User talk:Stifle/Archive 1007

This is an archive. You can leave a new message for me at User talk:Stifle but anything posted here won't be read.

The Deletion of Kim Göransson and James Browning Kepple

These two poets represent what constitutes a new american poetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.227.43 (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And they meet WP:BIO how exactly? Stifle (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough if you have determined living poets (as most society and cultures in ones wikipast) are not worthy a mention in your index of self promotion via third party. I don't have to claim anything other then an apathy supported by your brush off dustbin stifle. Not that I personally find you responsible for such a pithy thing anyhow, I just find it somewhat insulting that a little ol' american poetry would be worthy of deletion rather then the myriads of pseudo pop culture flashes filling up unneeded space on a much needed time capsule of history and the importance of. I've already cleaned up alot of your greece stuff, funny how teenagers I suppose find humor in disgracing Herkules. No matter Stifle, your name lives up to your brand of judgement, I suppose if I was on stupid human tricks it would be more noteable. Disregard people still do write epic poetry. (I don't blame you)

Vicífhoclóir

Hi there. I notice that you're a gaeilgóir too. Just a short note to say that the Irish language Wiktionary is up and running again after a long break, and is actually thriving. We'd love to have you over there if you're interested! http://ga.wiktionary.org - slán! :) - Alison ^❤ 06:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have time to do that successfully, but if my circumstances change I'll keep it in mind. Thanks for the message. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA question

I responded to your question on my RfA. I was mostly opposed for lack of time/experience. Cheers!  hmwith  talk 17:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Football Hooligans' Fight at Grabiszynska Street in Wroclaw

Hi, this is Tymek 20:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have explained on the talk page of Football Hooligans' Fight at Grabiszynska Street in Wroclaw, why this article should be kept. I will be working on it, but establishing English sources for this incident is very difficult. Anyway, it was the news of the day back then in Poland. I think I will also remove the notice, as this article describes an actual event. Greetings Tymek 20:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I SATELLITE deletion

Hello:

Can you tell me why my band was deleted by you? It's a legitimate musical project with several releases.

Thanks,

Rod M. I SATELLITE http://www.isatellite.info —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sys700 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I already explained this on your talk page and I don't have anything more to add. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My tagging

Yes I agree that of course it is not nonsense, i realised it was in another lanugage, but wasnt sure what to tag it, in fact I asked Pedro [1] what to do in those situations before you commented on my user page, and he said A2, but I dont think A2 is suitable for these cases as no one knows whether there is a corresponding article on the foreign language wikipedia. But I PRODed it anyway. Phgao 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct tag is {{notenglish|language it is in}}. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks, that should be put into Twinkle as another option. Phgao 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have/use Twinkle but you're welcome to suggest it to whomever/whatever maintains it. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

hello

why did you delelte my article off it was all right i worked 2 hours doing this this doesn't make since i think i need the police involve to shut down wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisahill85 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 2 October 2007

Thanks for your message. In future, please sign your message by adding ~~~~ on at the end.

I have deleted very many articles and do not know which article you are talking about. Please specify the title or the URL of the page where it was located so I can assist you further.

Please note that Wikipedia has a very strict policy of no legal threats. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Superman X

Someone keeps editing the Superman X page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superman_X&redirect=no into a redirect to the legion of superheroes tv series page. I made my case on the talk page for why it shouldn't, but they keep changing it without responding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russianspy1234 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're telling me this. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping that since you were the admin that originally declined the speedy deletion, that you might be able to do something about it? Russianspy1234 21:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I SATELLITE

I read the Wikipedia rules for band "notability" and I SATELLITE fits under the category of being notable in the genre of Electronic Pop music. I've also released recordings on two major Independent Record Labels, Tooth & Nail (California), and We Rock Like Crazy (Germany) which fits the notability rules. I added this information to the page, and then you locked it and said I was being "persistent".

PS: Not sure why an "online encyclopedia" would not want to be "encyclopedic" and contain as many bands as possible, not just what they deem to be notable.

Please respond... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sys700 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your messages by adding ~~~~ at the end.

I believe my decision to delete the page was correct. Please read our policy on verifiability and our guidelines on notability (and that of bands). If you still disagree you can take the matter to Wikipedia:Deletion review.

