Welcome!

Hello, StewartNetAddict, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Amalthea^Talk 03:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use firefox on a mac and I've followed the directions for adding "Twinkle" to revert vandalism but it doesn't work. I've done it many times. What is wrong? I cut and paste importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js'); into my monobook.js file (User:StewartNetAddict/monobook.js) just as instructed. I save then I press Command-Shift-R to bypass cache. What on earth am I doing wrong?

StewartNetAddict (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now why is my question in one long sentence inside a box?? StewartNetAddict (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh. As for your question in a space, it's because you had a space at the beginning

like this.

As for Twinkle, ask at WT:TW or just go into your preferences, click on Gadgets and select twinkle. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh. What version of Firefox do you use? I have 3.0.3 on a Mac with Firefox and it works just fine. Like I said, try asking at WT:TW. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:TenPoundHammer Hello again! I am now on a PC using Chrome. Again have tried everything to make Twinkle come back and it doesn't appear anywhere... StewartNetAddict (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: perhaps try contacting him on his talkpage, as he won't see your post here. benzband (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't a time limit where an empty article is concerned, but I understand what happened. If you haven't yet recreated the article, please feel free to do so. You don't need permission.  :) Thanks for pointing out my error. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:EL An external link is supposed to be one of the best of all possible free non-commercial external sites for more information. about.com is usually not the best choice. And neither are most blogs, or sites still attempting to get some significant amount of content, or sites for reader experiences. I and others have removed some; I'm not quite sure about some of the ones I left in , either. BTW, the sort of edit summary you used is likely to attract some negative attention in this respect, especially if you add to a number of articles at about the same time. DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I wrote an article on the guy who write and directed Carlo's Wake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Valerio) and someone tagged it (a non-admin editor) with notability! I have references including IMBD, The Hollywood Reporter, an interview with him in the NYTimes, and many more. How is this not-notable??

Also, I posted this question to the admin editor who tagged it but I wrote an article about Matt Eventoff a Communications consultant (I started this category cause there's so many on Wikipedia) who been quoted in Newsweek, E!, Baltimore Sun, ABC News. The references for these news media sources ARE all third party from the news sources themselves. Thanks in advance StewartNetAddict (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth asking that user on their talk page as to why they added the notability tag. That way, you can find out exactly what they think is wrong with the article, as they've not explained the issue on the talk page. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 01:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that user is myself. The general rule, WP:GNG, is that what someone write or does is not usually proof of notability. What other people write about him, is. A article in the NYT interviewing a number of people on a subject, and saying, that, among others, Person X , a consultant, said that .... is not evidence that the person is notable. A substantial article in the NYT written about person X, discussing the work of the person, is considered pretty good evidence of notability. The differentiation between the two is up to the community. Anyone here may if acting in good faith tag any article with a notability tag or any other tag for a perceived problem. Anyone, including the editor who started the article, may remove it. If they remove it, without adding material or explaining convincingly on that talk page, the usual result is that the person who placed the tag generally decides to take the article to WP:AFD, where the community will discuss it, and the result of the discussion will be evaluated by a neutral admin. As for Everson, if no additional material is added, I will decide if it is likely enough to be judged non-notable or inadequately documented to be worth starting the process--or anyone else , seeing the article or this discussion may decide to start it, now or later. I am not here as an arbiter of notability. all I can do by myself is remove articles that make no pretense to any possible notability whatever, and we get a great many of them, and neither article is in that category.

As for Valerio, the article would be improved considerably by replacing the phrase "worked on" with a clear statement of just what his role is for each film. The other important thing is to try to get an article accepted in Wikipedia for his principal film; this will require finding several reviews of it and using them as references. The difficulty is that otherwise it does not appear clear that the projects he has worked on are important. What you find for reviews of his work will make the difference. I cannot tell whether the NYT article that is partly about him will be considered sufficient otherwise. AfD will do what it does.

Therule here is that the community decides. I'm just trying to help by telling you wha they usually look for. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey why did you revert my changes. did you read them? that's my school NOT vandalism! JMalan003 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JMalan003, try to put a level two headline to begin a new topic on a user's page. Also, use the help me tag only on your user page.

Forgive me, you are right. My mistake, I'm very sorry. I could've sworn that instead of Bulls & Blue Bulls you'd written "Blue Balls." Lol. I'm very sorry! I am used to cleaning up dirty, silly vandalism. Completely my mistake.

Your edits have been reverted to what you contributed and the warning tag has been removed.

Welcome to Wikipedia and try to be calm when dealing with others.

StewartNetAddict (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at your contributions to the article, and I have some serious problems with this edit. In short, what you claim comes from the Miami Herald does not come from there at all. "A fascinating story of soul searching, skeletons and epiphanies" is not in that article, and the stuff about Geraldo Rivera, which states that Rivera should look in the book for treasure: the article says something to that effect about a house, not this book. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Stewart, especially the Miami Herald section suggested to me, and I'll give you my worst interpretation, that you were writing a blurb for a book on behalf of a publisher, and doing a poor job of it. I don't necessarily believe that first part, but the addition of the source (and you can see immediately that it doesn't jive--look at the author's name in the initial blurb, which is not found in the article you linked to if I remember correctly) was a bit sloppy. That quote about Geraldo, that was totally reworded (it wasn't a quote anymore), and you can see immediately, if you look at the article, that it wasn't talking about the book. Now, you upped the ante in a following edit summary where you said that you had verified the "major news sources" to explain why you removed the neutrality tag, and that is what I called you on. I'm going to tone down what I said above, but I do want to urge you to be careful. All's well that ends well; let's move on and improve the wiki. OK? Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We solved the misunderstanding (I got the quote from the book's publisher site!) on his talk page.StewartNetAddict (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Wikipedia talk:Twinkle were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in top right. For more details see talk page guidelines. Thank you. jcgoble3 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! StewartNetAddict (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I declined your A1 speedy deletion tag of Charleston's Maritime Heritage 1670-1865, because I could identify the subject of the article as a book, just from the context in the article. If you wish to still have the article deleted, you can use the PROD or AfD processes.--Slon02 (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also declined your A7 tags of Barney Butter and 16 IBC because, although they might not be notable, brands and developments don't quite qualify under the strict limitations of the A7 criterion. However, I doubt that either of them are notable, and you can safely send them to PROD/AfD.

