User talk:Steven Crossin


User Page	User Talk	Contribs	E-mail	Subpages	Adoption	Awards	Mediation

Steve's Status:
Offline (verify)
10:41 pm, 9 January 2025 AEST
Talk Archives
Stuff to do

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Autism	In Progress	Oolong (t)	19 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 8 hours	Oolong (t)	2 hours
Sri Lankan Vellalar	Closed	Kautilyapundit (t)	18 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 7 hours
Imran Khan	New	SheriffIsInTown (t)	13 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 4 hours	WikiEnthusiast1001 (t)	1 days, 19 hours
Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)	On hold	Abo Yemen (t)	8 days, 17 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 21 hours	Abo Yemen (t)	2 days, 21 hours
Habte Giyorgis Dinagde	New	Jpduke (t)	3 days, 8 hours	None	n/a	Jpduke (t)	3 days, 8 hours
List of WBC world champions	Closed	Blizzythesnowman (t)	1 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 6 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 10:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!", Michael Corleone, Godfather III. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Figured that I'd likely lurk now and then anyways so might as well. Not really sure what I'll do here if much. Enwiki has just changed too much over time now really. And that trainwreck over there... well. Steven Crossin 11:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The door is open, right? Come and go as you please. There is no obligation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WLC Dispute Resolution

After reading all the threads, what's your impression that re-opening the dispute resolution about William Lane Craig will not result in another failed case? It seems there are some very fundamental disagreements about the article, and I have my doubts if a collaborative, voluntary process will make any progress towards resolving them, given the past behavior. The current version of the article reflects one disputant's WP:BOLD edits that did not achieve consensus (hence the dispute). Do you plan on focusing on the fundamental issues (e.g. does WP:FRINGE apply, should the article have been WP:TNT'd like it was, should it have been incrementally improved from something closer to the pre-dispute baseline, etc.)? If there's little progress resolving them will the case be failed quickly or be allowed to linger? - GretLomborg (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking briefly, my style of dispute resolution varies based on the dispute at hand - sometimes it will indeed be a collaborative discussion based approach and other times I will guide the involved editors based on policies that are applicable to the article in question. I’ve not made a determination either way at this stage, as I first need a commitment from those involved to participate in the dispute resolution process. But it won’t linger idle but will be be actively managed. That won’t mean it will necessarily be a fast resolution, but I’ve been doing this on and off for ten years, so I know my stuff. Would appreciate I feel you agree to be involved at the DRN page and I’ll take things from there. Cheers. Steven Crossin 10:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my concern is that the fundamental disagreements won't be addressed directly, and the dispute will drag on arguing about one sentence or another or some small improvement proposal (and given the recent drastic changes, there's too much to discuss like that). There seem to have been some longstanding issues at play here that are outside the scope of WP:DRN, which have made this all pretty stressful. If we can get to the core disagreements, then I'm tentatively willing to participate. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issues will be worked through methodically. I’m not a moderator, but a mediator, and I’ve handled tougher disputes than this before. At a glance, I see fundamental issues with how the article in general that should be addressed, and they will be. Have some faith, I’ve broken the back of other cases before, including many religious articles, I don’t see why that isn’t possible here. (Can you note your agreement at DRN please). Steven Crossin 15:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. I edited the article/talk page without knowing there was a reopened DRN process. I've backed out of the editing process out of respect for the DR process. Anything else I should do? Also, I wasn't one of the original people involved in the DRN, but I would like to take part in working on the content in the article. Can I join the DRN process? Thanks. —Approaching (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, yes you definitely can join in - the active question at the DRN is regarding the infobox content. There aren't any hard and fast rules in place at the DRN thread (it's not my style) but try to be succinct and obviously be kind to each other. I've already determined the best starting point for the article rewrite based on my reading of consensus and weighing policies and guidelines, so out of respect for that and the wrong version, I will undo your edit to the article to keep the peace. Nothing personal - I just discourage any non-controversial edits (vandalism removal, typos) while dispute resolution is active. Cheers. Steven Crossin 21:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks. —Approaching (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Hello Steven, I'm Canopus27. Apologies if this is not how to "talk" on wikipedia, I've edited many articles but talking this way is new to me.

You just reverted one of my updates —specifically this edit to WeatherTech Raceway Laguna Seca— with the observation that "it did not appear constructive."

I actually submitted two updates in a row - one was to an update to the track record, a new record that was set this past weekend - and the second update was to correct an error I had made in the first update (I mis-read the drivers name). I think you perhaps just looked at the second update, perhaps didn't understand the context, and then reverted both updates. I'm always happy to see others improve my edits, but they were neither factually wrong nor were they "experiments". The current article is wrong, as it relates to the (newly broken) electric vehicle track record. Please review my changes again, and then undo your reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canopus27 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thanks for your message. Yep, leaving a message on my talk page is the best way to get in touch with people here! You are correct - I did only see the second edit and not the first one - I was using a tool and I only saw the change in driver name. I have happily undone my revert - sorry for the misunderstanding! Happy editing! Steven Crossin 15:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse

Dear Steven Crossin, thank you for volunteering as a host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, you are helping new users get a hold of the ropes here at Wikipedia, and helping experienced users that just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!

Some links you may find helpful as a Host: Helpful scripts you can install to make Teahouse responding easier, templates to use, and the question forum.

Editors who have signed up as hosts, but who have not contributed at the Teahouse for six months or so are liable to be removed from the list of hosts.

Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DRN - Craig

One of the participants is on a short 31h block (just in case you didn't already know and consider it useful to lead the process). And thanks for your work there, —Paleo Neonate – 01:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I was indeed aware - hopefully going forward everyone can keep their nose clean so we don't have any timeouts needed. Steven Crossin 09:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to sources, should I also add there the sources I recently posted at the article's talk page, but that aren't necessarily used yet? Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 23:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. If they aren’t currently used in the article, then no, but seeing as you’ve previously added them to the talk page of the article, you may provide a link to the talk page revision where you added the sources (note - for now I am only interested in links to books, not websites or news items, as the objective is to make it easier for those that don’t have physical copies of the cited books to access the source for verification purposes. Steven Crossin 23:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]