User talk:StuffOfInterest/Archive 6

Senator Obama
I am NPOV because I want an accurate picture of the man. Some editors are taking out stuff that others may find negative. My philosophy is that if you print the negative and positive of the man, you will come out with a positive impression of him. For example, one union endorsed another man then endorsed Obama. That's the truth. If you hide the truth by saying only the union endorsed him, you're not telling the truth.

Same with terrorism. Obama's anti war but anti-Osama. If you write only his antiwar but hide his anti-osama strategy, that is dishonest. Osama must die.Local667forOb 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Little context in User:192.147.58.6
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User:192.147.58.6, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User:192.147.58.6 is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User:192.147.58.6, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 01:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

9/11
Hi! I belive you know something about the 9/11 incident that the goverment of USA is hiding from the public! Contact me A.S.A.P! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.132.131.19 (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For some reason I really doubt this has to do with improving the article so I think I'll pass on contacting you. --StuffOfInterest 11:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:209.174.182.150
Hi StuffOfInterest, the above IP's frequently vandalizing page. It has already got 2 final warnings. Hope, you'll take proper action. Thank you--NAHID 19:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. It looks like  got there first and dropped a 3 months block on the address.  That particular IP has a long history of blocks on it. --StuffOfInterest 11:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

SpaceX
Stuff this is ProSpace. I am trying to help SpaceX. I think the 3 of us share the same goal (success for SpaceX). Can't we work together to help SpaceX? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProSpace (talk • contribs) 03:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No Hillary won't read wikipedia. LOL. but some low level staffer might. The main point is SpaceX is trying to change the meaning of the acronym to Big Falcon Test Stand. Maybe Gwynn mentioned it to Elon or something. If this is the case as SpaceX fans should we not help them? What do you think of my suggestion that we watch SpaceX discussions of BFTS in the next few months which they are sure to have. If they spell it out several times as Big Falcon Test Stand does that not prove the case beyond any doubt?ProSpace 03:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to learn that there is a major difference between article pages and talk pages. The talk page is where discussion takes place regarding what we are going to do to improve the article.  One major rule there is that we do not remove other people's comments from the talk page unless they are clearly trolling or attacking someone.  Comments should not be removed because they may happen to contain the word "fuck".  I saw the same text in the article which referred to BFR meaning "Big Falcon Rocket".  Just because it say that now is no reason to remove all mention of previously considered definitions from the talk discussion. --StuffOfInterest 11:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Image (Image:HRClintonSignature.png)
Hello, I saw you recently reverted vandalism to Hillary Rodham Clinton. I was wondering about the image of her signature. A wikipedian has uploaded this image under pd-self, but this seems wrong, as the signature would certainly not be the work of his own hand, but rather that of Mrs. Clinton; either that or it is a fake, in which case it does not belong. Since you are an administrastor, and you were recently on the article, I thought I'd refer my question to you. Thanks, Jerry 00:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If the author received the signature say as an autograph, then pd-self may be appropriate. Still, I'm not as well versed on image copyright rules as many others around here.  I'd suggest posting your question over on WP:ICT to get a better opinion.  Good luck. --StuffOfInterest 12:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It may also be possible the sig could have been pulled off paperwork. She is a Senator and those are public documents. Anonym1ty 14:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then I'd say the copyright is incorrectly stated. Should be easy enough to check some of the other political signatures to see what is more commonly used. --StuffOfInterest 14:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OSCAR satellites
The chart shows that the first United Kingdom OSCAR was actually the NINETH but the text says that it was the first.

Bil Mesa AZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.120.123 (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know there is no protection on the article, so please correct any mistakes you see in the text. That's what makes Wikipedia great, anyone can edit the text.  Thanks. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Naturism/Nudism/Gymnosophy
Firstly abject apologies for missing you previous edits. Particular the 25 August 2007 edit when you removed an image from Nudism- at the same time that I removed the same image from Naturism.

