User talk:Stifle/Archive 0406b

Image:Nematocyst-threads.jpg
You removed my speedy delete tag. As explained when I added the tag, I uploaded the image from the Ukrainian wikiedia, and following the challenge to the copyright status, I asked the original uploader. This is his response. Hence the addition of the speedy tag. Thanks, |→ Spaully°τ 17:40, 10 April 2006 (GMT)
 * I understand that, however there is no entry on WP:CSD representing your concern. CSD I4 requires a seven-day wait, this is not negotiable. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is now confirmed that we are unable to find the copyright status of this image, having searched through all of the search results for relevant terms. Is an open source, user run system so unflexible?
 * Never mind, I am just surprised, it is of little consequence. Thanks anyway, |→ Spaully°τ 18:12, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

ProhibitOnions's RfA

 * Yep, thanks for your vote. Now I have to figure out what this "delete" thingie does. Regards, ProhibitOnions 22:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophe is at it again
Stifle, in response to Apostrophe's continued conduct, he asked for examples on his talk page of incivility without addressing anyone specifically, so I included several examples without any commentary of my own nor hostilty. His response is found here which appears to be in no uncertain terms a personal attack. I'll stay out of this at this point, thx for your continued assistance. Netkinetic 01:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Telling you to keep your own opinions to yourself, to not act on behalf of something you hardly are, and to stay out of my business is not a personal attack. I was clearly addressing Stifle about examples that occurred between warnings, and I am now forced to bring my whining to his talk page because you are perfectly content in deleting whatever comments I leave on your talk page. Hardly the first time.


 * Of course, I'm just pushing my opinions! '  (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You guys need a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Or failing that, try the Mediation Cabal. I'm not going to intervene in this conflict, it's none of my business. I will say this much: removing content from your talk page, other than obvious vandalism, without archiving it is poor form. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Stifle, excellent suggestions. I've transferred my running dialogue with user:Apostrophe within a archive subpage, including your related comments above. As I've also mentioned on the Incidents page, as long as Apostrophe remains civil I'll support his future contributions. True I had dealings with him a month or two ago which caused me to be aware of a pattern, of which I felt a necessity to bring it to your attention solely on the civility criteria. This isn't relating to any present content dispute as his current field of interest (Kingdom Hearts related), of which his reported violations occured, are not of specific interest towards myself. Regards. Netkinetic 00:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy tag
I'm thinking there should be a speedy tag for duplicate articles. :p The reason I placed a tag on Traditional economic thought in China is because it's a direct copy and paste of Righteousness or Benefits-Tradition Economic Thought in China. The first article was originally created under the name Create an entry. Should we just redirect one to the other? What about the redirection of Create an entry to Traditional economic thought in China? --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've deleted Create an entry, and I'm going to mark that it shouldn't be recreated. Feel free to replace a duplicate article with a redirect to the other one at any time. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help again. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana) vote to keep
I don't understand your reference to WP:SCH in your Articles for deletion/Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana) vote. This isn't about noteworthiness of a school, it's about clearing out an edit history that exposes the WP Foundation to possible legal action in hopes a valid article can be written. The article doesn;t qualify as a speedy delete since too many editors contributed to it. - Davodd 00:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to partial history deletion and have said so on the AFD page. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have altered the nom after your comments. I believe you will find it better now. Davodd 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 00:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A Question
I wrote the article, and in all honesty I cannot see what's wrong with it. It doesn't break any rule, slander of offend anyone. Maybe you could help and shed some light on what's going on? I'd really appreciate that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tettsuya (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC).
 * It's kind of hard for me to figure out what you're talking about, when you neither mention which article you're referring to nor sign your posts with ~ . Stifle (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

