believer, as in one who has belief in any encyclopedia? a dictionary yes, an encyclopedia no --E tac 06:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact the word "believer" only appears once on the entire belief article. --E tac 06:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I am not really up to the task of correcting all of this right now so hopefully an administrator decides to do so. --E tac 06:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Belief (disambiguation)

The Speedy is there for two reasons

1. It's not linked from anywhere,
2. No one could get confused between Belief or the hair metal band Believer (I have their first album).

It's not personal statement. We should just let an admin decide though. Apparently, after browsing what was written above, you seem to have offended some other wikipedians. The Believer (music) page should really be Believer (band) and you could simply add a disambiguation link at the top of the Belief page indicating that if you arrived there having looked for Believer, they could find additional information at the band page. It's explained on the disambiguation page. --Walter Görlitz 07:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be speedy deleted. It should be merged and redirected. Discuss here. --ElectricEye (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not providing edit summaries when you edit

I have noticed you commonly don't enter an edit summary. This causes me problems. When I patrol for vandalism, I use the summary to make a preliminary decision on whether or not the post is a vandal edit or not. If the summary is present (or at least a section header, the part inside the /* */), I commonly decide the edit is legit and move on.

However, if no edit summary is available, I typically resort to loading the diff for the edit. This takes time. For that reason, if your edits are all valid, I ask that you provide edit summaries. For more on how to enter an edit summary, please read Help:Edit summary.

Incidently, it is not just me that appreciate having edit summaries. When you omit your summary, you may be telling various bots that you are vandalizing pages. For this reason, please consider providing that summary. It is very important.

The edit summary appears in black italics in the following places:

• Page history - list of changes to the page you edited
• User contributions - list of all your edits
• Watchlist* - list of recent changes to watched pages (logged-in users only)
• diff page - shows the difference between two edits
• Recent changes - list of all recent edits
• Wikipedia IRC channels - real time list of all edits
• Related changes - list of recent changes to pages linked to the page you edited
• List of new pages: shows the edit summary of the creation.

* Use the enhanced watchlist to see all recent changes in the watched pages, not just the last change in each page.

Will (Talk - contribs) 07:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I use Lupins popups already. However, they can take a long time to load diffs. As for the wording in the form, I believe you were the first person that I used that template for. Please suggest any revisions you think are needed at User talk:Will Pittenger/templates/Summary Consistently Omitted. Previously, I had used {{summary}}. However, too many people felt that it wasn't personal enough. (It was like a bot was talking to them.) So I created my private template to address those concerns and attempt to explain the problems I have when summaries aren't provided. One thing I need to address yet is how to list an example of an edit that doesn't have a summary. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)