I read your user page as no doubt you have mine, and in many ways we have similar backgrounds and approaches. While doing the major edit this autumn I worked up the changes in User:ClemRutter/Sandbox/Naturism while posting my intention on Talk:Naturism et seq. You may find it interesting to follow the logic in the Revision History that I kept as an Audit Trail. As Nudism was a redirect, I hadn't watchlisted it, and didn't notice when it was forked so didn't contribute to that talk page

The concept of WP:OWN is very interesting- and there seems to be a conflict with the advice given on having a lead contributor to achieve GA or FA status- anyway, without someone having taken a lead we would still be wallowing in the mire. I expect criticism, just not from this direction.

The way forward I think is to work up one page well, and invite the other page to transfer in any sections that are not covered- that page should then become a #-Redirect. This should be done in a Sandbox-so we have a proof of concept, before proceeding live.

When I did the autumn changes- I commented out text that I thought was low standard/inappropriate/derogatory so all the former pre-September Naturism is still there in hiding so as to speak. I have littered the edit with inline comments ( yes I think like a C programmer ). In effect 'all of the Nudist article is already merged. The new structure has the necessary hooks and handles for properly referenced sections to be added.

It took me many years to understand that the North Americans find the term Naturism almost as offensive as the Europeans find the term Nudism. James Woycke's book was very useful in this and explaining the sensitivities between east/west coast FCN/FQN, ASA/Freebeaches which are now not a European issue. Though technically a member of the CCBN- my thinking is FFN. I use both terms, taking care that I use Naturist when the subject is within the Agde definition, and Nudism when it refers to the act being naked. That's incredibly difficult in itself. In cases where this becomes impossible, then mention should be made of differing usage.

The mantrap is though we have an internationally agreed definition of naturism- there is no concensus on the meaning of nudism, and attempting to construct one becomes original research or POV, and the argument continues and nothing gets written. ClemRutter (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's interesting in that I can see a lot in your writing above which supports my desire for a merge. I have no dispute with your rewrites and improvements to Naturism.  I honestly feel it is a better written article now.  My problem is with the still large amount of redundant material between Naturism and Nudism.  These articles started out as one and likely 90% of the topic is the same for both.  It should be possible within a single article to cover the broader topic as well as discuss any differences in definition between the two.


 * As for what name to call the aritlce, that is the bigger problem in my eyes right now. There were name wars last year which caused the title to swing back and forth.  You can see evidence of it in the incoming redirects for both articles.  It was during that conflict when  tried to bring forward Social nudity as a compromise.  Obviously, that didn't stick.  Please do not take my suggestion of a merge as any sort of attack on your editing.  I just do not see the need for two articles where one can cover the broader topic perfectly fine.


 * Conversations tend to move slowly on this type of topic. The community of interested people is small enough that you don't have a large number of people checking talk pages every day.  A couple of others have already commented, and with a few more days it is likely some more will contribute. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally support a merge, in theory: its just I can't see how to it. I had to have a starting point when doing my edit, so I could build a structure. The only internationally agreed definition we have to work with is one for Naturism, and some groups in the states who are unhappy with their national organisation, won't accept that. Further as the definition and the codicil were written in diplomatic French, there is more than one translation into English. (or Englishes).


 * Looking at the options- Naturism and redirect Nudism (virtually what I would do) caused the last nomenclature war.
 * Social Nudism- no. Nudism is a no no in Europe.
 * Social Nudity- with redirects from Nudism and Naturism The Solution- has mileage, and didn't work last time because it was introduced at the wrong time. The problem is how to write an article on a subject that doesn't exist. My last edit could happily be renamed, if only someone could write a strong lead paragraph and  then- the term social nudity is never used in the article as it is not a synonym for nudism or naturism. (it is a container class). This could be sandboxed to get concensus.
 * Nudism- no no
 * Naturism- always get forked objections in the States
 * Naturism and Nudism invites a fork, and introduces yet another page
 * Naturism (US Nudism) hasn't been tested
 * Marc Alain Descamps does a good description of the differences but in French. Other references are given in the Naturist text.


 * The damage of this discussion is that it stifles work on the page, while experienced editors rehearse set arguments. I have put a TODO list on the naturism page that I feel that other editors should tackle, for {WP:OWN} reasons, and they have experiences that I lack, and indeed are influential experts in their own localities. I wait their suggestions. In the meantime, my edit is merger ready, and reading the source code will reveal further ideas.