On the democratic peace article
I have read and added much new information from peer-reviewed articles, which hopefully is allowed. I would be glad to discuss any objection with you. I do consider the subject important, since it is the best empirical support for democracy. Ultramarine 00:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't consider it within my purview to mediate in the issue, for that please try WP:TINMC. My sole contribution will be enforcing the ArbCom's rulings on the issue. Stifle (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand. But I do not think adding such information is sterile edit warring. Please have a look at User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies, using material from the academic debate, you might find it interesting. Ultramarine 00:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I also didn't think adding such information was sterile revert warring, which is why I didn't block you for it :) Stifle (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How to delete probable vanity pages.
Stifle: Thanks very much for your guidance on how to request an article for deletion. I'm very new to wikipedia, as you can tell. Regarding the article Dean Nicholas, which I had originally tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "This is an obvious vanity page which provides no citation of the importance of its subject and is generally nonsensical".You removed the tag and noted "This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because articles about real people can generally only be speedily deleted if they contain no claim of notability, citation for same is not required". That's fine, and thanks for clarifying the policy. However, you told me to use the WP:PROD process to request its deletion. But when I get to WP:PROD, that page says "PROD is currently suspended owing to the Toolserver being unavailable. Please do not PROD further articles for the time being."

So I'm not sure how I can help. The article on Dean Nicholas is not something that really matters to me a lot, I'm just trying to help out with the wiki process as I understanding by making wikipedia better. I just came across Dean Nicholas by accident, saw its content and history which indicated it was a rather silly vanity page or something similar. It doesn't even have enough information to determine if the subject is a real person in the first place.

So, Stifle, my aim was to get it deleted and help clean up Wikipedia. But now I'm more confused than ever on how to help clean this up. Any suggestions? Is there a process for this other than WP:CSD or Derek Balsam 01:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can list it on WP:AFD instead. See Template:AfD in 3 steps for instructions. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're fast. Thanks for the help. Derek Balsam 01:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Excuse me, this is my first time using this system.

I was converning to the OT5 article. I don't see what's wrong with it; maybe you could clear this matter for me?

--Tettsuya 08:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message.
 * Judging from the concerns raised in the discussion at Articles for deletion/OT5 (which you can feel free to contribute to, just make sure you sign your message and say that you are the author), it appears that some Wikipedians believe that the subject of the article OT5 is not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, that it is of interest only to dedicated fans. Wikipedia is not a free web host, rather, it is an encyclopedia. If you address these concerns at the discussion page, then editors may be convinced to keep the article. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mayhem_Chimera.jpg
I am wondering why have you tagged this file. It is considered as fair use to use resized 200px pictures of album covers and it has the appropriate tag. Thanks! Death2 13:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Brainfart by me, that's why :) Stifle (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure I understood your message, you made a mistake (didn't see the tag) and you fixed it. I've never heard of a Brainfart so that confused me. No problem, I thought that WP has changed some policy concerning pictures? Phew! Death2 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Tagore(small)
Hi Stifle - I've added the info on where I obtained the pic. Is it sufficient? If not, what other info is necessary? Thanks, Rama&#39;s Arrow 13:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's perfect. Please make sure you include that kind of information on images you upload in future too. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring of The DHARMA Initiative
You mentioned a week ago that you would like to help mediate the heated discussions of merging certain Lost-related articles at Talk:The DHARMA Initiative. Would you like the give your view on the state of the vote on Arru 16:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Breaking out "The Swan (Lost)"
 * 2) and merging the controversial "Ultraviolet map" into it?
 * I've responded on Talk:The DHARMA Initiative. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response there; as the poll has nearly run a week, would you consent to closing it soon with your call on the consensus? Regards, — LeflymanTalk 06:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ograposter.jpg
Thanks for correcting the tag. Cheers! Hoopydink 17:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Cool (African philosophy)
Just saw your vote. Did you even bother to read the discussion page? Investigate the links to sources provided? There's ample scholarship on the subject. Improve the article; don't delete it. It's an important topic -- and one that would help deal with a glaring subject matter deficit on Wikipedia. Peace. Deeceevoice 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the article consists of original research. Wikipedia is not a primary or secondary source, and WP:CSB is not an acceptable reason to override WP:NOR. Thank you for your message. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So, a revised/rewritten, properly referenced/sourced article on the subject would not objectionable to you, then. It's not the existence of the article you're objecting to, but its lack of documentation?  Deeceevoice 12:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

