User talk:Stifle/Archive 0910

Thank you
Nothing like a little PRODding (pun fully intended) to draw my attention to an article in dire need of improvement. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

whitelist
Stifle,

Regarding my whitelist request,

I wrote the Cobalt (CAD program) article as I own the program. I also own TransMagic. I also am the shepherding author on Kilogram. When I write articles, I go to the actual sources. In the case of the Kilogram article, I exchanged well over 80 e-mails with the NIST researcher in Maryland who is working on the electronic kilogram. And as that subject is covered by many scientific papers, it was easy to cite. I did the same thing (do my homework) while writing Thermodynamic temperature; I contacted a Ph.D. researcher who had published a couple of landmark papers on the goings-on at absolute zero. I even had him review drafts via e-mail before I committed them to the article. I really, really do my homework.

Things are very different on CAD programs. There are exceedingly few independent authors writing reviews and explanations about CAD programs. In this particular case, Frank Sherosky (the guy I need to link to) is a bona fide author and, as a recently retired CAD design engineer from GM, he certainly qualifies as a reliable source on this particular subject. I confirmed with the owner of theTransMagic company (Jerry) that this author is not an employee of theirs and was not paid for the article.

The link I want to use is “Examiner.com: http:// … www.examiner.com/automotive-technology-in-detroit/auto-suppliers-suffer-heavy-burden-of-industry-s-multiple-cad-systems”. The statement I hope to cite is “However, problems arise when files must be shared with outside companies, which may use a different type of CAD program.” That statement is pretty much CAD 101, but just because it is obvious to those in the field does not mean it is obvious to everyone; it would be nice to have an outside RS expanding upon that exact issue to use as a ref.

Can you white-list the article for me please? Greg L (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whitelist requests are handled at the whitelist page, and not here. Please post all follow-ups to the request there. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ireland meet up
Hi, you added your name on a list of editors interested in attending meet ups in Ireland.

You may be interested in attending a meet up of Irish Wikipedians planned for the 25th of September. More details here...

--RA (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy and topic ban
Hello to you, please I need some clarification: is not that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=prev&oldid=379302549 an edit by Nableezy violating topic ban? sometimes I am confused by all the nuances... thanks, Hope&amp;Act3! (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All arbitration enforcement requests go to WP:AE, not here. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Undelete Russell Hantz's Page
Hi Stifle,

I see that you deleted Russell Hantz's article and are having it redirect to Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains. You probably did this because you feel he played a small role in one event. However, he played a big role in 2 big events, as he was also in Survivor: Samoa, making it to the end and winning "Player of the Season" plus $100,000 in both seasons. He also was arrested, which got a lot of coverage.

Also, considering Heroes vs. Villains consisted of Survivors 20 most popular players and he won America's vote for "Player of the Season", that makes him one of the most popular, if not the most popular player, to ever appear on the show. According to WP:ENT, television personalities with a large fan base have evidence of notability.

I presented you with 2 good reasons why Russell Hantz's article should be put back up, so please do your best to do so. Thanks.

RandJshow (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The decision to merge the page was not made by me, but by the Wikipedia community, at Articles for deletion/Russell Hantz (2nd nomination). I am only implementing the decision of the community. If you wish to appeal the outcome of the deletion debate, you may be able to do so at Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a sports almanac"
From the very first of the five pillars of Wikipedia:
 * Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.

