User talk:Stifle/Archive 0408d

thanks
Thanks for your prompt attention.

My concern on the GFDL is that while mirrors of the wikipedia tell readers to look up the contribution history on the wikipedia itself to see who contributed what, this won't work once the wikipedia article has been deleted.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just copy over the history to the alternative website yourself, that way you'll be sure it won't go away. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pages to be deleted speedily
Thanks for your message. I do realise that in many organisations, and Wikipedia is demonstrably not an exception, the regulations are made into tautologies to suit those in positions of power: "Why was my entry deleted?" "Because it was tagged for deletion?" "Why did you not send me a warning?" "Well, because the entry was tagged for speedy deletion." "Who did this tagging?" "The one who decided that it had to be deleted speedily." Etc., etc. You see, I am deeply sad that Wikipedia is mistreating me so blatantly (and undoubtedly countless other people share in my misery) who is here out of a genuine desire to be of service to the humanity in the way that I best can. Any minute that I spend here is at the expense of things in my professional and private life. You have witnessed the amount I have been forced to write in defence of two photographs and 10 lines of text. Can you truly believe that this is a sustainable situation? Clearly, sooner or later I will say to hell with it all, as I will not be prepared to waste hours of my time for getting 10 lines past an editor who definitely could not have known about, say, Bagh. I am just being honest with you, I have spent my entire life in academia, and now am reduced to begging people for maintaining 10 lines in Wikipedia which ultimately will not benefit me personally in any conceivable way. Why are people destroying Wikipedia by their short-sightedness and lack of imagination? Any way, I have said enough, but believe me I fear that I am not the only person suffering here; there must be countless other people out there who could do something useful, but are forced out by vigilantes. Just for your information, in the course of the past year I have invested enormous amount of my time in recruiting real professionals for Wikipedia from first-rate universities (mostly I have not been successful as most people put their profession first); only last week I convinced one of the leading figures in one of the major American universities to join Wikipedia and she has already promised that she will definitely work seriously on a number of entries that we discussed together. Now I am afraid that these people will not thank me for having introduced them into a lion's den, swarming with vigilantes. As I said earlier, you are the only person who has proved to be genuinely helpful; the amount you did for me in three days is more that I achieved to bring about over the course of more than one year. You may wish to report these evident maltreatments to the people higher up in Wikipedia. Kind regards, --BF 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't agree that Wikipedia is mistreating you (or at least that it is treating you demonstrably worse than most other users).
 * I respectfully submit that your messages to me and other users have been somewhat verbose and could possibly have been given in fewer words, saving the amount you would have to type.
 * I am very glad that well-educated persons like yourself and the lady you introduced have joined Wikipedia and I hope you stay.
 * There isn't really anybody higher up in Wikipedia, besides Jimmy Wales, the founder. There are around 1,500 people with a few extra buttons, 26 people who can give or remove permissions, and a similar number who can do extra strong deletions and so on. If you feel strongly about some aspects of Wikipedia, consider writing an essay about it. To do this, just create a new page in the Wikipedia namespace and put essay at the top.
 * Again, I hope that you stay at Wikipedia as you seem to be someone who wishes to improve it by adding information rather than bureaucracy. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Stifle, you may call the treatment that I have received at the hands of some Wikipedia editors whatever you deem appropriate. My statement was genuine, as I do not believe that one should put so much effort for saving an entry whose contents is about ten lines of normal text. Please note the contradiction: the editor deleting the entry, came, as a gesture of goo will, with the statement that the entry was most appropriate for Wikitionary. Well, this may be the case, but had I not taken any action, the entry had been lost for ever. How could an editor come to such contradictory conclusions? Believe me, this is not what I call editorship, not least because good editorship is not about gestures of good will and the like. One remark before closing: we will have to come to terms with people's idiosyncrasies and not let these cloud our judgements; I happen to write long texts and apparently cannot help it (I have some of the longest published normal papers, as opposed to reviews, in my field of expertise). One last thing, I have now placed a response to the charge made against me by User:Gprince007 in the talk page of MECU, which you might wish to read: ; I noticed that you were just there, since your edit interfered with mine when I attempted to save my message. Kind regards, --BF 15:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

