User talk:SteveStrummer

Sharing is good.

Archive: 2008–2011

User comments

Saint Just GA

Very impressive article. I've reviewed it and it's pretty much good to go except for two very minor issues - the paragraph on Therese Gelle can use another inline citation or two so it's clear what source the info is based on and the image for the Battle of Fleurus lacks source/license info. The second one doesn't bother me that much and it's not really your responsibility since you didn't upload it, but if you plan on nominating the article for FA at some point, then that issue will probably come up again (worse case, scenario, just remove the image). The first issue just needs one additional inline.

Again, I'm very impressed by the work.VolunteerMarek 00:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for including the inline citations - I've promoted the article.VolunteerMarek 15:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Louis Antoine de Saint-Just a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried again

This time, I think I did it right--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! SteveStrummer (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Thanks for reviewing the Bradbury Fields DYK...

...and making a couple of edits. It's one of the first full articles I've created, so great to get some more eyes and brains on it! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome! It was my pleasure. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Jean Giraudoux

Nice job of cleaning up Jean Giraudoux a bit. I wish this article was better. It does not do justice to this great playwright's work. I worked on it a little bit. Mostly it is a hodgepodge of many editors. I created the article Maurice Valency about the great Giraudoux translator, but I am still not happy with it, and contributions to that article would always be welcome. I hope I do not annoy you asking for input, but you are a fine editor, interested in all things French, and I am always trying to stir up interest in Giraudoux and his plays. I wrote most of the article Ondine. But most other Giraudoux play articles are sadly neglected. If you happen to have a response, could you put it on my Talk page. Thanks for listening and keep up the good work.--Foobarnix (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you perhaps planning an article on the very interesting but currently red-linked Andre Barsacq? I Left some more remarks on my Talk page for you.--Foobarnix (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I am indeed considering an article – I love discovering background characters like him! – but I haven't much to go on yet. The [French WP article is illuminating but has very little in the way of references. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

links to Barsacq

• André Barsacq (24 January 1909 – 8 July 1973)
• born in Feodosiya, Russia
• died in Paris, France

• Category:André Barsacq in Wikimedia Commons
• films of at mubi.com
• at Internet Broadway Database
• at Find a Grave
• The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979) of all things!
• at answers.com for what it's worth
• at Internet Movie Database
• Oxford Companion to the Theatre: André Barsacq

Hope that helps. I have more links if you want them.--Foobarnix (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! SteveStrummer (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barn Star

... and the kind words you added to my user page about the Drownings at Nantes, which I did not notice until today. I am happy it pleased you. It was nothing I expected anyone would see, really. I am a bit of a WikiMole who prefers to stay underground. Writing these articles is how I make my English better. That is why I always have « one million edits » trying to get my words right. (smile!) It is also why I choose mostly obscure topics about France (like Madeleine Chéruit or Musée Galliera to name a couple recent ones), and maybe places I have seen in the U.S., even after more than six years writing for Wikipédia! I do not know if I have the guts to attack a subject like Saint-Just, as you did - which everyone knows - and then do it so brilliantly! Rather, my hat goes off to you! Bien amicalement ! Charvex (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and thank you too! SteveStrummer (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks Steve for the kind remarks and the Barnstar. The article was your idea. André Barsacq is quite an interesting character. Feel free to revise and change it. I always welcome constructive additions to my articles. It is nice to have another editor overlapping my interest in French theatre and film.--Foobarnix (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for International Pop Underground Convention

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words

Dear Steve Strummer,

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement, regarding the piece I wrote about 60's garage rock in the history of punk.

Thanks, Garagepunk66 Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I should probably add: don't be discouraged by the level of aggression you may encounter on WP, particularly in a topic as contentious as punk rock. Good luck, and let me know if I can help you with sources, etc. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello SteveStrummer: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

May the New Year bring everything you wish for and more!
Wishing you and yours all the very best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany

Allen3 ^talk 09:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks Steve for your kind note. One thing I hope to help with, in the long run, is bringing in more French historiography: it tends to be more nuanced and comprehensive. Keep up the good work yourself! -Darouet (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Precious

soul that sees
Thank you for quality articles as different as Yanji, Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany, and Missouri School for the Blind, "It is the soul that sees", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The incredible fall of Juliane Koepcke

Good morning:

Please allow me to share an article with you. Maybe you will find it interesting:

www.naturapop.com/home/the-incredible-fall-of-juliane-koepcke

Sincerely yours,

Aldo Loup.

aldoloup@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.2.207.74 (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll have to read that later tonight, but I appreciate that you sent it to me! :) SteveStrummer (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting – I do think this info (perhaps to be better reworded later) is crucial to the article. Thanks again! SteveStrummer (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Goddess of Reason?

SteveStrummer, I have looked at the article for Goddess of Reason and agree with your assessment that it should be deleted. I have replied on my talk page as well. Thanks!