DPT
I would be perfectly willing to see Ultramarine and myself both leave the article alone for six months, say. I don't particularly want to revert war for the purpose though; would you be interested in proposing this to ArbCom directly? Septentrionalis 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The finding of fact in the arbcom decision was the maintaining of two separate and parallel versions which was reverted between. This is not the the case now. I will not again participate in having two separate and parallel versions. This was a mistake and the arbcom decision successfully prevents this. I think that the recent edits have created a much more correct article without having two different version. So I think that the arbcom decision has been very successful.


 * I think that if you examine the edits since I started edited the article again, there has not been sterile edit wars. Instead numerous findings from recent studies has been added, adding the view of the majority of the researchers in this field. Something Pmanderson almost completely ignored in the text he had created during the several months and which selectively described the view of the critics. So there has not been sterile wars, but instead a constructive improvement, adding the view of the other side. Again, the maintaining of two separate and parallel versions was a mistake, which I regret. However, this is not the case now and I think that if the recent edits are examined it will be found that the article has been improved by also adding the view of the other side. Ultramarine 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ultramarine for the time being, but that is strictly as user, not an admin. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Template:User marriage man-woman
Hello, thank you for your message. I am well aware that the template was kept by TfD. However, I find the rationale of the comments there to be inexplicable or irrelevant now that the accompaning template User Same Sex Marriage was deleted by. The comments that were not calling for it to be kept to avoid the appearance of "double standards" seem to me to be based on their personal sympathy for the point of view expressed by the template, their ignorance of Wikipedia policy, or both. Therefore, I see no reason whatsoever to overturn my own decision. You are, however, free to take it to deletion review if you wish to refute these points, of course. Thank you.--Sean Black (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I will list it on DRV shortly. I don't want to wheel war about it. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:V-cemetery-2.jpg
Hi, i have reloaded the 2 images and tried to make clear that they are photos i took and that they are free to use on wiki. The route is the same i have used many times and hope this is ok now Collieman 12:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thank you. Just make sure all images you upload are tagged. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

CSD "this is advertisement"
If you check that page's history, i simple reverted the removal of that. An anon IP tagged that page. --ZsinjTalk 16:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for letting me know. The anon has now been notified. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of The Game (game)
Hey -- I saw you redeleted The Game and protected it; I was in the midst of nominating it for AfD. If you look at the Talk page you'll see that things have actually changed since the DRV debate and previous deletion, a newspaper article has been found about the game, and there's a fair bit of discussion about the translation of that source, an article from the newspaper De Morgen. I think that given the new source, it might be necessary to have another deletion debate. Did you know about this when you deleted it? What do you think? Mangojuice 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess a new AFD is the correct procedure. I'll go and list it. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oy. Looks like DRV would have been more to peoples' liking.  I know we are on different sides on this debate, but would you be willing to join me in an RFC or an RFAR on this if this debate doesn't settle things?  Mangojuice 21:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think AFD was correct. DRV is only for questioning process. Since there is new content (the reference in question), I suspect that AFD is the correct place for it. The people demanding DRV may be accused of venue shopping for somewhere that will support their own preference. I feel that this article has a wide-ranging interest and needs to be listed in a more central place. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

List of shock sites
Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 10:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Spinebuster (band)
Hey!

Not ot get on yoru case or anything here, but your logic behind deleting a lengthy article detailing the history of a well-known band in the thriving Glasgow metal scene seems pretty questionable to me.

Admittedly, I am a member of the band in question (a quick glance at my username makes this fairly obvious), but I did not write the article - it was submitted and brought to my attention by someone else in the local music scene. I watched it on the "Articles For Approval" page for a while, and it looked as though it was going to be one of the masses of overlooked articles receiving neither a thumbs up or a thumb down, so I copy and pasted it up myself immediately under a registered username.