Three revert warning
Thank you for your advice. I don't think correcting articles to be consistent with the given references is an edit war or dispute, which is what the 3RR is used to prevent. As for taking things too seriously, I hope by this exchange you have realised that some people do take seriously their efforts to try to make articles better, especially those articles subject to high edits requiring frequent corrections, and may not appreciate receiving warnings that if they continue their behavior they will be blocked. It is clear from the timing of your initial posting of the warning that you merely saw my name within the context of an ongoing edit war (that I was not part of) and gave the warning because of this, without exploring the history of what I was actually changing. It is very disappointing that an administrator would take action such as this, or at least without acknowledging that a better approach should have been taken. I think telling people they are taking something too seriously is very unhelpful and insulting. I will not remove the warning from my talk page, as I don't feel the need to hide anything, but i think other people are entitled to know who placed the warning there and the reasons why. This is the first time I have found contributing to wikipedia an unpleasant experience. I encourage you to think about the respect you show to editors in the future. I think you are a very effective administrator, and it would be a shame if there were reasons to question this status. JKW111 (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, if you are going to continue to issue warnings to people that haven't done anything wrong, I strongly suggest you use a more appropriate template. Thanks. JKW111 (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. How does uw-3rr-alt look? Stifle (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that a lot. And thanks for listening to my rants, I know some people would just ignore it. JKW111 (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR and BLP
Hi! I've just got back from a delightful holiday in war-torn Sarajevo (!) and came across your concern that my removal of the "news" of Penelope Wilton's and Elizabeth Sladen's casting on a TV program didn't constitute a violation of WP:BLP. I took a look at the policy, and it says the following: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Since Ms Sladen is alive - or was before I went on holiday... - and the information appears to have been unsourced, I genuinely don't understand how it fails the sentence I quoted above.

The only subjective part of the rule seems to be whether or not information is "contentious"; in the past, casting on Doctor Who has been a hot issue... Christopher Eccleston stormed out of a charity event after someone even mentioned the program to him - so I considered that putting actors in the article without reliable sources was iffy. Any thoughts? —TreasuryTag —t —c 16:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't see it as contentious. But if you want to see what others think, perhaps a listing at WP:BLP/N wouldn't go astray. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I explained, in the past, casting on Doctor Who has been a hot issue... Christopher Eccleston stormed out of a charity event after someone even mentioned the program to him - so I considered that putting actors in the article without reliable sources was iffy. Could you explain your point more fully, maybe? —TreasuryTag —t —c 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything more to explain. I just don't think that someone starring in a TV show could be seen as contentious. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're being really unhelpful. If you'd like to explain why you think that TV casting isn't contentious, with a reasoned logical response to my last comment, please do. Otherwise, forget it... I don't have any more time to spend on this ridiculous business! —TreasuryTag —t —c 20:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll have to forget it, then... it's the same as trying to explain why I think some food is not spicy. It's the default state of affairs. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dev null? Don't be so bloody rude!!
I have just found out want you meant by "Dev/null" - does that mean I can point you to WP:dick like the usual WP nitwit? It's merely made me feel a little worse about admins, especially after the haste with which you dealt with my case. Reading your link would hardly calm someone down would it? Remember why you are here, what's best for Wikipedia, to show basic respect and good faith is my own advice to you. And SLOW DOWN!! Admins are only useful if they concentrate on what they are doing, and actually maintain an underlying respect towards people. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you were offended. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

British Citizen Fondation
Hi, I am new to this and just created a page for a charity which I am involved in called British Citizen foundation, I am aware of why the page has been deleted, however wanted to ask how a promotion of a charity (non profit organisation) can be placed on this site. if at all.