I have now added the page to the AfD log page. Please feel free to comment. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, MisterDub – I voted and added my thoughts there just now. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for French Socialist Party presidential primary, 2006

The DYK project (nominate) 09:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Palmer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

GovLinks

As a participant in the discussion, you might be interested in this thread. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

SteveStrummer wrote on GovLinks discussion: There was a "proper discussion" about GovLinks. It was posted publicly; it was plainly defined as a proposal to delete; and it ran for three weeks before closure. (It also included a direct link to the CongLinks discussion.) (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC). My response: The matter was discussed publicly primarily under CongLinks, where I voted to NOT delete, as did the majority of other people discussing the matter. Then both CongLinks and GovLinks were both stripped. SteveStrummer commented primarily on the process -- I think the review period was too short and that the results from CongLinks should have been inferred to apply to GovLinks too -- but mostly I care about the politics. What I mean by "incumbency protection" is that the existing links in GovLinks and CongLinks, after your stripping them, all work for incumbents, and mostly do not work for challengers. For example, the House.gov links and the "Biographical Directory of the United States Congress" only work for elected members of the House, and not their challengers. The FEC links only work later in the process, typically after the establishment candidate has won the primary. I am most interested in the VoteSmart and OnTheIssues since they most assist challengers and non-establishment candidates. My intent is to restore those two, and if you want to have a discussion after the fact on the grounds above, so be it. I read in great detail the WP:EL and other guidelines and it is my opinion -- and the opinion of the majority of Wikipedians who contributed to the discussion on CongLinks -- that those two should be restored, and perhaps a couple others. I do concur that the news & entertainment links were too plentiful and I did contribute on CongLinks that they should be trimmed. But the political links should be restored -- I think you two above are ignoring the reality of the politics here -- what you have done directly benefits incumbents and establishment candidates at the expense of challengers and outsiders. That is an implicit goal of Wikipedia -- to help those outside the mainstream establishment -- even if it is not in the explicit guidelines. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)JesseAlanGordon

My friend, I think you are projecting your personal priorities onto Wikipedia – I'm sure you know that this project is about information and education, not political activism. Templates are navigational tools that are meant to help people do specific research more efficiently, not steer them towards larger goals. As I said at TfD, it's wrong to make templates of off-wiki links and present them as universally applicable: it's justifiably suspicious, it's intellectually lazy, and frankly it's a little näive. If you want to promote "non-establishment candidates" within the context of Wikipedia, then go edit, enlarge and improve their articles. If your links are as helpful as you suggest, they will be supported (and defended from removal) by other editors of those pages. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The links for OnTheIssues were, in fact, defended from removal in the discussion on CongLinks, but they were removed anyway. The loss of those links, and the loss of many of the other CongLinks and GovLinks, makes finding information on candidates harder -- not in theory, but in the practice of how I use Wikipedia as a user every day. The loss of CongLinks makes my political research harder -- especially on non-incumbent non-establishment candidates -- this is by no means an intellectual argument, but a practical one. You might look at my edit history -- I do, in fact, edit and enlarge Wiki articles on candidates -- and have done so for years. But the real point is that your deletions have made researching candidates much harder -- and the goal of Wikipedia is to make research much easier -- so how does that fit in? JesseAlanGordon (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Why can't you just add them in individually as References and External links? If the case can be made that they are useful to an article, then they will survive on the page justifiably – you would prove their viability by introducing them organically and under common scrutiny, rather than pasting them up in official-looking wallpaper. All three templates include numerous commercial sites and user-generated wikis: that's bad for the project. We aren't talking about sports or pop music here – this is politics and this Free Encyclopedia needs to be scrupulously clean. Political external links should not be inserted automatically as "always useful": too much of the readership would take it as some kind of endorsement, or even (especially with the wikis) an affiliation. Secondly, dulling down and de-energizing a whole field of articles by obvious repetition is a bad way to encourage wiki growth. So for both these reasons I was in favor of deletion; I am still in favor because so many dubious links remain on the table, from an inauspiciously large crowd at the start. I'm sorry to say that I don't like the offer to make changes to the list but it just isn't reassuring enough. Templates do get changed over time, and someday both of us may be appalled at what gets tucked inside "CongLinks", "JudgLinks" and "GovLinks". I think I could only support these templates if they were each definitively restricted to a spare checklist of useful .gov sites. SteveStrummer (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration of Punks

HEY HO, LET'S GO!!! Punk rockers—As you know, the Ramones are undeniably the first punk rock band, so it is vital to this genre that we collaborate to improve their scope! So far, I have worked on the band's first three albums, and it would be awesome if all the punks on Wiki would aid in expanding/cleaning the Ramones articles. You can see my progress here. Please fellow fans, do this for the old-school punk. CrowzRSA 17:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