As for your PS, please see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Gortler Deletion

Hi. Regarding Daniel Gortler, what is the best way to prove that I hold permit to use this text for Wikipedia? Should I give you Daniel's email to check it with him? Please help. Thanks again, BMX —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmax (talk • contribs) 12:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As ViperSnake151 already told you, you should either have someone with an email address ending in @artpro.co.il send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org saying that the text at [2] is released under the GNU Free Documentation License, or have those words uploaded to the website it is on. If you do either of these, please leave a note at Talk:Daniel Gortler saying you have done so. If you do not, it will be deleted in a week. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

hey

it was the zeoffree katt article he is a musician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisahill85 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. I didn't delete Zeoffree katt, that was User:Gogo Dodo. Stifle (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You can ask that user if you wish why he deleted it or raise a deletion review, but I think the deletion is justified as the page appears to be an attack page and/or a biographical article which does not meet the requirements at WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

New message

Hi, how can I see a list a pages I created? Is there a userbox for that? thanksCosprings 19:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Cosprings or Special:Mycontributions. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how to get a list of pages created

I must have misunderstood you. Can you clarify what you mean? Note that requests like this which anyone can answer should be posted to the village pump for a faster reply. Stifle (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

hey

but i have done all it says on the bio—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisahill85 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your messages by adding ~~~~ at the end.

I didn't delete Zeoffree katt, that was User:Gogo Dodo. :You can ask that user if you wish why he deleted it or raise a deletion review, but I don't think it will be successful. Stifle (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP and WP:3RR

Just to get an admin's perspective, do you consider persistent removal of cited information to be vandalism? I've been under the impression that it is. For instance the user's edit [3] clearly removes cited material and the citation itself. Now the only thing I think would make it not vandalism is that he doesn't seem to realize that sources in print and not available on the web are also legitimate sources even though I previously directed him to WP:CITE. I realize that vandalism is limited to edits where bad faith is overt, but I think the fact that he was directed to WP:CITE and still reverted severely lessens the assumption of good faith in his edits. I'd be violating WP:3RR if I inserted it again and it wasn't vandalism. I'm really not sure how to deal with this particular situation. --Strothra 20:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It probably is vandalism (and I would have no hesitation in reverting the edit you mentioned yourself) but it is definitely not simple and obvious vandalism. As such it does not fall to be exempted from WP:3RR. If there is a consensus to include the content, then the several other users constituting that consensus are bound to revert back in turn, and that way the "other side" will end up violating the 3RR and you won't. I hope this helps. Stifle (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on my RfA

You commented last week about how my sig was very long, and I've gotten it down 54 characters. Thanks for the advice! =) нмŵוτнτ 15:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Random message

what does stifle mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.43.216.2 (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you must know, I chose it as it's the name of my second-favourite Magic: The Gathering card. (My favourite, Island, was taken.) Stifle (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Fictional applications of real materials

• Hi! I was busily cleaning up Fictional applications of real materials to address most of the objections when it was deleted. Since the AfD started, I added scope limitations at the top, removed a bunch of stuff that was just trivia, and was busy adding secondary and tertiary sources (For almost every remaining entry I was able to find a secondary source, and I have added about 5 so far). (You can compare the article from before the AfD to the current one to get a sense of these changes). You yourself say:

As a result, I vote, and recommend, the use of "Delete unless cleaned up", "Delete unless expanded", etc. — if somebody cares enough about the article to have it kept, then they will generally fix it up during the AFD vote, which is five days long, and drop me a line on my talk page to ask me to have another look.

This is exactly what I was busy doing. I'd be grateful if you could take another look. LouScheffer 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm happy with the way I've closed this one but you're welcome to ask for a deletion review. Stifle (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fictional applications of real material. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Thanks, I've asked for a deletion review. There were, I believe, good faith arguments on both sides, and no concensus was reached. LouScheffer 18:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper AFD Closure

Just wanted to take a moment to give a hearty bravo to (IMHO, properly) closing this AFD. I always have mad respect for admins who consider the content of the discussion over the vote stack & attack method. There are two other related AFDs (here and here) that could probably be reviewed and closed as well -- same editors, same basic premise, same logic. Anyway, thanks for the dilligent (and often thankless) work. Cheers! /Blaxthos 00:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've closed those as well. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow up

Thanks for taking care of those. In an effort to further my understanding of consensus and AFD process (and specifically not questioning the decisions), I would like further understanding regarding the rationale behind the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles as no consensus. I am particularly confused because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional chemical substances, A-M had the same number (by my count) of Delete:Keep ratio, with Delete only having one more "vote" than keep (just as the no consensus closure). Given that they're all basically the same editors and arguments (and count), I am confused by the discrepancy. If the arguments for deletion were significantly more convincing on the other two AFD's (despite a lack of supermajority), how come not on this one? Thanks for taking the time to help me understand. /Blaxthos 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Simply put, I felt that the deletions were very close and the slightly better quality of keep versus delete arguments in the no consensus closure tipped it over the mark. I suspect it'll get deleted in an AFD in a month or two, though. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I would like a copy of those articles from the fictional chemical substances AFD. I'm planning on rewriting them to improve them. I'll probably make the fictional chemical substances simply a list of other lists. It's main flaw was that the category was too broad.--Marhawkman 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a reason with your deletion.