I was going to add content to this page regarding UK poverty and other charites who support this cause, however it has been deleted, therefor can you tell me if it is possible to have a page dedicated to this cause.

regards

James [removed email address for privacy]

Brighter Britain (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. Because Wikipedia is not a soapbox, advertizements for groups aren't permitted. British citizen foundation was deleted for this reason, and also because it appeared to have been copied from another website.
 * If you want to recreate the article, you will need to establish how the organization is notable, provide citations from reliable sources to back that up, and write from a neutral point of view. But you really should consider letting someone unconnected write about it. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR report
With all due respect I have seen many cases where editors have been blocked for four reversions outside of 24 hours. Sure it can't be too great, but I think four reverts within 26 hours is quite similar. If you want to say that the period was not large enough, ok. But you are not being correct when you say there must be 4 reverts in 24 hours. I'd appreciate it if you could ask another admin's opinion if you are still not convinced. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Posted as such on the 3RR noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Photograph of Bahram Bayzai
Dear Stifle, just a short note. This morning I had an e-mail from Payvand.com, telling me that they are doing their best to contact the photographer (Mr Fakhraddin Fakhraddini), through his agent, in order to obtain written permission from him regarding the photograph of Bahram Bayzai. Payvand.com say that although they have published the photograph in question with permission, they do not wish to walk over the head of the photographer and will want to confirm the things with the photographer first before sending an e-mail to Wikipedia. So, could you please be kind enough and extend the lifetime of the photograph at issue somewhat? Payvand.com have told me that they are working hard on the issue. With kind regards, --BF 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will do what I can. Even if the image is deleted, it can be undeleted without a problem once the release is received from Payvand.com. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kindness. Best regards, --BF 17:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Stifle, I just noticed that somehow miraculously the tag in the entry on Bagh (word) has been removed and placed in its corresponding talk page. I do not know who has done this, but since I saw a note by you on Bagh's talk page, I assume that the transference must be due to you. If so, then God bless you! --BF 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Stifle, about an hour ago I was forwarded a copy of an e-mail that Payvand.com must have sent to Wikipedia. I believe therefore that Bahram Bayzai's photograph can now remain permanently on Wikipedia. Kind regards, --BF 22:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This email does not appear to have been received, or if it has, it has not been acted upon. Please forward it yourself to permissions-en@wikimedia.org quoting the reference Image:Bahram Bayzai.jpg. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Stifle, thanks for your message. I have just forwarded Payvand.com's e-mail to the above-mentioned address. Incidentally, I am rather surprised that Wikipedia has not received the e-mail, since the e-mail that I received from Payvand.com clearly carries "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" as the main address and my name (hiding my actual e-mail address) in the CC section. It is technically impossible that I should have received their e-mail and the main addressee, i.e. Wikipedia, has not --- unless they had typed an incorrect address, however this is ruled out by the fact that I have just copy-pasted the latter address and it identically coincides with the address that you give above. One thing that seems to suggest that some technical problem may be the cause of the delay is the following: I first received the copy of the e-mail sent to Wikipedia, and some five hours later I received a personal e-mail from Mr Ali Moayyedian (who has singed the letter to Wikipedia) telling me that they had just received the necessary permissions and that they were going to send a letter to Wikipedia right away. As you see, for some strange reason I received two e-mails in the opposite chronological order as I should have received. Kind regards, --BF 13:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is rather strange. I imagine things will become clearer in the next day or two. The incoming mail queue may have a backlog. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