 * ClemRutter (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move back to Tower 42
To try and avoid an edit war, I've listed a requested move back to Tower 42. Please feel free to add your views to Talk:25 Old Broad Street. Paulbrock (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've done the same for Shard London Bridge (32 London Bridge).  I have a bad feeling this is going to get ugly in the next few days. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Padan Plain
I would appreciate your opinion on the question of the best name for this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC
 * I've added a question for now trying to figure out what most English language audiences would know the region as. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice?
Hey, StuffOfInterest!

I am hoping you can give me some advice...

I recently made an image,, uploaded it to Wikipedia, and added it to History of video games.

What I am asking is, if I added this image to the pages about each respective console generation, (e.g. History of video game consoles (sixth generation)) do you think that that be perceived as me trumpeting myself because I added my own image to like seven pages?

Could you reply on my talk page? Otherwise, I know I will forget to check back for your answer.

Thanks for your time.

J.delanoy (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Same sex marriage
Sorry, mistake on my part. Czolgolz (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 01:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bid for position directories
Hi, I wanted to run this past you since I saw you'd made an edit to Bid for position directory a few days ago, to remove some spammy links. I have just removed all the external links in that category since I can't see that any of them fulfilled WP:EL, but because I'm completely unfamiliar with the subject it would be good to have somebody else weigh in as well, and you seem like a sensible chap :-) --Bonadea (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like you made the right move. I've been dealing with spam links on List of web directories for quite a while.  If you don't keep on top of things the article can be overrun with spam very quickly.  The way a few people decided to handle it on web directories is that no external links get added.  If the site has an article, which has survived based on notability, then it gets added to the list.  Something tells me you won't find many bid for position sites which meet this criteria.  Good luck.  --StuffOfInterest (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Comments on User talk:BestSummers
Thanks! for correcting me! but can i ask what one should do if an editor is adding nude images to articles, because i was wondering what to do? And please also tell me if someone removes warning messages issued to him on his talk page, then what should be done? I will certainly try to correct my mistakes which you have pointed out! -- S M S  Talk 11:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For the images, I typtically remove the image with an edit comment such as "not representative of the subject of the article", "vanity image addition", or "self promotion image addition". Once it is off of the article, I don't worry about the image itself that much.  If the licensing is bad, the bots will tag the image and it will go away in a few days.  If the licensing is good, and the image isn't linked to any articles, I believe it will get autotagged in time.  Even if it doesn't, the image causes no harm if nobody is seeing it.


 * As for the warning messages, this is a tougher one. There is no hard set policy regarding warning messages.  If someone removes a warning message, they are acknowledging that they have received it.  Still, another school of thought goes that removing a warning message is trying to cover up that you  have a warning history.  With the conflict, and as there is no frim policy on this it is difficult to penalize someone for removing the messages.  I'd suggest leaving a message saying that it is usually considered bad form to remove warning messages so soon after they are left and that such removal could be considered an attempt to obscure evidence of actions.  Regardless, if someone goes to leave a new warning on the user's page, they should be checking the user's edit history and perhaps the talk page history to see if there were other recent actions which would warrant a higher level message.