There was no consensus from how the conversation was proceeding atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunset Center Mall as far as I can tell. Would you please expand upon "The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)" At the time of your closing, the conversation had spread across several (aprox. 9) Shopping Centre deletion requests, and the possibility of WP:Pointy AfD nominations had been raised. Was any of this considered? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletes outnumbered keeps by 2 to 1. I accessed the page directly from the list of admin backlog tasks and did not look at any other related pages. I am happy with this decision but you are entitled to a deletion review if you wish. Stifle (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Expanded

Hi, I expanded on your delete nom for List of Jewish American fashion designers by nominating List of Jewish American engineers and List of Jewish American inventors in one nom. Basically for the same exact reason. Bulldog123 06:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Jewish American linguists and a few others are up too but they're being met with some confusion. Bulldog123 22:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

so why was my page that i was trying to create deleted by you? Can you tell me what I didn't do? I read all of the guidelines and I have a GFDL license, so what is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycholgymajor101 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jordan David Henrickson was deleted per the criteria for speedy deletion. Look at number 7 under Articles. Please note that not every random person can have an article on Wikipedia - they must meet the criteria at WP:BIO. Additionally, they must be verifiable - in other words, you need to add references from reliable sources.

Because you've attempted to recreate the article repeatedly rather than actually show that it meets the Wikipedia requirements, I've had to lock the article title so that it can't be recreated. If you find some proof (as described above), you can add it to Talk:Jordan David Henrickson with the special code {{editprotected}} and someone will drop by and fix it up for you. You also have an option to list a deletion review.

I notice that you've copied the user page of User:Bbatsell on your user talk page. While there's nothing illegal about this, it's considered bad form. I've removed the sections where you claim that you are an administrator, because you are not. Other than that, I hope you have a nice day. Stifle (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Pace

Do you think the image on Charlie Pace is good? I mean, it's blurry. But I found it on an inactive website, so should it be ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mind and Soul (talk • contribs) 08:13, 13 October 2007

Thanks for your message. In future, please sign your messages by adding ~~~~ at the end, and rather than sending me a message, use a noticeboard (like Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for a question anyone could answer. That way you will likely get a quicker reply. Additionally, you should link to pages you're discussing or give the name of the page so that people know what you're talking about.

The subject of the photograph at Image:Charlie pace lost.jpg is still alive so it would seem to fail WP:NFCC number 1 as a photograph of him could be taken for use on the page. To have the page kept, you will need to add a comprehensive fair use rationale to the image page.

(I also added a no-rationale deletion warning to the user's talk page.) Stifle (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Song/Editor Boy

User:Marlith was originally User:GreaterWikiholic. So I'm fairly certain he can use db-user on Wikipedia:Song/Editor Boy. A Wikiholic's page redirects to Marlith, and Marlith has a note on his page (near the top and even in big and bold font tags!) and since it's been there for a while it's safe to assume they're the same plus the cross edits. YДмΔќʃʀï^→Г_C← 10-12-2007 • 22:30:17

RE:Speedy

But I am the original author. I had to create this account because I forgot the password for the GreaterWikiholic account. I am GreaterWikiholic. So the song can be deleted. Marlith ^T/C 23:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's gone now so it's moot. Thanks for the message. Stifle (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Afd: Advent Film Group

You said "Sorry, i don't agree" with absolutely no reason for this statement. According to wikipedia,

Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities including, but not limited to, charitable organizations, educational institutions, institutions, interest groups, organizations, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc. [...] Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

The article upholds all of that. CleverOaf 17:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with you. (Couldn't resist.) I wasn't talking about notability (although I don't think the group is notable), I'm referring to verifiability and specifically the provision of reliable sources, of which there are currently none. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

Hi Stifle. Please see my my talk page for a response to your comments regarding my violation of the three-revert rule. --Jester7777 17:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk page messages

I read them, I remove them, I reply on the originator's talk page or article talk page (taking the original text), and that way I keep my talk page small enough to load on my handheld. I'd say this on my talk page, but... well, you know, I hate cruft. Cruftbane 18:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

New pages

Haha, I just clicked on that "You do not have new messages" template. I wonder how many people have done that? Captain Zyrain 20:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So many that there were enough complaints for me to make it a dead link, rather than a link to Special:Mytalk. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Mark janicello

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mark janicello, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mark janicello is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Mark janicello, please affix the template {{hangon}} 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 09:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an issue

I'm not making this official yet, which is why I'm coming to you this way. You're an administrator I've worked with before so I want your opinion.