References in the Treaty of Trianon page
On the discussion page of the above mentioned article, there was a debate about the usage of a newspaper article as a reference in several places throughout the article. My opinion is that citing a 2008 newspaper article to support the fact that the Treaty was concluded at the end of WWI is not appropriate, as it is a well known fact. It's like citing a 2008 newspaper article to support the fact that the US Declaration of Independence happened in 1776. Citations to the NYT article should remain in places where they are appropriate. And this is what I tried to do, leaving it as a reference in 2 different places. However, I have seen that you reinserted the reference in several other places, where, in my opinion, such a referencing is artificial. This reduces the quality of the article. Alexrap (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing other than common knowledge should be in Wikipedia without a citation. To remove citations that are required contravenes Verifiability. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That was exactly my point. The fact that the Treaty of Trianon is a treaty concluded at the end of WWI is common knowledge. At least for someone who comes across such an article. And if it still requires a reference (which I don't think it's the case), the best reference is a good history book, not a 2008 newspaper article. Alexrap (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The New York Times was founded seven decades before the Treaty of Trianon. They didn't write about the Middle Ages. Squash Racket (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to cite such a book. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951)
Thank you for protecting this page. I and some other editors have been having real problems with a particular super-pro-PRC editor on this article, namely Littlebutterfly. I actually got my first and only 3RR block for repeated removing a "the Dalai Lama is funded by the CIA"-type comment from an article about the PLA invasion (he was blocked too). I urge you go go to Talk:People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) and take a look at some of his comments. I am getting pretty fed up with his racism on the talk page and constant introduction of material into the article that is not relevant but simply designed to make the Chinese side look good and the other side look bad. It's propaganda, if you think about it. He really does not seem to care that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I don't really know what to do about it and I'd like some advice. Thanks. Yunfeng (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My advice is to use dispute resolution. I am sorry, but I do not have a lot of time to mediate disputes or investigate disruptive editors. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will. Yunfeng (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm getting very frustrated with Littlebutterfly as well. Littlebutterfly wrongly accused me of using unreliable sources. I pointed out that the material in question was from a magazine that has been published for the last 40 years and the book published by a reputable publisher and reviewed by the New York Times, rather than admit that he was wrong, Littlebutterfly continued to try to erode the credibility of the source.
 * First Littlebutterfly insisted that articles and books written by two different "white guys" couldn't represent the views of the Tibetans. I pointed out that Littlebutterfly had used material from five different "white guys" when it served his purposes.
 * Then Littlebutterfly insisted that her material from his "five white guys" was unbiased and unsullied by the views of the Tibetans by relying on the views of westerners directly involved.
 * I pointed out that the book in question was both written by westerners directly involved and the writer interviewed the Tibetans themselves.
 * Rather than accept these very good sources, Littlebutterfly then slandered the source and said that it couldn't possibly represent what the Tibetans said. For no reason whatsoever. This is the most unabashedly biased editor I've ever encountered. There is not even a tip of the hat in the direction of neutrality. Longchenpa (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My advice is to use dispute resolution. I am sorry, but I do not have a lot of time to mediate disputes or investigate disruptive editors. Stifle (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Article protection
Hi, an edit war is again in risk of breaking out in a number of Bosnia related articles: Basically User:HarisM has been reverting back to the versions of these articles previously proposed by now banned User:Grandy Grandy / User:The Dragon of Bosnia. After my calls for discussion on the talk page regarding these edits have been unanswered I have in turn reverted to 'my' version of the articles. I have now left a message on the talk page of User:HarisM, however, since he has not been willing to discuss edits before (and appears to be canvassing support for his edits) I would like to ask you to protect these pages. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bosnian war
 * Bosnian mujahideen
 * Mujahideen
 * Role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war
 * I have protected Bosnian War. The edits on the other pages are not sufficient to justify protection at this time. Please make all future requests for protection at Requests for page protection. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Filipino radio stations unprotected
I think I got 'em all. The problem is that Pinoybandwagon and the rest left some of these stations with three and four articles, and each of the articles has its own talk page, so I can't just delete the redirect and move to the proper name (that of the station's call letters). In addition, most of these articles have ledes which start with the brand name, rather than the call letters. It's a mess, still. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bagh (word)
The issue of deletion has been raised by another editor; please feel welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Three-revert rule
You are right about my violation of the 3RR, I apologize. How do we resolve that? And about the source, I was merely saying it was unreliable because it did not appear to be talking about the flag in question, but of course it could have because I do not know Turkish. I realize that it still could have been a credible source. Rcduggan (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to do, just letting you know about the rule for future reference. Thanks for the reply. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Once again, thanks for clearing things up. Rcduggan (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Shamrock, Texas, Article
With apologies, you need to know: Our disagreement with Collectonian is in that it seems to be "OK" for a city official to post unsubstantiated "evidence" (linking to non-existent information that "looks" official but leads nowhere) attacking the owner of our local radio station - who has exposed drug-dealers operating within our courthouses - while our posts that are linked to substantiating court documents are deleted as soon as they appear. Something is "not right" about this practice. The "ever changing IP address" is due to only dialup connections being available in our remote area some three miles beyond the limits of DSL or anything better than dialup. It's no "changing IP conspiracy" as some would seem to want to believe.--216.167.133.159 (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. I haven't made any protection or other change to those pages nor do I intend to. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: motion graphics review, Article
hello i would like to do the page properly in orther not to get adverticing, if you want i can delete the external links, i think that people who wants to show its video projects can find this wiki and get famous, our association dont earn money, so we dont make profit of it but the authors, can you help me redoing it ? i have little idea :P