I was going to use this article as a starting point to write a good few articles about the growing music scene here in Scotland, which is so far poorly represented on Wikipedia, but if they're going to just get erased for what seems like no really good reason every time then it's obviously not worth the hassle. Quick decision-making like this surely must be very off-putting to a lot of new contributors, and so stifling to the growth of Wikipedia.?

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe.spinebuster (talk • contribs) 20:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~ at the end.
 * Spinebuster (band) was speedily deleted by both me and JDoorjam because it was, or appeared to be, an article about a band which does not assert that band's notability or importance. Wikipedia is not for advertising new up-and-coming bands or the growing music scene. Please see some details about what bands need to get onto Wikipedia. They should first get notable, then get an article.
 * If you feel that I have erred in judgment, please make a listing on Deletion review. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Love-shyness
I wonder if any have any suggestions about how to address the tone/cleanup on this article? I made some additions to it, and hacked at the list of attributes to reduce that in size (although it keeps growing back like kudzu) and suggested on the talk page that those attributes be sourced. Admittedly, I've made no effort to source them yet myself. Any thoughts would be welcome though, thanks. Шизомби 22:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you are requesting my help on the subject. I do not think I can be of any help for you. Why not try Requests for comment? Stifle (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw that you had tagged the article, so I hoped you might be able to identify some of the problems that motivated you to tag it. RFC is only if there's a problem of consensus, I thought? Шизомби 23:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. I think the article is far better than when I tagged it 2 months ago and I have removed the inappropriate tone tag. RFC can be used when there's a lack of consensus, or just to get an outside opinion on articles, but I don't think it's needed here. You will probably need to leave it on your watchlist to make sure that the lists don't overgrow. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You might find this interesting
Just thought I would let you know that an aritcle which you voted to delete and was deleted, Articles for deletion/The Long Island Project (2006), now seems to have been put up again as Articles for deletion/The Long Island Project. --Strothra 15:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Stifle (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

CE
You wrote: this has been to ArbCom and they came down very strongly against the CE notation. In which case did this happen? The only one I can think of was the jguk case, where the arbcomm came down against changing from CE -> AD. Guettarda 20:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I remembered incorrectly. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Saudi COA
It's CSD I1, it's a redundant lower quality version of the other image... and it's also a Now Commons candidate... which, it already was. So, it would be deletable no? O_O gren グレン 01:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * CSD I1 specifically excludes images whose replacement is on Commons. See Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons for full reasoning. Images that are redundant to an image on Commons must go through IFD. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So, what you're telling me is either "This does not apply" means it doesn't apply... or that I can't read. Whichever the case may be... you would be right. gren グレン 16:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality of Adolf Hitler
FYI...This article is up for vote on AFD. OSU80 01:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Commented. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

any outstanding reason that The Game (game) should have semiprotection?
It was brought up on WP:RFPP for unprotection. Syrthiss 15:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Unprotected. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Syrthiss 16:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jade-3j.gif
hi stifle, i called the law department of DESY to confirm we can use it fairly and added source and copyright information to the above image. if this has to be in a specific format, its not quick to find in the manuals. if all is fine, can you please revert Three jet event so the (very important) image is visible again? thanks! gbrandt 16:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this is not sufficient. We need verifiable proof that the image can be used on Wikipedia, or else we need to assert fair use. Please have someone from DESY email permissions@wikimedia.org to confirm that we have permission to use the images under the GFDL, a Creative Commons license, or without any conditions, and have them reference Image:Jade-3j.gif in their email, or alternatively post a link on Image talk:Jade-3j.gif to where this is indicated on the website. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Onefortyone
Well, its been one month and Onefortyone has gone straight back to aggresively adding the same information with the same sources that got him banned before.--Count Chocula 01:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend posting on Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, including diffs of alleged disruptive behaviour, because I'm just about to go off to sleep. Stifle (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I give up. I've left a note on the Administrators notice board a while ago, but no one seems interested in doing anything. As far as I'm concerned Onefortyone can ruin as many articles as he likes. This is just getting too tiresome.--Count Chocula 00:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Two possible reasons for this are that you posted it on the wrong noticeboard (arbcom violations go on WP:AE) or that the alleged misbehaviours actually don't violate the arbcom remedy. Either/or. Stifle (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you mind having a look? I'd like a second a opinion. I just thought the edits seemed :like a violation of probation to me.--Count Chocula 00:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think he's disrupting the article, inserting poorly-sourced information, or being aggressive. If his edits aren't in accordance with consensus, they'll be reverted. If he breaks the 3RR, report that. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, no worries. Given that few people edit articles relating to Elvis, its difficult to abtain concensus on anything unfortunately.--Count Chocula 00:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks! -- Rory 0 96 (block) 23:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. You can help at CAT:NN! (/shameless plug)