I've been cleaning up after User_talk:Wtimrock, and am considering an RfC User_talk:Harvestdancer#User_talk:Wtimrock if he doesn't stop removing AfD notices, CSD notices, and occasionally recreating deleted articles. As I'm not an Admin, I can't get all the proof because the deleted articles are, well, gone. On the other hand, I may be over-reacting.

So please go to my talk page, take a look there, and tell whether me I'm full of it or not. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you have told him how to do it properly, I would be more inclined to list it on WP:ANI with a view to blocking him. In the meantime I am posting a polite warning and explanation that this-is-how-it's-done-here. I doubt he'd respond to an RFC. Feel free to drop back to me if you need help. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I took it to WP:ANI as you suggested, and if he persists there are official notices now on his page and on the ANI. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 04:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD tags

Hi, Am I missing something on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles? Seems like the AfD is closed but the tag is still on article page and no mention on talk page? Benjiboi 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

lol. resolved, there's a bad link on List of fictional medicines and drugs. Benjiboi 21:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Update, link seemed valid so i removed related AfD tags and linked to parent AfD discussion. Benjiboi 21:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hooray, nothing for me to do! Stifle (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fogo de Chão

Hello. I've restored Fogo de Chão. But please take the time to thoroughly clean it up: as it is, it is unacceptably spammish. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 23:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Nice to hear from you :) Any way, I changed my voting from "speedy keep" to "keep" - it's much easier.--Gilisa 19:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat: Devastation

Didn't you see the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortal Kombat: Devastation in the template? Perhaps it was never appropriately deleted; I know it was userfied on EVula's userspace. Maybe it was just changed into a redirect instead. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It was AfD's here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortal Kombat: Devastation. You can see here--the article's deletion history--that it has been deleted several times, and was moved to a user space where it was going worked on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely missed the AFD. Nobody seems to have linked to it in the deletion log. Stifle (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to protect the title, given the amount of times it's been deleted. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Francis Louis Kirk iii

how can i work on a entry without posting.....speedy deletion doesnt give you a chance ...is there a way to get the code back, to work on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou.kirk (talk • contribs) 23:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. In future, please type ~~~~ after posts on your talk pages, which signs the post with your username and the time and date.

Francis Louis Kirk iii was deleted because it was an article about a real person which did not assert the notability or importance of the subject. This means that any administrator can delete it immediately under our criteria for speedy deletion.

Also, the article appears to be about yourself. Unless you're truly notable, which, with due respects, you do not appear to be, there should not be an article about you. However, all is not lost! You have the use of a user page where you can describe yourself and what you do. It's located at User:Lou.kirk, and in a moment I'll put up the content that was on the deleted page there so that you can use it. However, recreating the article in the main namespace is something you should not do, as it will be deleted again.

I hope this answers your concern but if not just leave a new message on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Stifle (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski

I think you've made a mistake - I did not create the article, and as WP:CSD notes, "Any user who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it". In this case, the article quite obviously makes claims of importance, so I went ahead and removed the tag. Best, Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Must have changed since I looked at it last. Never mind, then. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

your deletion of my newspaper Gwinnett Herald

Every newspaper that I typed into Wiki was there. But you delete mine. I guess I don't get it why it is ok for other newspapers to be listed and not mine. It is a mystery to me and I don't see any fairness in it at all. Not only did I keep the information about Gwinnett Herald to a minimum but I did not even include a way to contact the paper so that you would not think I was using Wiki to promote the newspaper. Can you help me here? Thanks, Ray Appen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appen (talk • contribs) 23:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your message. In future, please sign your messages by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Gwinnett Herald was deleted from Wikipedia as it was an article about a company/organization which does not indicate why it is important or significant. This means that it qualified for speedy deletion per criterion A7. I have not accused you of using Wikipedia to promote the newspaper but you have not demonstrated (with citations from reliable sources) the notability of the newspaper.

I also would like to point out to you the guidelines on conflict of interest (writing about subjects with which you are connected) and ownership of articles. You should also read about spamming in relation to the links you have added to several articles.