thanks.

Motiongraphicsreview (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Motion graphics review was deleted because it was an advertizement. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and does not allow advertizements. It is open for you to recreate the page but you need to write from a neutral point of view, and cite reliable sources to comply with our verifiability policy.
 * Also, it is not usual to place an article about an organization on Wikipedia in the hope of getting famous. It must be notable first. Not the other way around. Consider writing about your organization on its own website. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry for the inconvenience... but this organization is international and the most important enterprises of the world who creates motion graphics are exposing their works in this festival, isn't enough notable ? yo can check it at the web page of the "festival cine de huesca" webpage it has been recogniced by Hollywood awards as a well named festival, please reconsider if i can /cant do the wiki. Thanks in advance.

Motiongraphicsreview (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not stopping you from recreating the article — it isn't my decision — but if you do not cite some reliable sources it is just as likely to be deleted again. I don't know what "festival cine de huesca" means, please provide an exact URL. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox News entry page protection
I posted this on the FNC talk page, but I'm not sure you will be checking back there or just waiting for "consensus" to form. I want to make sure you know that, if I recall correctly, I made two minor punctuation edits yesterday, and only two substantial edits. I made one edit this morning. Also, you can't reach a consensus if you have one or two people who say that 'consensus' only means 'agreeing with them'. I have asked the continually reverting editors to mediate with me, and they have refused. How is this block doing anything to remedy this situation? There is an RfC in progress, and consensus building is occurring. In reading the flow chart at WP:CONSENSUS, I see it shows that editing is the beginning of going from "previous consensus" to "new consensus". It also says, "Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it." The flow chart says, "previous consensus--> make an edit--> was the edit reverted?--> (if so) Do you accept the result?--> (if no) discuss ideas --> make an edit." The flow chart you seem to be suggesting would read, "previous consensus--> talk about an edit--> was the edit agreed upon by everyone including the one or two editors in the minority who don't want the article changed?--> (if no) leave article alone --> talk about an edit." Jsn9333 (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Replying at Talk:Fox News Channel as it's been cross-posted there. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I may be mistaken, but the highest form of dispute resolution I see for content disputes is mediation. I have asked the warring parties to mediate with me, and they have refused. Those parties, one or two editors whom are in the minority of the RfC, continually revert the edits the majority in the RfC have approved. The discussion has hit a standstill as they have made it clear they do not respect the reliable sources the majority approves. Again, I don't see how blocking this page is going to solve this problem. Do you have any other suggestions? As it stands, an extreme minority of editors has ensured that the version the majority of editors has agreed needs to be changed will not be changed... "indefinitely". Jsn9333 (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. - auburn pilot   talk  21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR
broke 3RR on Alija Izetbegović. He doesn't allow any edit except his own. I saw in his log, you blocked and warned him about 3RR that's why I came here to report him, because I don't know how to report this case on Wikipedia project page.

