User talk:Stillwaterising/Archive 1

Stephanie Swift
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Stephanie Swift. "Chickipedia" is quite clearly not a reliable source for BLP information, particularly sensitive information such as the "real name" of an actress in pornographic media. It was even more inappropriate for you to repeat the claim in an edit summary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

IMDB
IMDB is not a reliable source for biogrphical details. Wikiproject:Pornography specifically warns against using it as a source/reference for the "real names" of pornographic actors. In general, claimed "real names" or "birth names" are removed from such articles unless solidly sourced to statements by the performers themselves, or published by mainstream news organizations. (Performers have been known to give phony IDs to the erotic trade press, cf one Traci Lords, for example.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AGF too much? :)
Please see all comments from 05:57 onwards in this thread. Not vandalism? I'm afraid you don't know "who it is and why the comments were left"—if you do, then you certainly have some explaining to do. I apologize if my edits seemed confusing, but please remember that templating the regulars makes them mad. I don't mind at all (never have), but it's a big deal for most established users and admins.

And, by the way, I removed your comments to deny recognition of this very egregious sort of vandalism. It was not a problem with you or your edits. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 10:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please archive this thread as soon as you've read it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 10:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Warnings should indeed be issued, but rarely to established users; when you're dealing with someone that is aware of the workings of Wikipedia, a warning serves little purpose. A personal message is always best in these cases, and can even help defuse misunderstandings and problematic situations. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 10:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Quantities of bytes
Template:Quantities of bytes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Cyber cobra (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael "Clip" Payne
Hello. Please see WP:NOT. There is no reason to include every album to which Payne made a contribution. A small list of selected albums, or a list of albums released under Payne's name, would be a different matter. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz 17:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed."
 * Also, see WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines: "The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a basic summary of the musician's work." (my emphasis) A discography that's four or five times longer then the artist's biography isn't a "basic summary".
 * Payne has played on dozens of records as a member of different bands or as a sideman. It's appropriate to mention in his article a select list of albums he has contributed to, or some of the bands and musicians he has played with. — Malik Shabazz 19:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm X
I'm sorry to revert your edit, but the sources say that Malcolm X is largely responsible for the spread of Islam among African-Americans. I added the word "largely" because you're right, he didn't do it single-handedly. — Malik Shabazz 01:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

