User talk:Stenen Bijl

Archaeology
Glad to see another editor interested in the subject. You might want to join WikiProject Archaeology. Also take a look at Portal:Archaeology/WikiProjects. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, at WikiProject Archaeology/Participants click in the Edit button on the right of the line that says list of participants, and add your name at the bottom with an asterisk and 4 tildes so it looks like *~ . And always sign your name on talk pages, etc with a space and 4 tildes. If you look at my talk page a bot did this for you, but better to do it yourself. You can add your interests after the tildes. Hit the preview button before saving so you can see what it looks like.
 * Then just add to your userpage. Remove the "tl|| first as that's to show you the link without showing the template. If you want to put it on the right, it's  . And no one's in charge, it's a collaborative effort and not really very active I'm afraid. Any special interests? Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to decipher the Rapa Nui inscriptions.Stenen Bijl (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Classical Latin
Thanks for bringing your shovel to the Augean article Classical Latin. It's been reeking with POV for years, and I've never gotten around to it. Should you decide to do more housecleaning there, I'm sure many would applaud. I see you're still fairly new, so welcome again! Cynwolfe (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your encouragement, Cynwolfe! I don't know enough about the subject to feel confident in removing anything but the most obviously inappropriate text, i.e. what I as an generalist editor of a journal might remove from a paper written by an expert. What such an editor would do is find someone knowledgeable who enjoys tearing down other peoples' work to review it prior to publication. I have no idea how to accomplish that on Wikipedia.Stenen Bijl (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Blanking articles
Please do not just blank articles. If you feel it should be deleted, please see Wikipedia's deletion policy. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 01:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time to waste on your bureaucratic processes. I tried to help you. If you insist on continuing to publish crap, that's not my problem.Stenen Bijl (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't create that content. Look next time. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You created all the content that's currently there with your last edit. Think next time.Stenen Bijl (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning articles about bogus things
If Wikipedia is not allowed to have articles about bogus things, then the only sources of information people might have will come from fans of those bogus things. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if Wikipedia aimed to be a reputable scholarly source, than the presence or absence of something on Wikipedia would become meaningful. Wouldn't you feel better about this project if, in some hypothetical world, people could confidently say, "It's on Wikipedia, therefore it must be relevant and true?"Stenen Bijl (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Wikipedia could be regarded as a complete encyclopedia if it didn't have articles about things like astrology and palmistry. Looie496 (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Astrology has been the subject of a large number of serious scholarly works, having nothing at all to do with "does this work?" anymore than a scholar of Mithraism is going to ask, "is Mithra real?" These are huge social and historical phenomena. The point is, its appearance in an encylopedia should signify in itself that this is a worthy topic of study and something a learned person should know something about. If somebody doesn't even know what astrology is, that's ignorance that should be cured. The same isn't true of Soylent. In these instances, I do not agree with the editorial direction implicit in your " the only sources of information people might have will come from fans of those bogus things," which suggests that articles should be arguments between contemporary proponents and critics; instead I would want to see them described in a historical and naturalistic manner as objects of study in their own right
 * When I was a kid, we had an encyclopedia set at home which I sat around reading. As I recall, it was full of articles on significant things. But that was a paper encyclopedia, some will say, limited by printing costs and storage capacity. Now that these aren't issues, wouldn't it have been better if it had say a thousand times more articles about everything we can think of? Every television episode and character, every video game, every commercial product, anything that can be sourced? No, it would not have been. Because the time I'd spent reading about "Soylent" would have been a waste of my young mind.Stenen Bijl (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Flordemayo, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ''I can see you've previously been asked to stop blanking articles rather requesting them to be deleted. Please, don't do it again.'' — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 09:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy requires that material not sourced to reliable sources is removed. What you seem to be saying is that, when the entirety of an article is based upon junk sources, then at least some of the material must remain. Okay, help me here: how can we decide which portion should remain? Are you saying that it's my responsibility to provide well-sourced information of my own, because if so I didn't sign up for that, and I'm not sure that it's possible in this instance. Short of that, which you're equally free to do yourself, I can't see how we'd decide what parts we should keep from an unreliable text, or why we should keep them.
 * Doesn't it violate Wikipedia policy to restore materials based upon unreliable sources?Stenen Bijl (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. Melbourne Star, is this some kind of joke?
 * "A great deal of my time here is spent on anti-vandalism 'crusades' – tools such as Rollback, Twinkle, STiki and Huggle work as a perfect gem, in combating endless vandalism attempts on the project – and I most definitely "enjoy" doing it. Whenever an editor adds vandalism to an article, I revert their edit and notify them via a template warning message, that their edits are not acceptable and need to be more productive. On many occasions those editors learn from their mistakes – other times they are blocked. Either way, I always try aiming at not burning down bridges - I don't believe "once a vandal, always a vandal" – a lack of understanding of general guidelines and policies, is an "editor-killer" and needs more of our attention, because at the end of the day, there is a person behind each and every account and IP."