You are also welcome, if you find articles which you think should not be included, to mark them for deletion under the deletion procedure.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I can now see why your list of newspapers is so lacking. Your digital attitude is not surprising. But I will tell you something that you will not believe but I will tell you anyway. Your bias against newspapers in favor of digital is massively shortsighted. Digital, even WP, will not protect our basic rights that newspapers have almost solely defended against all the greed, avarice, and fundamental predatory nature of our society. You do future generations - your grand children - a disservice with your arrogance. Good luck with your editing and I'll keep publishing my newspapers to help mitigate the damage you do. Appen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appen (talk • contribs) 18:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'll change your mind, but just in case, I'll remind you that Wikipedia is one of the ten most-visited sites, and we have 1,642 featured articles considered the best that Wikipedia has. I disagree with your accusation of arrogance and bias, but I will join with you in saying that newspapers are an excellent source and have an important function in society. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A reply

thanks for the help, look forward to working with you in the future Lou.kirk 20:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I have noticed that you have mentioned this on RHaworth's page. He seems to be setting himself up as some sort of robocop. He tried the same with me too. Wallie 14:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like being overtechnical at best and Wikilawyering at worst. If it gets to an RFC or anything let me know. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Help

I have an issue which I stated on WP:ANI#I NEED AN ADMINISTRATOR!!! What do you suggest I do? Thanks for your input.Navnløs 19:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you read the answers that people have already written. I don't deal with issues that can be and have been dealt with by anyone else. Stifle (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, I have requested for a comment, but I don't knwo what happens now or how to even go about finding out what to do...and as I looked at the talk page for requesting comments, I see that not only does it seem like no one can figure out what to do, but that even when they do it correctly the bot doesn't follow through or nothing happens. It doesn't seem like anybody knows how to ask for help on wikipedia and this is a huge problem, in my opinion. Unless you have a serious issue they just want you to go the WP:RfC pages and apparently not get anything done. I am obviously frustrated with this.Navnløs 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nvm, it seems the bot kicked in. I'm still not sure where people are supposed to comment, though.Navnløs 20:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You haven't listed any request for comment that I can find (unless you did it while not logged in). Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct has full instructions but if you are still having problems please let me know and I'll try to help. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

apologies

Have we interacted before? I think we may have. But I can't remember the circumstances, so, aside from today's interaction I am starting from a blank slate with you.

You were absolutely correct to draw WP:SK to my attention. Those {{afd}} did not satisfy any of the four criteria. I acknowledged my mistake and offered my apologies. [4] [5] [6]. I trust you find this sufficient? Geo Swan 22:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

npov

Regarding WP:NPOV -- I have mainly written on controverial topics for the last two of my three years on the wikipedia. I know those topics are controversial I make a special effort to comply with WP:NPOV, and the other core policies.

I don't expect to success 100% of the time. We are all human. I don't think everyone is going to succeed 100% of the time. So I make a special effort to contact everyone who has stated, or hinted, that they have a POV or other policy concern about my contributions, and as I ask them to to make the effort to try to help me understand their concern.

I ask my correspondents to try to be civil and specific about what triggered their concern.

You have made clear that you think some of my contributions have lapsed from compliance with {{npov}}. And I would appreciate it if you would make an effort to be specific about your concerns.

Cheers! Geo Swan 22:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have updated my comments on the deletion discussions. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I pointed out in one of the {{afd}} that the deletion documents used to be very clear that a perception of PV was not supposed to result in deletion. The first step recommended used to be to raise the concern on the article's talk page... This is still the policy, correct? Geo Swan 22:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the theory, but not always the practice. Sometimes articles which have irreparable POV problems or which are unable, for the time being, to be converted into articles that are both NPOV and properly verifiable, are deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your reply.

I am sorry, but I cannot agree with your characterization that I am hiding any ulterior motives.

An administrator who has since quit after a very public confrontation with Jimbo Wales confronted me in the very first {{afd}}s I was ever involved in, and leveled some accusations at me. She stated that all articles about Guantanamo captives would be POV America-bashing. I questioned her assertions, and I suggested that there was no topic that was inherently POV. I suggested that there was no topic that could not be covered from a neutral point of view, given enough effort. I had started articles about a couple of dozen Guantanamo captives, prior to those four {{afd}}s, starting with Murat Kurnaz and Omar Khadr.

I was stung by her uncalled-for accusations. She didn't give a verbal answer to my civil questions. I assumed that she had mis-spoke, that she didn't really mean the surface meaning of her statements. But, from appearances, it looks like she did. A few days later she nominated another Guantanamo article for deletion, with a nomination that accused me of WP:POINT and implied bad faith on my part.

Fell free to stop reading at any point. But I think my contributions merit having you withdraw your implication that I am hiding ulterior motives.