GovLinks

Just need a statement from you, re your comments on the deletion discussion for Template:GovLinks and your related comments on Plastikspork's Talk page, section GovLinks, on why you believe information such as financial records from the FEC, National Governors Association, statements on C-SPAN and books on WorldCat Identities do not "always warrant inclusion" for a U.S. state governor. Also, why you believe it was a "proper discussion" when very few participants were involved, members of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States governors and Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics were not informed, and it was summarily deleted after three weeks, ignoring the Guidelines to start discussions at the template's own Talk page. Please post your answer here. Thank you. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I left clear and concise remarks at the TfD. Your "need" for my "statement" seems to be only an invitation to restart the discussion, and I won't help you there. There was indeed a "proper discussion" already: TfDs have a standard two-week lifespan, and this one was extended to three to allow more editor input. As for notifications etc. – I have no stake or interest in administrative affairs, so if you want to argue this on grounds of policy, please speak with a WP admin. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I wanted to be clear that you stand by your statement: "Delete – This template explicitly confers primacy to a select group of sources, an intellectually perilous proposition. It also undercuts WP:EL by indicating that some external links always warrant inclusion. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.178.214 (talk)

I have initiated a formal discussion on Template:CongLinks to un-delete the list of inappropriately deleted links on both GovLinks and CongLinks. I will repeat my post here, and encourage any readers here to "vote" by providing an explicit yes/no to each link. I will summarize the links and act according to that summary. The original deletions did NOT do that -- they deleted wholesale many more links than those for which there was a consensus for deletion. I will follow the consensus decisions in two weeks' time, on March 15, 2014. Here are the details..... I concur with Plastikspork's Jan. 24 conclusion that "The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, but there appears to be consensus to limit/shorten the number of links." So the question becomes, "Which links should be deleted, and which should not?" Here is a summary or each link as discussed in the originating discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_3#Template:CongLinks : (Yes = keep it; Lean-Yes = reservations but keep it; Maybe = either way; Lean-No = reservations but delete it; No = delete it)

• ballotpedia: Lean-Yes 1, Maybe 1, No 1
• bloomberg: Lean-No 1, No 1
• congbio: Yes 2
• c-span: Lean-No 1, No 1
• fec: Lean-Yes 1
• findagrave: Lean-Yes 1
• followthemoney: Lean-Yes 1
• govtrack: Lean-Yes 1
• guardian: Lean-No 1, No 1
• imdb: No 3
• legistorm: Lean-Yes 1
• nndb: No 3
• nyt: Yes 1, Lean-No 1, No 1
• opencong: Lean-Yes 1
• opensecrets: Lean-Yes 1
• ontheissues: Yes 1, Lean-Yes 1
• rose: Lean-No 1, No 1
• votesmart: Yes 1, Lean-Yes 1
• worldcat: No 2
• wsj: Lean-No 1, No 1
• washpo: Yes 1, Lean-No 1, No 1

I would describe that as a consensus to remove Bloomberg, C-Span, Guardian, IMDB, NNDB, Rose, Worldcat, and WSJ. That is certainly in line with the idea of shortening the list, and removing irrelevant links. I am hereby starting a discussion to more formally gather a consensus, or at least a majority opinion. I intend to undo the deletion of CongLink templates for any which do NOT have consensus to remove. The overall conclusion of the previous discussion was "shorten but do not delete", which to me implies "discuss which to remove but unless there is near-consensus to remove, then keep the link." I made the list above by interpreting people's comments. Let's be more explicit this time. I suggest that participants write up a list like mine below, and I'll tally it up after a week or two like I did above. My votes, and a model for how I'd like others to offer their opinions (I added "Unknown" to the choices above, for ones on which you are unfamiliar):

• ballotpedia: Lean-Yes: I'd rather see this listed as a "sister organization" but otherwise keep it.
• bloomberg: No
• congbio: Yes
• c-span: No
• fec: Yes
• findagrave: No
• followthemoney: Yes
• govtrack: Lean-Yes (it's only for current incumbents, so only of limited value for political researchers like me)
• guardian: No
• imdb: No
• legistorm: Unknown
• nndb: No
• nyt: Lean-Yes, because its archives are very thorough. But the links often go dead.
• opencong: Unknown
• opensecrets: Unknown
• ontheissues: Yes
• rose: No
• votesmart: Yes
• worldcat: No
• wsj: No
• washpo: Yes, because its links included not only articles but also voting information.

I will spread this post around on other appropriate locations (its home is Template_talk:CongLinks, and I will post the results there in a week. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louis Braille

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Louis Braille you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Louis Braille

The article Louis Braille you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Louis Braille for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Louis Braille

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

• Forum: Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

• Featured content: Odin salutes you

• WikiProject report: Racking brains with neuroscience

• Special report: Diary of a protester: Wikimedian perishes in Ukrainian unrest

• News and notes: Wikimedia chapters and communities challenge Commons' URAA policy

• Traffic report: Snow big deal

• Recent research: CSCW '14 retrospective; the impact of SOPA on deletionism

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

Monsieur Stummer, Thank you for your thanks. Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)