RfC against me
Yes, I would like it moved to my user space. Will you put it under something like: User:Geo Swan/RfC 2006-4-17?

Thanks. -- Geo Swan 01:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Stifle (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What's with the deleting and the undeleting and the deleting.... KI 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Standard procedure for RFCs. The subject of an RFC may ask for a copy of the RFC to be preserved and placed in their user space if the RFC isn't certified within 48 hours. Stifle (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The game yet again
I could suger-coat this but here's the straight dope: I think that the close was sub-optimal at best. An incrediably contentious and multiply discussed and debated article and you've gone with vote counting? Its more than a little bit important that we help people to understand two things: 1) AfD isn't a vote becasue we're not a democracy, and 2) Some things aren't open to debate, like verification.

Your close tells the opposite story. Would you be willing to un-close this?

brenneman {L}  09:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've also been looking a bit closer at the keep comments and all but nineteen appear to be, well, outside the norm. "It exists and everyhere already lost it," "not hurting anything,"I don't have any sources," "I learned to play... at camp."  If this goes to deletion review it will be a god-aweful mess, but if we stick to policy there's no problem: A single source in a non-english language that is only available by subscription does not pass the verification requirement.  Actually, we don't have to go part the first phrase, as multiple reliable sources are the baseline.  So I'm switching from "would you please" to "ultra strong lesbian penguin begging" for you to re-think this close.  If you're not comfortable with making a Hai2U-style close yourself, just rollback and let someone else look it over.
 * I'll stop needling you now,
 * brenneman {L}  09:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I agree with Brenneman, though for a different reasoning. The reason for overturning the third AfD was supposed to be the 'De Morgen' newspaper "source". But the only people it convinced were the people who were prepared to keep an article with no sources in the first place. So it really should have been closed the same way as the last one, which despite the lack of consensus in the numbers was proven to be a valid delete at DRV.
 * I know that reverting yourself would be sticking your neck out and you have no real reason to do it, but it would be the right thing for Wikipedia - the Wikipedia that's still "the free encyclopaedia", not the one that's "the place to go when five people commented on your latest blog post saying you just had a really awesome idea"). --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've de-closed it and am going to mention it on WP:AN. I am recusing myself from all further discussion on the topic, please don't ask me for any other opinions. Suffice to say that I cannot find any possible way that a consensus of editors can agree to delete this, without a massive invocation of admin fiat. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jaranda
I unblocked upon IRC request because the 3RR was invoked removing a copyvio image and hence not falling under 3RR, I hope thats ok with you -- Tawker 00:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's fine. Thanks for dropping the line. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, we were getting a little sick of the personal attacks on that AOL, hopefully they won't restart upon block expiry -- Tawker 00:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat 3RR report
I do appreciate your attention, whatever your assessment. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please tell Ryan to stop trying to taunt me with what are arguably vandal edits. Merecat 00:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Both of you, go have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC
Actually, I didn't know this... it's been a while since I submitted an RFC! Cheers for clearing that up. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

User:IP Address
I note that banned User:IP Address may now be using a sockpuppet: --Mais oui! 12:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please report things like this on WP:AIV or WP:AN/I in future as it is more likely an admin will be able to deal with it appropriately and more quickly. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, User:IP Address was not banned, he was blocked. They may sound the same, but they are different! Stifle (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Jumping the gun.
Good day,

It was recently brought to my attention that you were one of the people involved in the arbitrary deletion of an article I created a few months ago. While it had always bothered me that I did not get a fair shot at defending the article, I was uncertain who to express my concern to about the matter.