re Heather Harmon
I know, I'm the one posting the big paragraphs in the AFD. :) --Golbez (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Jenna Elfman
It has always been called Philanthropy until a couple of editors took exception to it. She is more involved with Scientology than just the two or three public activities she participated in, so I don't think the section covered that, and I don't think the article should outline all the programs and steps she's attained. That mostly means nothing to the average reader. I posted my dissatisfaction with what has gone on the last few days in regard to the article. It basically comes down to some people who have great disdain for Scientology complaining that any involvement is tainted or self-serving. I just don't have the stomach for it these days. Wikipedia is so very careful about how the subject is treated and until last week, this article has always escaped being pulled into it. It's regrettable that it happened. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What's even more regrettable is that because some people try to maintain neutrality in regard to it, some people are referred to as the Scientology kabal and non-confrontational reminders about ArbCom injunctions are disregarded and we are characterized as inappropriate or uncivil. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm actually an ex-Scientologist, but I've also seen how it can be a positive influence in some people's life. I didn't edit the page because it was about Scientology, I edited it because it had a request for comments and I'm a fan of Jenna. If any of my actions seem biased please let me know. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't pick up on any bias in your edits. I actually think it's great you can approach it neutrally. I literally have no opinion pro nor con about it, although I do suspect it can be a positive influence or it wouldn't continue. I know some are very anti- and that seems to be the basis for the need of an injunction. I try not to be judgmental, especially when it comes to personal beliefs. That, to me, is the issue here. Personal beliefs can't be judged this way. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Riana
I can assure you that Fvasconcellos acted properly in reverting Riana's talk page; the vandal in question is a block-on-sight offender, and your comment, while well-intentioned, was probably removed on the basis of WP:DENY. Your template warning of Fvasconcellos is inappropriate: it was not vandalism. WP:DTTR.  Acroterion  (talk)  04:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I warned him for removing legitimate comments (mine) and not leaving an explanation, both legitimate complaints. The essay wp:warn does not say that legitimate users comment can be removed without comment. If such a thing were "policy" and it was explained in the edit summary then I would understand. I'm not saying his actions were vandalism - I choose the most appropriate templates available. Currently none of WP:WARN templates are worded for warning administrators, something I would like to see changed ASAP. --Stillwaterising (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about any confusion there. The removal of your comments, as Acroterion points out, is a practice of denying recognition to a long-term vandal and harasser of many users here. Generally these things are best resolved in private rather than on talkpages, so I'm sure Fvasconcellos would have sent you an explanatory e-mail had you asked him. I urge you to remove / strike-out your warnings on his talkpage as a gesture of good faith.
 * As to Epbr123, I have limited personal experience with him but am well-aware of his level of activity at AfD, as well as his skill as an article-writer. I don't think he possesses any personal bias against the topic and is most likely acting out of a genuine belief that he is doing the right thing. That is, I'm sure you're both coming from the same places - just on opposite sides of the debate :) Please consider this in your dealings with him. I'll have a look at the AfD and leave a comment there. All the best, ~ Riana ⁂ 04:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, being that WP:WARN is yet to be expanded, as you rightly point out - I think that it is best, in these cases, to leave a self-worded comment on users' pages in cases like these, whether they are sysops or experienced users like yourself. I noticed that this was raised in your conversations with Epbr123 as well. From a personal POV I dislike templated warnings being used for anyone but obvious vandals / spammers, but this is obviously my own view and I can't ask anyone else to subscribe to it :) ~ Riana ⁂ 05:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) As Riana has noted above, it's generally best to leave a personal note when discussing something; a template doesn't make it more "official". I saw the edits to Riana's page and others, but got sidetracked before I could deal with it, and Fvasconcellos got there first. I probably would have removed your (again, I say, well-intentioned) comment per WP:DENY, but I might not have. Riana can take care of herself.  In any case, the removal was not vandalism, and a template stating so is not appropriate. It's not a big deal, but templates can come across as heavy-handed, and aren't the best way to approach someone if you have a question about something they've done.   Acroterion  (talk)  05:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know very little about warning templates because I've never had to use them. I know that a vandal is to warned via template before he/she is blocked so I thought that using them was required when giving a warning. I'll strike out my comments and make amends with Fvasconcellos after I get a response from him. It seems to me that administrators can give out warnings but get very offended when they receive them. I would like to see a WP:ADWARN page full of warning templates intended for administrators.
 * Speaking of warning an administrator, how do I file a complaint? (I'm referring to Epbr123 not Fvasconcellos). -Stillwaterising (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, before going down any drastic pathways I'd strongly advise you to attempt to iron out your issues via engaging him in polite dialogue. There are a variety of ways to "formally" complain about another user's behaviour, but really these are all very time-consuming and, in my experience, don't end in an outcome that suits everyone - leaves you very bitter and so on. So please consider talking to him first (and not via warnings!) ~ Riana ⁂ 06:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Epbr123. Thank you. ''You have to read WP:BLANKING. If someone deletes your warnings from his usertalk page, it is generally understood that he has read them and you should not reinstate them. Your continued warnings over the control of his own userpage is inappropriate.'' Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Epbr123 had not addressed the concerns I had brought up. Removing template warnings is understandable but simply ignoring that which is unpleasant, or that which may impair one's reputation is questionable practice, especially for an administrator. I was unaware of WP:BLANKING, my apologies. I had done a search on the user page policy concerning deletion and I thought this was the policy. I think it needs to be reworded to clarify the difference between "blanking" and "deleting" and the sections should be either cross-referenced or back-to-back. --Stillwaterising (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pornproject
No, you may not remove me from the list of project members. Whilst I have not made porn-related edits in the last few months, I have contributed to the topic extensively in the past, and I shall do so again in the future. Willy turner (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

userpage
If you like, I can delete your page for you, and can restore it with just the edits you want there. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - what would you like me to do, delete the page and just restore your last edit? Or any particular edits? ~ Riana ⁂ 00:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ Riana ⁂ 00:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) ~ Riana ⁂ 00:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really using any of those right now, plus to be honest I don't really like discussing Wiki stuff off-wiki, just in the interest of transparency :) ~ Riana ⁂ 00:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

re AllExperts
This is what it says at the bottom of their Ideepthroat article:

"This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia."

They copied it from us. There is no conceivable way that can be a reliable source. You would be basically saying "An earlier version of this article is a reliable source." --Golbez (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't recognize it because it's the now deleted article Ideepthroat which I've never seen. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.     Thank you. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the help, but I was just trying to offer up an explanation for my being a prick to another user. I deal with this so often that I forget how much it freaks other people out :)  Serendi pod ous  11:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)