I promised myself that I would do my utmost to make sure that none of my contributions could ever be accused of not complying with WP:NPOV or any other core wikipolicy. Do I expect to success 100% of the time? No. Do I think I have succeeded 100% of the time? No. Do I know I have lapsed? Of course. You pointed out a lapse just yesterday, from WP:SK. More importantly, I had seen people removed dead links. I didn't realize that this was counter to policy, and I am afraid I have removed dozens of links that went dead. I regret that inadvertent lapse.

I give you my personal assurance that every lapse I have made was an inadvertent lapse, committed in good faith, like the one you caught.

When I am contributing material to an area where the only verifiable, authoritative sources suggest a conclusion I believe is false, I only cover what the verifiable, authoritative sources say, and keep my POV to myself.

Do I get challenges over my POV? Yes. Some. Given that I have contributed close to 20,000 edits to these controversial topics I regard the limited number of challenges as a sign that I have been doing a very good job at writing from a neutral point of view. Some of my challengers reveal, in their challenge, that their POV is similar to my own, and that they are sure I hold a POV the opposite of my own. I regard this too as a sign that I am doing a good job maintaining a neutral point of view. I challenge people who insert a POV in the articles on my watchlist, even when I personally agree with it.

You are free to continue to believe that "...it appears to me personally from your contributions that a purpose of your Wikipedia editing is to raise awareness of a cause..." -- but you have my personal assurance this is absolutely not my intention. And, as I have pointed out, I have bent over backwards to elicit specificity from anyone who hinted they thought I was lapsing from policy.

You followed the above passage that it appeared to o you "...or to give coverage to a subject..." -- this is absolutely true. I have contributed this material to give coverage to a subject. In this I am no different from the people who cover any other subject. It is not the only subject I contribute to. If you look at my contribution history you will find I have uploaded about one hundred maps I made. If you look at my contribution history you will find I uploaded about close to one hundred public domain images on nautical topics. I have contributed thousands of edits that have nothing to do with the GWOT.

Fell free to stop reading at any point. But I think my contributions merit having you withdraw your implication that I am hiding ulterior motives.

Regarding your personal opinion as to their notability, you are free to tell me your interest in this discussion has lapsed, but, if it hasn't, can I ask what your personal opinion as to their notability is based on?

I am glad you recognize that this is your personal opinion on their notability. The guidelines for speedy deletion have a clause I only noticed a couple of months ago. I think that clause recognizes something I recognized about a year ago. For controversial topics "notability" is a flawed metric. The guidelines for speedy deletion give nominators permission to nominate articles for speedy deletion for a lack of notabiliy -- unless the topic is controversial. In my experience, for controversial topics, like topics related to the GWOT, whether or not a topic is notable usually boils down to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Since notability is useless for controversial topics it seems to me we have to fall back onto the wikipedia's core policies.

Your personal opinion, my personal opinion -- they are our POV. Because they are our POV contributors have to stick strictly to the facts. I have done my best to do that. I guess it is hardly surprising that I agree with DGG's comment on the Zahid al Sheikh article.

Regarding the Zahid al Sheikh {{afd}}, if you return there you will see that practically no one actually read the article. Participants were making specific comments about the pros and cons of his article, as if they had read the article, and, as if he were a Guantanamo captive. He was never a Guantanamo captive, and the article never said he was a Guantanamo captive.

I have had a busy day. I drafted most of this much earlier today. I just saw that you nominated another article I wrote for deletion, based on COATRACK. I am going to go take a look at it now. Geo Swan 22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. You believe the people are notable, I do not. The community will decide on the AFDs.

I am not able to change my opinion that you disagree with at the top of your statement, but I will put on record that at all times you have acted with the utmost good faith and civility in whatever interactions and observations I have had with you. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: City Rats (film)

Hi there, thanks for your thoughts on the above article. I have managed to find external links /references to this film, but if they are not enough then I don't want to risk my wiki reputation on defending a page that I don't really care too much about. I have been on Wikipedia for a while and can't really work out why certain pages get deleted and others stay up without challenge. Should we be challenging more pages? This film should provide some interest to British film fans, regardless as to how well it does. Maybe I should just repost it when the film comes out but since the band working on the score credit it already and there are articles in the British press about it, I thought it might be nice to have some information up on wiki about (afterall this is where I come for most of the stuff I'd like to know about). Jameslenton 00:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion we absolutely should be challenging more pages (not necessarily deleting them, though). My experience is that anything with even the slightest modicum of notability outside a small town/area will be kept once it is verifiable.

