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 25 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]