Was out of practice using Twinkle to patrol new pages and new users. Will remember to use PROD/AfD for such cases. StewartNetAddict (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder, welcome notices go on talk pages, not user pages as in here. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rollback vandalism (especially from new users) but not always do I have the green and red rollback options (good faith and vandalism) options, sometimes it's just the old "restore" and then the pop up screen asking for a reason.  ? StewartNetAddict (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because someone got there before you, and edited the page (edit conflict). Therefore you find yourself editing an old revision of the page, different from the current one. When that happens, maybe the other user was himself reverting the vandalism. If he was, then just move on! Otherwise back to step 0 : remove the vandalism ;-) - benzband (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh. Thanks so much! StewartNetAddict (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Re this edit, please don't put the {{block}} template on people's talk pages - it tells them they have been blocked, but you can't actually block them, so it just confuses things. When I came to deal with this vandal, I saw the notice on his talk page and nearly went away again thinking he was already blocked. If someone vandalises again after a last warning, the thing to do is report them at WP:AIV. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you. StewartNetAddict (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

was not quite constructive. Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism.

Best regards, Sasha (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it was a rollback not an edit, and secondly, I disagree. Adding the sentence "Fatou was in friendly relations with Paul Montel" in the middle of the article as it's own paragraph is: 1) Inappropriate 2) Vague and 3) Unsourced.

Plenty of vandalism on Wikipedia involves homophobic, sophomoric comments. What does it mean that he "was in friendly relations"? That he was gay? If he was a homosexual you say it directly and you cite reliable sources.

Thank you for ordering me to review what is and isn't vandalism. I am aware, thank you.
I personally would like you to review Wikipedia:EQ#Principles_of_Wikipedia_Etiquette and to read about passive aggressive statements like "Your edit was not quite constructive."

Yours, StewartNetAddict (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belearned colleague,

if you look at the history of the article, you will see that Pym1507 has expanded it more than twice with mostly sourced material. If you disagree with one phrase that he added, you can discuss it with him or at the article talk page. Reverting 9 edits as vandalism is obviously inappropriate (my reverting your edit as vandalism was also inappropriate, I apologise for it, and I hope you see how unpleasant it is).

As to substance, I disagree with you. "Friendly relations" is not an euphemism for homosexuality (at least, this is not the main meaning of the expression). Audin writes (p. 132 in the book cited in the article):

Nous citerons aussi en témoignage de leur amitié, des lettres de Fatou à Fréchet et surtout à Montel.

I do not think that Audin hints at a ménage à trois between the famous mathematicians.

Best regards,

Sasha (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have marked your talk page, so you can reply here.

Addressing me as "belearned colleague" and apologizing for marking my rollback (again, not an edit)as vandalism when you knew it wasn't is extremely immature and I am ending this conversation. I didn't check the history, I dealt with the unsourced, oddly placed, vague and suggestive phrase sitting before me. That's what I do when helping clean up Wikipedia. I don't expect to be attacked for this, and especially in such a smug obnoxious manner. Could Pym1507 not contact me himself, and in a more civil manner than you? Go bother someone else now. You are knowingly and purposely being rude and trying to pick a fight with someone who reverts vandalism because I enjoy doing it. Goodbye. StewartNetAddict (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC) StewartNetAddict (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Sorry to bring up things you did more than two years ago, but the content and the categorization ot the article on Meredith P. Snyder seem to be contradictive. The artice says that he died of a heart attack, and you added the category "Deaths from bladder cancer" in March 2010. You don't happen to have a reference for the cause of death?

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome! :)

Happy1892 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Engrish (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Engrish is the primary topic; I Can Has Cheezburger? does not mention Engrish Funny. Therefore, there is nothing to disambiguate.

While all 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. Cnilep (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello StewartNetAddict, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello StewartNetAddict,

WikiProject Orphanage is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive to de-orphan articles which have orphan tags!
The goal is to eliminate the backlog of orphan articles. There are currently 53426 articles which have orphan tags. The drive is running from April 12, 2014 to May 12, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all editors participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. To add your name in the participants list click here.
So start de-orphaning articles! Click here to see the list of articles need de-orphaning.
Visit Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article to know more!

Thanks. _{Opt-out Instructions} by Jim Cartar on behalf of WikiProject Orphanage through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! I was just working on responding to a couple bug reports for a script that I worked up as part of a request from this project, and I noticed that only a couple people (who weren't even on this mailing list) are actually using the script. A little history on the script: In March of 2014, Jim Cartar came to my user talk page and said he needed some help in acquiring a script for a backlog drive that he was working on that could keep track of and score deOrphanings for a scored backlog drive. I took that request to the project's talk page (BackLog Drive "DO" (De-Orphaning) script proposal) and there was near unanimous support for this. I thought about the proposal and decided the best way to do it was to build a new script (which is still no where near as comprehensive as Manishearth's OrphanTabs) and build into it a mechanism that will make BLD scoring easy.

What I'm wondering at this point is, since there appears to be only two people using the script, should I continue to develop this script with a goal of using it for scoring BLDs or just debug the existing script and leave it at that. Thanks for any replies or comments.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

• This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:12, 4 May 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) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]