User talk:StabRule

Feel free to leave an pertinent messages.

Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American academics (2nd nomination)
You are not authorized to close AfD votes. Please do not do that again. Owen&times; &#9742;  07:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I am very familiar with Deletion process. You cannot close an AfD with a result of "null and void". If the result is a unanimous Keep, you may be allowed to close it as such, but that is not what you did. Owen&times; &#9742;  07:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm specifying what it was - it wasn't a keep because nobody planned on not keeping it. If you want, I'll change it to keep. StabRule 07:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not what I want. There is no such result as "null and void", and even ever there was&mdash;as a non-admin you wouldn't be allowed to close it as such. Since you seem to be familiar with the policies, please stick to them. Thank you. Owen&times; &#9742;  07:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I'll make it keep StabRule 07:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you should never close an AfD in which you were personally involved, either as the nominator or as a voter. Even admins don't do that. Seeing as the outcome was a Keep, I will not intervene. But in the future, if you want to help with closing AfDs, pick those where you can act in a neutral way. Owen&times; &#9742;  07:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As you can check, I was the one who nominated all those AFDs and I made a condition that I would revert my nominations if another list is put up for deletion. It was. Therefore, I kept my word and closed them. I understand that if I wasn't the creator of the afds then I shouldnt' close them but in this case it's harmless. StabRule 07:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I know you did and thank you. I have no problem with the main list "Jewish Americans" just being a link to the other lists like it should have been in the first place.Vulturell 07:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You should not close discussions on afd if you are personally involved in the discussion or have a personal interest in the outcome. Arniep 14:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from instructing me on what I should or should not do given your COMPLETE ignorance on the occurence. Please see comments above. Thank you. StabRule 19:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have restored the comments, if you wish to archive messages please do so in the correct way, do not just hide them. Arniep 21:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the majority of comments have just been complaints that I clear my talk page, there is no point in archiving them. I will archive valid discussions like the one above. That simple. StabRule 21:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Update on List of Jewish Americans
Just wanted to draw your attention to the recent changes I've made to List of Jewish Americans. I posted a comment on the AfD page as well. Thanks. Peyna 02:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

''O shit, but that means that now we're going to have to delete all those Lists I closed. StabRule 03:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)''


 * Well, they can be merged with what we have; can you post a list of all of them here and on the talk page for List of Jewish Americans? That way anyone that comes along can work on it. Peyna 03:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

''There's not much merging to do from my knowledge. They are almost exact duplicates except the new lists have more people. Also, I think Jewish composers should be merged with Jewish musicians. StabRule 03:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)''


 * Be bold. Peyna 03:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

re: rvv's on List of Jewish American... I rv'd these once on RC patrol, the articles with merge tags had red lined discussions, not going to rv them again though. Xaosflux 04:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

''Do you think it's necessary to have a List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Arts? Wouldn't it be better to just say they won the medal next to their biography -- kinda like Nobel Prize StabRule 04:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)''


 * For now, I'd say leave all the lists that currently exist and only merge with other lists. Feel free to post something on the discussion for that page regarding the issue.  In a few days once all of this has settled down we can weed out the lists that are probably superfluous. Peyna 04:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment
I will shortly be starting a rfc on you. Regards Arniep 14:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

k. StabRule 21:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Re : Recent AFDs
Hi StabRule,

5 days in the minimum voting period, but there isn't any maximum voting period. It is up to the discretion for the sysops to determine when to close the AFDs.

My apologies for the late reply, as I was on a vacation. Don't worry, my fellow sysops and I will make sure that the AFDs are processed as quick as possible.

- Greetings! Mailer Diablo 15:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Call it off, firmly apologize, move on
Using an AfD to try to "force" content issues is never going to work out for you. I've been tempted from time-to-time to AfD a page where existing editors acted in obnoxious and obstructionist ways, just to "get even" with them. But that's not the way WP works; the only thing you can possibly accomplish is to sow a lot of ill will, most of it will come back to you as bad karma.

If you have any sense at all, you'll state firmly an unequivocally (with no hedges or justifications), that you were wholly wrong to try to make a content change via AfD. Apologize sincerely on the talk pages of all the people you've most pissed off (even if, yes, they are mostly themselves too hot-headed). And move on to more productive things. Like editing article, and discussing changes on talk pages. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The afd worked, and I guarantee the Talk Page wouldn't (definitely not as quickly anyway). Plus my original intention was to delete the list, which you would have known if you would have read up a bit. Get a life. Thanks. StabRule 21:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess if by "worked" you mean "will probably get me blocked or banned"... well, good luck with it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't care if it is. Actually, I want it to be closed. StabRule 21:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I really don't care all that much about the Jewish lists and categories. I've voted on some of them, mostly because other editors have solicited my input (I think with more confidence in what I would opine than is merited). My votes on those have been mixed, and have depended on how specific the topics are, and whether I think they can be done in an encyclopedic fashion. But I'm neither one of those people who votes "keep" for anything with the word "Jewish" in it; nor am I an editor who votes "delete" whenever I see the word (we have some of each, and I think both are acting with a bit of bad faith).

I am, however, very offended by abuse of the administrative systems of WP in violation of WP:POINT. I guess you're a newbie, and are perhaps not entirely aware of procedures. We all start out that way. In actual fact, there is a "criteria for speedy deletion" that allows removal of pages that have been previously deleted by AfD. There are a lot of rules floating around, and they are not all consistent with each other, so you can certainly be forgiven for not knowing all, or even most, of them.

But an AfD is for a very specific thing, and something very different from your spurious nomination. FWIW, Arniep also violated WP:POINT by massively nominating "Jewish Foo" lists that he actually wanted kept. And he got blocked for 48 hours (rightly) as a warning. What an AfD is for is to get a page that you genuinely think fails to cover an encyclopedic topic removed from Wikipedia. It is not a way to express displeasure with particular editors of that page. It is not a way to push the idea that the page would be better if modified in some fashion. And it is not a way to get even with editors who voted "delete" on some other page that you believe is conceptually equivalent to the page you nominate.

There are lots of pages that I think should be better, and where I think the editors are putting in material that is not encyclopedic, and where the structure of the article is not optimal (maybe it needs refactoring into subpages). As a good WP citizen who follows Wikiquette, I raise those issues on the article talk pages. I attempt edits to the page directly. Perhaps I create a temporary version of the page that more closely fits what I think it should be like. What I do not do is nominate pages that I think cover worthwhile topics for AfD as a way of bullying the editors whose edits I do not like.

If you follow Wikiquette, you'll get along with people here, and be a productive editor. If you violate it, you'll make lots of enemies, increase general animosity, and fail to get anything done. Your start so far has not been portentious; but you certainly have time left to learn, and to make amends. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN
Per your request on there, i've blocked you. Well, by the look of things, I would have done so anyway. It's a 6 hour slap on the wrist. Chill out, and come back if you'd like. Most people on here don't go looking for disputes from what i've seen, so if you leave well enough alone, things should be fine. Also, I'd say what the hell "Stab Rule" refers to. karmafist 05:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

RFC
Hello, I know you are the same editor as User:Antidote. Please admit this to User:OwenX or User:SlimVirgin and ask them to close your StabRule account and any other accounts you have. I see you do some good edits but also you engage in a lot of needless edit warring, multi-voting, using profanities and making personal attacks. If you want to change something that may be controversial state exactly what you want to change on the talk page and see if other editors agree. Please stop editing under anonymous ip addresses also, there is no need to do this if you intend to behave in an acceptable way. Regards Arniep 23:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)