Reverts: 1st- 2nd- 3rd- 4th- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.35.27 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, but please use WP:AN3 in the future. The instructions are at the bottom of the page. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Stifle, can you visit WP:AE? He has violated discretionary sanctions on other articles.  He was under tighter than standard discretionary sanctions (1RR per article per week), but when Thatcher and I (and others at WP:AE) imposed them, we didn't specify a consequence, so now we need to sort that out.  As you have already blocked for this 3RR violation, I'd appreciate your input.  GRBerry 20:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Commented there. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Three-revert rule
Thank you for the reminder, I will make sure to keep that in mind. I will also look into the dispute resolution process as well, that may help work things out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stifle, I have removed some defamatory remarks by User:Aecis which he made despite of your request. User is also active at Vereniging Basisinkomen on the same quest. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See also my alert at . Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Username issue
You have sent me a message saying that my username is a problem cause it's promotional. First off, I have never heard so much nonsense in my life until I tried to make a post on Wikipedia, which is a source of information on actual topics and all that you guys have done is make pointless comments on such things as it being not notable when I have a musicial celebrity as a main character and you discuss this as though it is not worthy. And how is my username promotional, its the same username I use for most of anything I sign up for including my email address. I don't know why you guys get off on this but if you can have a legitimate complaint it would be useful. Again, Wikipedia's goal is to provide an source of knowledge on subjects of interest. Having a musical celebrity as a film character is definately what I would consider of interest. --Adrenaline-pulse (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read our username policy and then think again about your reply. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR
I didn't close it, as I am not a Featured article or Featured article review director; please direct your comments to User:Joelr31, thanks. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry, got confused with all the postings there. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article
I'm getting error messages too - I think there's a glitch. Deb (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, it seems to have worked now. Please give it a check over to ensure it's what you wanted. Deb (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Apprentice
Sorry, but the results did air before I wrote them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olz06 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Why did you put in Helene as being taken into the boardroom instead of Claire then? Stifle (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

AN3
You're right. I have struck the Dutch comment and translated it in English. Thanks for the notice. A ecis Brievenbus 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On Bagh (garden)
Dear Stifle, just wish to let you know that since yesterday User:Prosfilaes has targeted the entry Bagh (garden); thus far he has for twice reduced the contents of the entry by more than 1/2 (removing almost the entire main text) under the dubious pretence that the entry is not a dictionary. I believe that this is just pure malice. People overwhelmingly voted for keeping the entry and in fact the person who had put the question with regard to the existence of the entry to vote, withdrew her/his proposal on seeing the changes to the entry and the positive response of the people to the changes. I believe that it goes against the wish of the community to behave the way Prosfilaes is now behaving, specifically now that I have for twice reminded him that he should abide by the will of the community. For completeness, Prosfilaes stood on the top of the list voting strong delete, and now that he has not got his way, he has apparently decided to act as a public nuisance. Well, as you can imagine, by now I have really got fed up with the situation. I should be most grateful if you would kindly remind Prosfilaes to act responsibly and not like a public nuisance. If he has a point, he should make it in the talk page and if he doesn't, then, well, he should better get his head examined. Thank you. With kind regards, --BF 00:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked him to discuss his edits more. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have explained it several times; this is Bagh (garden), not Bagh (word). What bagh means in Turkish might not be completely out of line on Bagh, but it has nothing to do with Bagh (garden). If you'll note the AfD, there was a movement to continue to delete Bagh (word) as a whatever because it was so bad, even if Bagh (garden) was acceptable.


 * I furthermore take offense to the fact that the edit summaries go


 * →Etymology: delete text; not a dictionary


 * rv. You must not put the existence of something to vote and then so blatantly change the nature of the entry on which people had been voting!!!! Please have respect for others!!!!


 * this isn't Bagh (word), which was going to get deleted, and this isn't a dictionary. None of this entomological trivia has any place here


 * You are acting against the will of the community. If you have a point, lay it out in the talk page and let the community decide


 * I note nothing in his responses that pertains to content, and it starts out by saying that changing the article content lacks respect for others, a clear violation of WP:OWN. is another example of WP:OWN and borderline personal attacks. I interpret the consensus on AfD as being that Bagh (word) was crap; unlike that, Bagh (garden) might have some encyclopedic potential. Instead of more accusations about the supposed "will of the community" (coming from someone who stomped off a few months ago because his copyvios were getting deleted), I'd like to see some reason to keep that text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reminded BF about WP:OWN. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Prosfilaes is intent on destruction and builds a vacuous scenario around that central plan. I have no time and patience any longer to fight Philitines and Hypocrites. So, God bless you all. --BF 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