To nominate an article for deletion under the rationale that Wikipedia is not an almanac completely contradicts the five pillars of Wikipedia. This is the very first sentence most new users read on their talk page. Vodello (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:5P, a summary of guidelines, yields to WP:NOT, a policy. See section 2.9, item 3. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, WP:5P yields no nobody, as it is the statement of the "fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates". Your efforts to delete articles in violation of these fundamental principles are becoming disruptive, so please stop. Why don't you try actually contributing to the building of this encyclopedia, rather that continually trying to prevent others from doing so? When did you last do anything constructive here, such as improving an article or finding sources? And that is not an insult, or a rhetorical question, but a genuine question that needs an answer. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your interpretation of which policies/guidelines are "superior", and it is no more than an interpretation. The encyclopedia is improved by reducing the amount of bad content as well as increasing the amount of good content.
 * To answer your question, the last major work I did on an article was taxation in the Republic of Ireland. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, over 6 months ago. Please don't complain about me not improving articles when I do so most days, not just once or twice a year. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do we even have the five pillars of Wikipedia if it contradicts WP:NOT? If Wikipedia is not a almanac, why do we tell new users that it is? Nowhere on WP:NOT does it say that Wikipedia is not an almanac. Vodello (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A question
Hello, I have a question regarding talk pages. On English wiki we should use English language when we talk? Right? The use of other languages is not allowed? Thank you. Adrian (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please warn User:Nmate and User:Doncsecz for this especially when they are talking about other users in which appear to he a strange context (having problem with a Romanian when he filed that false report about me ) . This users both pages are filled with foreign language talk. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

About the warning I received on the false request of User:Nmate, it is important to be retracted because if another "report" (where the result was case not valid) like this appear I could be banned for no apparent reason. Please reconsider this case. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already told you I am not retracting the warning. It would, in any case, be like trying to unring a bell. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC image reviews
See User_talk:Elcobbola; any help would be appreciated. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

AE Athenean
You dealt with his previous sanctions so you might want to check this -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2
Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Secret Page List, you may be interested in Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding e-mail
I wanted to somebody else than me to invite topic-banned Momento to the rest of Wikipedia, but I already did it myself on his/her talk page. Your action is no longer requested. Andries (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dnfcc
Hey Stifle. You mind if I delete or redirect Dnfcc? It doesn't seem to be used and currently doesn't have much linking to it. I found it looking at backlinks to Category:Disputed non-free images. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer if you didn't. It's got a long history and is used as a more forceful alternative to {{subst:dfu}}. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello
"A few days" are over, aren't they? Eliko (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanx. Eliko (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Familiar bickering
Hi, could you please check in here, where Nableezy has reported Shuki for edit warring? It seems that you are familiar with these two, and I'm afraid I might be spinning my wheels investigating all of their various interactions. I've been at it for 20 minutes and I'm afraid I've barely scratched the surface. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just off for the night, I'm afraid. Sorry. Stifle (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted vandlised page
Hi Stifle

Sorry to annoy you whilst you're trying to get your break in. You deleted a page some time ago on the request of Orson Griffiths and rightly so, it was completely vandelised. Orson is trying to reconstruct another page, which is under User:Leon Ousby (Actor) is ok to add info there. Please advise when you have the time. I know you're busy... sorry to hassle you... regards 109.155.80.70 (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He'll need to file the request for himself while logged in, at WP:REFUND, quoting the exact page. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

CafePress White listing or removal from blacklist
Hi Stifle,

Thank you for responding to the post on CafePress in the request for removal section of the blacklist page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist.

There were three solutions listed as possibly viable so I am wondering which one you were recommending to be taken to the white list board, or all of them or something else:

The first plausible solution listed was this: -- 1. Including only affiliate pages on CafePress within the Wikipedia blacklist This is probably the most logical and apt solution as those are the only pages that have been mentioned in the argument for the blacklisting. Since the URLs of all of these pages contain a common character that the pages which I’ve mentioned would serve as relevant resources do not contain (the ? character), all pages containing a ? on CafePress could be blacklisted while other pages would not be on the list. This could be done with use of a script. ---

My question is: Does the technology exist to do this within Wikipedia or is this something you would recommend taking to the white list page?

The second plausible solution listed was this:

--- 2. Extensive white listing of pages within CafePress that could serve as relevant sources or all pages outside the affiliate section. This would have the same effect as possibility 1 but would be a far more manual process. ---

My question is: What type of response do you think I will get if I list somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 pages that could be cited as references for information within Wikipedia or add to the robustness of articles?