I know Wikipedia is great but don't forget you can still use other sources too :) Stifle (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, do you think I should bother with this page any longer, is there anything that should be added? Rather than trying to keep this page, I'd like to get a little better at editing pages, and knowing if there's no point would be a good learning experience for me. If there is anything I should add to keep it notable then that would be useful to know too, again, it'll definitely help me learn. Jameslenton 15:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's unlikely that you can "keep it notable", as the film is either notable or it is not. As such, I suspect it will not be saved, but when it is released if it satisfies any of the general principles at WP:MOVIE, you will be able to recreate the article, taking care of course to cite some reliable sources that back you up. Particularly, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines".

It won't very much affect your reputation if you support the article being kept, only doing this repeatedly against general consensus would be detrimental. Hopefully you will be able to accept the result and move on.

Finally, when you're writing the article take care to use an appropriate tone. As I mentioned in the AFD discussion, an article that has to tell you why the subject is notable is already on a hiding to nothing. Don't be downhearted - there's plenty to write about and do. Stifle (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

prod?

I saw that you placed a {{prod}} on Abdel Ghalib Ahmad Hakim, calling on the authority of WP:COATRACK.

I didn't remember reading WP:COATRACK when it was raised in an {{afd}} a couple of days ago. I saw it was not a policy, or even a guideline -- just an essay. And I saw it didn't recommend deletion, over concerns, except:

In extreme cases, when the nominal subject is barely notable and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate.

Forgive me, but, it seems to me that if one were to follow the advice in this essay, one would first try to initiate a dialogue, to determine whether the article in question really was "an extreme case".

Now maybe placing a {{prod}} on an article is your way of trying to initiate a dialogue? But, forgive me, I am concerned over its use in {{afd}}s -- when no-one tried to discuss the concern on the talk page first.

I have written extensively widely on controversial topics related to the war on terror. I have made a special effort to fully comply with WP:NPOV and the wikipedia's other core policies. And, because I don't expect to succeed 100% of the time, I have tried to contact everyone who has stated, or hinted, that they have a concern my contribution from policy.

I thought I had been doing a good job. There have been instances where my correspondents were able to give me a civil, serious specific response, that convinced me I had lapse. When that has happened I have acknowedged it, and taken steps to correct it. But, frankly, there are many times, when my correspondents are willing to offer me a civil specific response their concern can be traced to a misunderstanding or misconception, not to a lapse from WP:NPOV on my part after all.

I dispute that I am a POV-pusher. I asked Butseriously -- another administrator -- to stop referring to me as a POV-pusher. He has done so again, anyhow. I don't know what I should do about this.

You left me a note on my talk page when you thought I had lapsed from WP:SK. You were right. I lapsed. Thanks. I am concerned that your use of COATRACK as a justification for deletion is similarly a mistake.

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone is entitled to add a {{prod}} tag to an article for any reason (see WP:PROD and WP:DEL#REASON), so as such my use of WP:COATRACK to propose or support a deletion is valid. Equally, however, anyone is entitled to remove the prod tag if they dispute the deletion, or have the deletion reversed at WP:DRV without question, and you're welcome to do that, in which case I will probably list the article at WP:AFD.

I reserve my position as to whether I consider you a POV-pusher; I would just remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

If you and someone else have an issue with the conduct of another user you can raise a request for comment or use the dispute resolution procedure. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on Abdel Ghalib Ahmad Hakim. I hope you will find the time to go there and offer a further explanation.

Feel free to explain your "soapbox" comment on my talk page. Your talk page is on my watchlist, so you can respond here if you like. If you respond on my talk page you don't have to copy my comment.

Yours for cooperation Geo Swan 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, WP:DEL#REASON specifies that the list of reasons there is not exclusive. I really have nothing more to add to my deletion comment. However, since you are obviously in dispute with the deletion of the article, I have removed the proposed deletion.

To clarify my soapbox comment, it appears to me personally from your contributions that a purpose of your Wikipedia editing is to raise awareness of a cause, or to give coverage to a subject, in this case some number of detainees in Guantanamo Bay. It also appears to me personally that some of these people have questionable notability. You jumped in with some comments in AFDs that support my opinion. Overall, while you are making a better attempt than most to hide it, it appears to me personally that one of the purposes for which you are editing Wikipedia is to advance the cause of these men, which is not what Wikipedia is for.

It may be better to merge the verifiable and neutral content about the detainees of questionable notability into some sort of umbrella article.

I normally copy my replies to other people's talk pages, but as you have suggested I don't need to, I am not doing so here. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OiNK

You are more than welcome to renominate it or send it to DRV... I'll steer clear of it :P Computerjoe's talk 15:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's already on DRV. Stifle (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA comment

LOL. [7] :) --Fang Aili ^talk 14:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat: Devastation

Hey, can you redirect that page into Mortal Kombat: Annihilation#Mortal Kombat: Devastation? Then, you can protect it. Thanks. — Enter Movie 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification request re: my RfA...