White, round, objects, made in winter!
Would you care to take a look at Articles for deletion/Guitar Hero tapping - I get the feeling it's as good a target as one will see for the cold, white, round objects! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite. But I've added a bit more frozen water. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Banderlog
Thank you, sir! :) BOZ (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Camp Minsi
Hello, Could you explain your call on Camp Minsi? My understanding is that it was speedied under G4 but as it was more-or-less rewritten from scratch, it isn't a speedy candidate by rule. so irrelevant of consensus (which was split) isn't the prime issue here. Or at least that's how I read it. Hobit (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus that the page should be undeleted. Therefore no action was taken. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

NASIOC
And one more...

What was wrong with sending to AfD and semi-protecting the page as had been proposed? The article was quite well written and notability was the only issue (for reasons I don't understand, as it clearly meets WP:N). So insisting that the article be rewritten seems like the only wrong call.

Sorry to hit you up on two of these. Hobit (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with my decision on this, but I can userfy the page to a subpage of yours if you like. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you explain the decision? I don't understand why you are asking for the rewrite of a good article.  Either it's notable or it isn't (which I think should be handled in an AfD that's semi-protected).  But no one had any issues with the article itself, yet that was what you effectively asked be changed (per Speedy delete G4).  I just don't see the logic.   Thanks, Hobit (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the decision I made properly reflected the consensus of users, giving appropriate weight to comments while discounting those from socks or single-purpose accounts. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to keep beating on this, but I really don't think you are answering my question. Sorry if I'm being unclear. Could you please explain how you got "rewrite the page" out of that discussion? I don't think anyone proposed the solution you closed with. Hobit (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the decision I made properly reflected the consensus of users, giving appropriate weight to comments while discounting those from socks or single-purpose accounts. I'm sorry that you don't think I'm answering your question. You are not being unclear, merely re-asking the same question over again. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also unclear as to how you interpreted my closure as "the article has to be rewritten", particularly when I've offered to move the deleted article into your userspace. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I added this to Hobit's talk, but maybe I should have contacted you. Could you copy the NASIOC page to my user space if possible? The Google cache does not give access to the source of the article. Thanks! Beethoven05 (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please offer proof of the gallery director's statement...
Why would you lable my change as vandalism. What is your agenda? Gallery director's statement? Where is this 'statement' to be found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandg1530 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your message. Please clarify which page you are referring to and sign your messages by typing ~ at the end. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your handling of a report
Thank you, Stifle, for deciding on no action in this 3RR report which I filed. After I logged out I realized that if I had thought it through, I wouldn't have filed that report, because the user had clearly already stopped reverting. I do think it was a 3RR violation but was worried that the user might have been blocked, which I afterwards realized I didn't want to happen. Anyway, I appreciate the way you handled this and I've noticed that you've made well-considered decisions on many other reports, too. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Regarding the page Jam Nizamuddin, which you tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of copyright infringement, I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because the source is text written in 1846 which is therefore out of copyright. If you still want the page to be deleted, please re-tag it under a CSD criterion that applies, consider redirecting the article, or use the proposed deletion or the articles for deletion processes. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I realized this after posting several CSD tags about the same piece of literature and removed just about all the tags. I must have missed this one. Thanks for catching my mistake and I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be sorry. If I've managed to help you learn something new then it hasn't been wasted at all :) Stifle (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfc - RobJ1981
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. I myself have added an outside view. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/RobJ1981. -- Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Eep, that's headed for trainwreck territory. I'll try to check in on it but it's unlikely to be today. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, took me like 4 days to go through it all. :S Oh well, do have a brief look when you get a chance - I summarised my view in 1 line in the conclusion section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Apprentice
I wrote Helen as I thought her name was Helene but then realised it was Claire, as it has not been on THAT long. Coor calm down. Olz06 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)