 * Hope this helps. For the record, I think the user was trying to self promote.  The image in the bar shows that she (or her promoter) is in the amateur web porn business.  --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok! i will follow this in the future! and thanks for taking time to inform me about the policies regarding this matter. -- S M S  Talk 12:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more Questions regarding merging Articles
Hello! sorry to disturb you again. I want to ask you some more question regarding merging an article. Previous month i proposed merging of the article Risalpur Airbase to Pakistan Air Force Academy. I stated the merge proposal here and added merge template to the article Risalpur Airbase. After about a month(24 days) was gone, i merged(Selective Merge) Risalpur Airbase into Pakistan Air Force Academy. And stated all that at the merge discussions. Now a user reverted all the merging and said "Note that you cannot merge if you don't get a response. You didnt place the merge on either of the pages to show that a merge has been proposed." So can you lead me the right way plz! Thanks! -- S M S  Talk 15:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd say that the other user was both correct and incorrect. Although you really should have added "mergfrom" and "mergeto" tags on the appropriate articles to alert people visiting those articles that there has been a merge proposal, there is nothing to say that a merge can not take place if there hasn't been any feedback.  I didn't go through the full history, but it appears that only the article being merged from was tagged and not the article being merged to.  The 2nd article has been tagged now, so I'd say to give it a couple more weeks before doing the merge again.  Hopefully you will get some more feedback by then. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking time to give some of you expert opinion to this Wiki learner!-- S M S  Talk 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. But please don't call me an unknown drip under pressure (think about expert photenticaly). :) --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military
Another editor has added the  template to the article With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:BestSummers.
Thanks for pointing that out... I mistook him for an IP editor, who was posting his images (checked the uploader, and got confused). I've unblocked, and now I'm going to try to find the IP... · AndonicO  Hail!  12:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy hunting! --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Pagemove does not work for categories
I've deleted the pages after trying (and failing) to move them, there's nothing there that's not in a million other wikiproject categories so you should have no trouble recreating. —Random832 00:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't the original creator, but had hoped to do a copy/paste to the new category before deleting.  Still, no great loss.  Easy to retrieve. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't think to do the copy-paste myself even since it's such a standard format —Random832 03:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Criticism of religion
I am wondering what the intended scope of the template is. I have added a few entries (notably Scientology and Buddhism), but I foresee the list getting quite long if all world religions are to be represented. I am beginning to think that perhaps a template is a bad idea: this sort of information is more suited to a category (see Category:Criticism of religion). Any thoughts/guidance/etc? silly rabbit (  talk  ) 17:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I don't think that many faiths have "criticism" articles attached. My idea for the scope on this template is just explicit criticism articles, which should usually start with "criticism of".  I see one you added doesn't start with "critcism of" but if you manually type in "Criticism of Scientology" you are redireted to the article you put in.  I believe the template provides a better organizational structure than a category would.  If you look out there, you see some absolutely huge template lists in use, which is why I made it a collapable template.  I like the additions (and change) you made.  Thanks. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Contesting pages
Thanks for joining in in trying to resolve the continuing problems of vandalism on Contesting and Contesting controversies. As you will see from the history of these pages this has been going on for some time. The main culprit is on a dynamic btinternet IP so is hard to trace, and seems to ignore all criticism of his edits. I suspect he is M5FRA, known to have strong anti contest views, but may be wrong - if only he would register an account!. I don't know what the answer to this is, but since you are very active in sorting out the vandalism problem you may do better than the rest of us... 73 Dave G3YMC Dsergeant (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the vandalism wasn't so slow speed I'd say we throw semi-protection on the pages. For now, I'm keeping them in my watch list.  If you haven't already, you may want to check out WP:HAM, where you can always recruit more help if needed dealing with this vandal. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Public nudity in the United States
Noticed you created WikiProject Nudity. Can you assess the article Public nudity in the United States or expand it if you are interested in the topic. I have not much time in hand now, will work on it later. Thanks.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I tagged it and put an initial assessment on it, but unfortunately I won't have time to work on it in the near future. Feel free to tag any articles yourself if you believe they are related to the project.  Thanks. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup
As someone who may live or work near Washington D.C., you may be interested - if you've not heard already - about the meetup scheduled for Saturday, May 17th, at Union Station. For details, please see Meetup/DC 4.

You are receiving this automated message because your userpage appears in Category:Wikipedians in Virginia. Melon ‑ Bot  ( STOP! )  18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Lolo Soetoro
Couldn't you format it better rather than removing the link to the photo of Lolo Soetoro?

It seems unlikely that that photo can get past the wiki copyright guidlines, however, it's a good resource to point people to who read his bio.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I just don't see a good way to link it in and meet Wikipedia style guidlines. Look at other articles out there.  You just don't see a link to outside photos in cases where a useable photo is not available.  If you can find an example, then I would certainly support including it in a similiar format. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)