At any rate, others have recreated the deleted article, using the exact same content used in the entry you helped give the deep-six. The entry has since survived because others have vouched for its notability.

I say that to say this: please be careful with your privileges. It takes quite a bit of effort to contribute articles to this project; I would appreciate it if you could refrain from deleting entries and be courteous enough to offer the author a chance to defend the article.

Cheers. Folajimi 14:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Without knowing what article you are referring to, I can't make any reply to this. Can you please link to the article for me? Thanks. Stifle (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The article in question is Cuba (band). Folajimi 17:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did not delete this page. Mushroom deleted it. Indeed, I was not even an admin at that time. Stifle (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I was told that you tagged the article for deletion. If this is not the case, I apologize. Folajimi 00:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat 3RR waring again on Katherine Harris.
Merecat reverted an edit of Shalom's, then reverted my two reverts of the same thing. I am not about to file an official complaint but could you send a shot past his bows? He gives every impression of being a POV peddler. The Harris edits in particular look like they are a whitewash campaign. Case in point Ed Rollins resigns from the Harris campain then chews her out for having accepted a $2800 meal from a corrupt defense contractor, since imprisoned claiming that its not 'notable'. The article in question states that accepting a meal costing more than $50 is illegal. --Gorgonzilla 20:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am directly quoting a newspaper article linked into the Harris page by another user. Gorgonzilla is having a heart attack because this particular qoute does not look nasty neough for his taste. His total focus at Harris is to tear her down. Merecat 21:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not taking sides in a content dispute. Use Dispute resolution if there is a significant content dispute, or WP:AN3 if someone has broken the 3RR. Not my talk page. Stifle (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Tax Honesty Movement (why removed?)
Not sure why a page you had on the Tax Honesty Movement was deleted?

Please respond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.251.185.13 (talk • contribs).
 * Hi, in future please sign your posts using ~.
 * Tax Honesty Movement was deleted by a consensus. If you feel that I misinterpreted the consensus, feel free to make a listing on Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Workshop
You posted that Monicasdude is a new user. I just wanted to let you know that he has been registered for 11 months, see his first edit. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Stifle, thanks for letting me know. I guess I made a mistake in assuming he was a new user because his username is in red. -- User:Electric Eye  ( talk ) 13:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Joe Wingfield
Thanks. I must say that the prod. tool has had such lag problems recently that it has become virtually unusable. Regards, Elf-friend 06:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC process question
Hiya, would you mind taking a quick look at the recently approved RFC on Fadix as it doesn't appear to have met the two person certification to me. The RFC lists one person certifying the dispute, and one endorsement by an outside editor, which doesn't look as it fulfils the requirements to me. (I have no involvement with any of the editors, I just noticed the discrepency in passing) I've left a note on the person endorsing the rfc, in case they meant to certify instead of endorse, so this may be moot, but I thought I'm mention it anyway. Regards, MartinRe 11:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It did turn out to be moot, The user that endorsed it had meant to certify it (but was unclear on the process). Regards, MartinRe 11:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost Moderation offer
Hey Stifle, You'd mentioned previously that you'd be available to act as a neutral party in any Lost discussions that seem to need moderating (since you've no interest in the show yourself). Could you please take a look at Talk:List of Lost episodes and Talk:List of Lost episodes and see if you can help clear things up from a neutral standpoint? Thanks. --Maelwys 21:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Stifle (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD
While this AfD was closed a couple of weeks ago, I'm asking for a bit of clarification. Do votes to disambiguate the page count as keep votes? As here I noticed there were only Deletes, Disambiguate, and a Transwiki vote yet it was closed as no concensus. The article has improved a lot since being nominated on Articles for Deletion however. Thanks. SandBoxer 06:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. The purpose of AFD discussions is to decide whether an article should be kept or deleted. While recommending the transwikification of an article implies deletion, everything else is considered a recommendation to keep unless specifically mentioned otherwise. What actually comes of an article after that is generally discussed on the article's talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with AFD status for Boat_Building_Process
"How to build a boat" is valuable knowledge for thousands of us involved it the field. Traditionally, the process is not shared by the most knowledgeable practicioners, who compete with each other in business. Therefore, a whole bunch of us need a great encyclopedic resource like Wikipedia to get the knowledge quickly. The only other way to get boat building knowledge is to buy many books or spend many years in the industry.