The third plausible solution listed was this: --- 3. Provisionally removing CafePress from the blacklist. The blacklisting was implemented over 2 years ago. The Wikipedia site, the CafePress site and the communities associated with each site have evolved significantly in that time period. Therefore, there would likely be no issue at this point in time if CafePress were not on the Wikipedia blacklist. Therefore, removing CafePress entirely from the blacklist may at this time be a viable option. ---

My question is: Would this belong on the White list page or the request for removal from blacklist page? If the request for removal from the blacklist page is indeed the apt location, it seems like much time could be saved on both ends by simply fulfilling this request.

Please clarify and let me know your thoughts.

Thank You Respectfully. WebTech02 (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All follow-up to the whitelist request needs to be posted at the whitelist/blacklist page. Material posted here won't be taken into consideration by the admin who closes the discussion. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Question for you at DRV
here. I'm seriously interested in your take on this question, hence me bringing it to your attention here. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Torsion field
Good morning Stifle. I see that you started an AFD on this article following on from an OTRS ticket. Is there a particular concern that was raised in the ticket? Copyvio, inaccuracy, etc? The consensus at AFD seems to lean pretty strongly in favor of Keeping the article, but I wanted to doublecheck that there wasn't something specific we needed to be looking at. The debate, as you know, is here. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It's not an especially meritorious request, but I am bound to at least entertain it. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my guess, but thought I'd check anyway. Thanks for the quick response. Best, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bix Beiderbecke
Hi. I'm hoping you can check in on my responses to your image comments at Featured article candidates/Bix Beiderbecke/archive1. Thanks for your help and feedback. Margo&amp;Gladys (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS request
Hello, can you help me with some OTRS tickets please, looking through new uploads I tagged some images as no permission. The uploader User:Noles1984 has removed the tag and added info on two ticket numbers. They have a list of permissions at User:Noles1984/Permission they appear to be global permission but before I looked through the other uplods from the user I thought I would check the OTRS. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Honda CR110 racer.png ticket #2010092410011701
 * File:Dream50dia Champ.jpg #2010092410011667
 * I'm the OTRS agent that handled those two tickets yesterday and they aren't usable yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just got their third email so I'm going to leave a note on their talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that VernoWhitney, appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Block?
What was this block for? Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles. Firsly i was not told this conversation was going on to defend myself, seocndly reading the page will see the controversy was NOT pertaining to what alleged. Another user also said the RAAD controversy on the page did not pertain to the The Troubles and thus 1RR restrictions, and furthermore there was a cite provided for it. And the complainent was not willing to discuss the issue simply resorting to "this will not happen, you have been warned."
 * Furthermore, the 2 editors (o fenian and republican jacobite) are tag-team editors on various articles avoiding blocks by undoing each other. There was a previous issue on the RIRA/CIRA page where my sourced addition to the IMC reports were removed until another user came in to support the sourced additions. (its probably removed by them now since that was nearly 2 years ago)
 * Seems like he was warring the same matter on the same List from 2009 as well. Lihaas (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is over five months old; one would think it is a moot point now. Stifle (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Its on my record, it shouldnt be(Lihaas (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)).
 * Well, I can't change that. Did you or did you not breach the 1RR restriction? Stifle (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That List page is not under the Troubles restrictions, you can check. It was the opinion of the one editor, which was also countered by another editor who suggested it wasn't. (the same editor has had various blocks for inserting such POV)(Lihaas (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)).
 * Even if the page was not under an explicit restriction (which is not admitted), you were still edit-warring. Therefore I have reviewed my decision and am satisfied with it. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the talk page and see, I was tryign to discuss and i was in fact discussion it with the other fellow.
 * If its a war, then 2 have to be involved, why was there just 1 block -- and undiscussed at that. First you said the reason was 1RR, then edit war.(Lihaas (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)).
 * 1RR is a subset of edit warring. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

AFC submission
For AFC submissions, the template needs to be subst'd, also it really needs placing by the person who wrote it - otherwise, people who be telling you when it was held/declined/accepted. Anyway, I fixed it up here - I think that was your intent, ie for us to notify that IP user.  Chzz  ► 15:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the minutiae of the AFC templates confuse me entirely. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah; me too, quite often. Ah well. I've reviewed it, and put it on hold, pending some rewrite to make it less spammy. All good, cheers,  Chzz  ► 16:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)