I'm not quite sure what your concern is; if my contribs are solid, what's the concern about an area focus, especially in relation to blocking? In short, if I was going to abuse tools, why would I bother to pick something I'm working on when I could just go to 3RR or RFCU or anywhere else users are reported for potential blocking, and just block whoever I thought deserved it based on reports?

In short, I don't see the connection between an area interest in Freemasonry, and "blocking tools being a step too far", especially in light of the fact that the main vandal on the Freemasonry articles has been banned by Arbcom, had his site blacklisted on SPAM, and been community banned, none of which decisions were in my power to affect. As a matter of fact, I would venture that the majority of my edits on Freemasonry were to revert vandalism by Lightbringer because no one else was watching the article.

However, if you could explain to me what the exact issue is, I can perhaps address it as an optional question. MSJapan 03:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If I can butt into this conversation, I saw your comment on MSJapan's talk page saying that you wouldn't be answering this message because he had withdrawn his RFA. I think that MSJapan's question goes to the heart of one of the central issues that was discussed in his RFA. Even though he withdrew from the RFA, I think getting an answer to the above question would benefit him both as an editor and as a future RFA candidate. I think he is an obvious future RFA candidate. If he can "get" what people are telling him and change his behavior accordingly, he'll be a great admin candidate someday. So, please take the time to answer his question anyway. --Richard 15:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It was more because he appears to have left Wikipedia to be honest; I will do as you suggest later on. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, can't imagine why. :-(--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Haham hanuka

Hello Stifle! I need your expertise at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Haham Hanuka. Thank you for any feedback! Regards, gidonb 14:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Will do, but it won't be today as I have currently more pressing issues. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This has already been dealt with by another admin, please let me know if you need any further assistance. Stifle (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon user violating 3RR

As you've requested, I have done some research, please see WP:AN3#User:156.34.238.220_reported_by_User:Kameejl_.28Result:_No_violation.29. Kameejl ^(Talk) 15:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am currently preoccupied with other issues but will look at this in the next day or two if nobody else has done so. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Kameejl ^(Talk) 15:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

WjBscribe has already seen to this. Stifle (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Error

Whoops, I'm sorry about that! I always get the two templates mixed up. I'll be sure to be more careful next time. Thanks for letting me know. — Yavoh 00:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your notes on my talk page

Thanks for the interest. I don't know that protection is necessary at this point; both parties are discussing it on the talk page, and with the exception of an anon IP a few days ago (who looked to have just been trying to stir the pot), there haven't been any additional reversions. If that changes, I'll be sure to let you know. I'm a bit at sea as far as mediating things, since I don't have a whole lot of knowledge on the subject, but I'll try to ask for help when needed and muddle through as best as I can.

As for an RFA, if you think I'd make a good administrator, I'd be glad to accept a nomination. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, that was quick! I've accepted the nomination and filled out the questions, so I think we're good to go. Once again, thanks for nominating me. I'll try not to give you buyer's remorse... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Text of Deleted Article [Sphinx_Head_Society]

Hi,

I was wondering if you could provide me with the text of Sphinx_Head_Society? I don't plan to repost it, but merely would like to know what it said for my personal reference. The URL I found the deletion information at was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_15#Sphinx_Head_Society.

Thank you! MemphisExpat 20:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

All it said was:

Founded in 1890, the Sphinx Head Society is the oldest senior honor society at Cornell University. Membership is secret.

"A presence on the Cornell campus, a quiet guardian of excellence, committed to leading, serving, and humbly uplifting Cornell University"

Not much, eh? Stifle (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly makes the deletion more understandable. Thanks! MemphisExpat 22:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Glenveagh

I picked you as an active wikipedian and a speaker of irish. I have a question about the irish in the article about Glenveagh, do you have the time to look at the discussion page there. Thanks! --Ekko 13:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to thank you for your considered opposition to my RfA. Your concerns are valid--and I understood your opposition more thoroughly when I saw the candidate you nominated. I may never have an editorial record like Hb,ws...but I hope I can approach you with any questions I might have while wearing the admin hat. Dppowell 23:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope you understood my opposition and I see you don't hold it against me; please do feel free to get in touch at any stage if there's anything you need. Stifle (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops

I see now that I ought not to have left you a message about it at all...I missed your instructions. The talk pages blur together when you're posting to a bunch of them in rapid succession. Sorry! Dppowell 23:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. The only thing you've done is made me have to re-archive because I did my October archiving an hour early... be a good new admin and don't reply for another 22 minutes, eh? :) Stifle (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)