Please keep the article, and let it be improved and expanded. Thanks. 24.17.55.161 03:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Mike, 26 Apr 06, 2030.
 * Thanks for your message. I will post this comment on Articles for deletion/Boat building process for you. Please consider posting deletion-related comments on the deletion discussion page in future. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Rat Catcher +dab
Hello, I created the +dab because the two red links were mentioned in the main Rat-catcher article. However, they were off-topic so I created the +dab for them. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 14:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Monicasdude request for advice
Hi there, Stifle. I saw that you were involved with the Monicasdude dispute and RFAr, so I figured you might be a fair place to ask for a little advice on the current situation I've been drawn into. I've been trying to mediate between Monicasdude and Eusebeus by making each see the other's argument and keep both user's heads cool. However, as you might have expected, this has proven difficult, and has evoked nothing but malice from Mdude, who cannot seem to assume good faith. In the case that I'm talking about, Eusebeus had made an argument against Monicasdude. Monicasdude replied in a snotty way and blanked most of his argument, claiming it was a "personal attack". I re-inserted his arguments and reminded him not to delete other's comments from his page unless it could be shown that they were a personal attack, and to assume good faith. In response, he left me a vandalism warning on my talk page and claimed that I "could not make those kinds of edits on other users' talk page." If you could give me any advice on how I should handle Monicasdude as every time I attempt to Mdude understand that Eusebeus may indeed be acting in good faith, I am rebuked uncivilly, or refer me to someone that can, I would appreciate it immensely. Thank you, Kuzaar 14:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If I could have helped with Monicasdude, I would have done it already, and we wouldn't have the RFAr. Sorry. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. If there's any way in which I can help with the RFAr by providing evidence or anything else that might be constructive, just let me know. I've been editing here for maybe three or four months and haven't had any experience at all with the arbitration or mediation systems. Thank you, Kuzaar 14:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly. There are two main ways to contribute. The first is to edit Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Evidence and add in a section entitled "Evidence presented by Kuzaar", then add in diffs illustrating behaviour that you find unacceptable, in the same style as other users have. To get a diff, either click the "diff" link opposite the page edit in question on Special:Contributions/Monicasdude or in the history of a page, click the radio buttons before and after the edit in question. Then copy and paste the URL from the address bar of your browser.
 * Alternatively, and more simply, you can post a comment, as short or long as you wish, to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. However, evidence is more useful than comments.
 * Thanks for your help with the situation. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton for the advice, it's very comforting to see that there are editors who can keep a cool head. I'll probably make an effort to gather some evidence and offer it to the RFAr this evening as I have a busy day ahead of me, but I just wanted to thank you again for your encouraging words. Kuzaar 14:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

deleted article: LawHelp.org
Hi,

I wanted to ask for your suggestions for how to improve the article about LawHelp.org which you deleted. I work with Pro Bono Net, a non profit organization in New York City and LawHelp.org is a national project that we oversee. LawHelp.org is a free resource for low income people who have legal problems but can't afford an attorney. It has been created and is maintained by legal aid groups, court programs, and social services agencies around the country. No profit is made through the web site--it is simply a free public service. I hoped that we could post an article about it on Wikipedia to help people who might be looking for legal information.

Can you please let me know what is wrong with the article and what we can do to un-delete it?

Thanks for your help.