 * I see no mention whatsoever of any academic interests, and am at a loss to reconcile your "crusades" with Wikipedia's purported mission.Stenen Bijl (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Melborne Star's suggestion: remove it starting with an wp:afd. Many people have contributed or have an interest in that article. It has been around awhile and being there a few weeks more is not going to damage Wikipedia. At least any more then the thousands of other articles that should be AFDed. These people might want notification and may want a say as to whether it is deleted, sourced, edited, etc... The AFD give them that. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't care enough to go through it. It's not my project, and your hosting this nonsense is neither my shame nor my sin. If someone else wishes to "wpafd" it, be my guest. My mother told me not to do things I can't pronounce, and I'm sticking to that.Stenen Bijl (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Per, and your other posts at Articles for deletion/Flordemayo and this thread I'm now posting in - While I agree with your assessment of several recent articles as "dodgily-sourced bullshit", blanking pages is not how we deal with that shit here. It would be chaos if anyone could just come in and delete whole articles they didn't like, citing "dodgily-sourced bullshit" as their only rational. So we have processes for it, it's a checks and balances thing. If you want to help out with "the project", learn how things are done, such as our policies on WP:NOTABLE, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:FRINGE or Articles for deletion (or abbv to WP:AFD). Every time someone has called you on your behavior or attitude, you retort with something along the lines of "it aint my project, just trying to help". If you really want to help, learn how we do things here. It is far from being a perfect system, but is better than roughshod chaos. Cheers,  He  iro 08:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not doing yourself any favors with your arguments over at WP:AIV. Those warnings you've been getting are not automated, but they are boilerplate templates, so editors here don't have to write out warnings every single time they need to drop the same note for the same type of behavior at another editors page. It is not a bot. And WP:NPA is taken pretty seriously here, especially the name calling (repeated use of Wikipediot). Your best bet at this point would be to apologize and not repeat said behavior.  He  iro 10:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is my "best bet" to apologize to the idiots – yes Wikipediots – who have ruined this project? Oh, will I be blocked? Goodness me, where will I go? What will I do?Stenen Bijl (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  He  iro 11:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish nothing to do with your "community" or bureaucratic processes. Good luck with your pathetic spam farm.Stenen Bijl (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Flordemayo for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Flordemayo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Flordemayo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  He  iro 22:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Julieta Casimiro for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Julieta Casimiro is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Julieta Casimiro until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  He  iro 08:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for blatant personal attacks. One of our core rules is that we treat each other civilly--the project simply cannot work otherwise. I'm making this block only 3 days long. I see that above you've indicated an intention to retire. I'm hoping that instead you'll go away for a few days and then come back more calm and willing to work collaboratively. If not, well, the project will go on; any further personal attacks will likely result in a much longer or indefinite block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Some friendly and genteel comments from your civility police:
 * “Tread carefully”
 * “Tread carefully”
 * “Have it your way”
 * “Having it his way, lol.”
 * I'll identify all of you by your real names. As you say, tread carefully, and have it your way.Stenen Bijl (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see someone has already identified you, Qwyrxian. Okay, onto your wikipediot friends. Have it your way!Stenen Bijl (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification
Further to the ANI thread I e-mailed you about yesterday, I have restored your talk page access, please state your case for your unblock here. GiantSnowman 20:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. Since I may have only one chance to speak freely, I'm taking my time thinking about what I'd like to say. I honestly think the best course of action is just to unblock me and everyone move on, but okay.Stenen Bijl (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend reading what I wrote on the ANI thread; some sort of clear, well-thought out explanation is going to be necessary for this account to be unblocked. I can imagine things that you could say that would lead to an unblock, but it's definitely going to require you showing the community that you're willing to follow our policies and guidelines. There's no rush, though, so take whatever time you need. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And in fact the longer you take, the better, it will show you have really thought about your actions/behavior. GiantSnowman 07:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For now, I'd just like to call your attention to this deletion discussion. No one has noticed that the Schaefer book, which is the main source for all of the articles, was commissioned by the group and is sold on its website. These community discussions are of little value if no one bothers to follow up on the facts. There's a much bigger problem with these articles that no one has spotted, but I'll start with that.Stenen Bijl (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The sooner you get unblocked, the sooner you can get back to editing ;) GiantSnowman 10:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not about whether you have anything positive to contribute -- we believe it. This is about whether you can find a way to restrain the anger, contempt, and even fury that show up in so many of your contributions.  The question is whether you can find a way to edit that comes across as calm and respectful of others. Looie496 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I think I'll wait for all the relevant deletion debates to close before commenting further on the "Grandmothers." I'm curious to see how the Wikipedia community does on its own without outside assistance. Stenen Bijl (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)