Christie Constantine cconstantine@probono.net
 * Hi there, in future please consider writing ~ at the end of comments you make which attaches your username and the current date and time.
 * LawHelp.org has not been deleted, just proposed to be deleted. It will only be deleted if the deletion notice at the top remains until April 30th, and you or anyone else can remove that notice at any time simply by editing the page and removing the first line of the article.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but there are many things that Wikipedia is not. As such, articles on groups of people, websites, campaigns, and the like, generally aren't included unless they're that bit more notable than the rest. Would you expect to see an article on LawHelp.org in a paper encyclopedia? To help us decide whether LawHelp.org should be in an encyclopedia, please consider adding to the article demonstrations of how it is notable and how it meets Wikipedia's guidelines on the inclusion of websites. Remember as well to cite reliable sources for your information, so that it will be verifiable.
 * I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Don't forget to tell us about yourself on your user page. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Talkpage request
Hi, you locked my talkpage, around a month ago while I was blocked. Please will you unlock it?... I'll just archieve old messages, instead of deleteing all when read. - Deathrocker 02:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Statutory Instruments
Hi. I notice that you have previously voted or commented on the proposal to delete the List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 page. The debate about the delete proposal ended with no consensus. This is just to let you know that I have started a discussion on how to go forward from here. I am currently trying to define what the problems with the page are so that we can try to find a fix for them that stops short of outright deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion, the new debate can be found here. Thank you. Road Wizard 23:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have anything to add to the discussion. Sorry. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks for replying. :) Road Wizard 20:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Irish Rail Infoboxes
I totally agree with the need for a consistant style across the whole Iarnród Éireann system and agree those stations chnaged should be revert. However I have noticed that you have reverted the Northen Ireland Railway infobox for Newry Railway Station making it inconsistant with the style used for the Northern Ireland railway system. AdamCarden 11:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think that the Northern Ireland ones can go back, but one change: "Enterprise" should be on its own (no "Dublin-Belfast") - there is no other Enterprise route. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jim16
His IP was blocked, per this. Radio Kirk   talk to me  21:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Edited his talk page to reflect this. Stifle (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Saw it, thanks. :) Radio  Kirk   talk to me  22:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of University IP addresses
re: Blocking of 134.83.1.225 due to open proxy


 * Open proxies are not allowed on Wikipedia. Please use a non-open proxy or direct connection. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * that may be so, but I have no control over the behaviour of my university computer centre, nor do I have the required technical knowledge to do anything about it. Should every member of an academic instituion be penalised for this (Thats 15000+ potential users)?
 * If someone would help me get started I would be more than happy to contact my computer centre about this, but I dont know the technicalities involved about open proxies to really do so.


 * and sorry if this isnt the right place/way to reply - feel free to delete and leave me a note on my talk page.

(user: dotx3 30 apr 2006)
 * Hi there, please end your messages with ~ in future, this signs them with your name and the date and time.
 * If you would have some one of your computer centre staff contact Hall Monitor explaining what measures are being taken to prevent users from vandalizing Wikipedia, or what sanctions are being applied to those who do vandalize, then this would probably go a long way towards getting the block lifted. Stifle (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop posting your nonsense on my talk page
''Actually, show me where "bad faith" is marked as a reason for a speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)''

Here's an Afd discussion within the last five days where two different editors vote speedy keep the same way I do, without objection. Here's one where not only were speedy keep votes made after delete votes, but the article was closed as a Speedy Keep. Here's another. Now stop posting your obsessive harangues about a policy interpretation you made up solely to respond to me, even though my actions were quite consistent with standing Wikipedia practice. Oh, here's another one, with three editors, myself included, voted speedy keep/bad faith. . Outside of the current disputes targeting me, can you find a counterexample? You've never cited one. Have you even tried to find one? Monicasdude 18:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your messages. I have commented on all the non-closed AFDs where I have seen an invalid speedy keep recommendation, and have notified the admins who closed both AFDs of the applicable guideline. Stifle (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)