User talk:Stifle/Archive 1207a

This is an archive of talk page comments. Please don't add new comments here, use User talk:Stifle instead.

I have some history additions to the Harvard university wiki

In my family history records search through many Generations i have found that i was related as a direct decendant of EDWARD JACKSON Born 1602 Stepney Whitechapel , London England . Hewas the Son of Christofer Jackson He Moved from England to Newton Massachusetts in 1643 ,, He was Freeman 1645 ; Selectman ; Deputy to the Genral Court 18 sessions ; aid of the Apostle Elliot in Evangelism of the Indians . He purchased a 500 acre Farm from Gov. Bradstreet for 140 pounds , which had been sold to Gov. Bradstreet for 6 cows in 1638 . Edward Jackson was one of a committee of 4 to lay out highways in the Village of Newton. In 1657 Edward Jackson Donated 400 acres to Harvard college. He died June 17 , 1681 In his Will dated11 june 1681 he Beq. to wife , Children , inlaws , Friends, step-children , to the Use of the ministry , to the college .,,,,,, I have an almost complete Record of his 2 wives and Children if needed My name is James Louis Davis He would have been on My Great Grandmothers side of the Family in my reading of the website wiki i have found no references to these facts and Hope they fill in some lost information If you need to contact me i can be E-mailed at kansasjim@gmail.com --Thankyou --Jim-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.171.113.154 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message.

I'm a little unsure as to why you're sending this to me. If you want to add a verifiable article about a notable person, just create an account and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Your first article. If you just want to add something to an existing article, then click the Edit tab or link in the article and go for it. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Firefly

Recently you contibuted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book. There is now an ongoing discussion stemming from that AfD here if you wish to contribute. [[Guest9999 15:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]

ArbCom elections

Hi Stifle. Thanks for your opinion. You said that 'Late registration seems suspicious'. I must say that i totally disgree w/ that picture. As i said on my statement, i've been setting up my own business and the process is almost at its end and that's why i've had limited time here. Also, i've been consulting the nomination issue w/ many users and admins (it was a request from 2 admins in fact to convince me to nominate myself). The decision was taken at the last minute for the above 2 reasons and there was no conspiracy. I really dream of the day where WP:AGF becomes the rule instead of an exception. Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, although please bear WP:AAGF in mind too.

I have struck out my opposition although there is not enough evidence for me to change to support. I wish you the best in your election prospects. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning AAGF as well ;) I appreciate your answer and action. Thanks again Stifle. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Josh Allain

Hi, I saw your warning on his talk page. On Build a Nation, he's changed the All Music Guide rating 3 times. The album was rated 3.5 stars but he keeps changing it 4 stars. [1] [2] [3] I warned him on his talk page after the second time, but he just ignored it. Will you do something about it please, maybe block him? Cheers. Funeral 17:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week, but in future you should make reports like this at WP:AIV or WP:AN because any admin could have dealt with this and by using the noticeboards an admin is likely to see it quicker than I reply to my talk page. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I normally would but I saw you were active not long before I came to you, so I thought you could have dealt with him sooner. Thanks for the reply, though. Have a nice day! Funeral 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Balkans arbitration remedy

I received notice regarding this arbitration case. However I can not locate any edits I have made to that page. I don't know if the notice was in error or I am missing something. Thanks Gtstricky (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The notice was to inform you that anyone editing in articles related to the Balkans (which you have done) is subject to certain sanctions if they fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behaviour or the normal editorial process. As I mentioned you have not done anything wrong, but the area has been subject to quite a lot of aggressive edit-warring and it is a place to tread with caution. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for the explanation. The only edit I could find was this where I reverted some vandalism. I was a little nervous when my name showed up in the list under Logs of Blocks and Bans  :) Cheers Gtstricky (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Stifle. I saw your Balkans article remedy proposal at User talk:Ronz and want to pass along to you that I think it is a good plan. If I can be of any help, please drop me a line. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Most of it belongs to Ronz though. My main function is keeping the peace and using, where necessary, the arbitration remedy to do so. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

comment regarding eleland

per this subsection: [4] - static version.

only one user violated 3RR (while adding uncivil commentary), so i find it odd that the policy is not enforced.

side note: this is not a case of BLP violation, the information was standing since december 2006 [5]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, blocking a user is only one way of preventing edit warring - protection is also an option. Blocks aren't punitive. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm aware that blocks are not punitive; they are mostly intended to correct poor conduct and breaches of policy. if i understand correctly, you believe that page protection will prevent the misconduct from repeating. however, it is my experiance that without real deterrance action [6] and/or expression of repentance [blank], it will indeed repeat. i also note that without the civility issues (which have been going on for a long time), i would have simply reported the case on the page protection forum rather than the 3RR page. anyways, i'd appreciate you following the article to perhaps consider, at the very least, a civility warning in case the issue returns.

respectfully, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. you can reply here without copy-pasting itto my page, i will be watching. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I will watchlist the page. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to come back to me (as opposed to the AN) if you wish, should Eleland continue the incivility. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Toadstool1969

Could you explain what you mean by this? As in, who's exempt from 3RR due to BLP: me, him, or both of us? Will ^(talk) 15:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Err... I had a brainfart there. I'm going to reopen it for another admin to look at. Stifle (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of your time?

I strongly disagree with your actions and rationale, and would like a response to these if you could take the time: My response to your actions and An explanation of what I've been doing. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page. Stifle (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you now withdraw the notice and remove me from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Log_of_blocks_and_bans? --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No. That would be counterproductive. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain?

I've thought over what happened and I was wrong reverting as I did, and handling most of the situation in general. The vandalism that was happening should have be treated as blatant and disruptive. 3RR is no place to address the massive problems that such editors cause. There was no need to revert anyways. I should have simply made sure the information was in the article archive, and then summarized my deleted comments in a new discussion asking for specific responses as to why others were having problems with, and notified all other editors whose comments were deleted to do the same.

Finally, if you could, I'd like responses to User_talk:Ronz#Another_solution:_Balkans_arbitration_remedy. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be counterproductive to withdraw the notice because then in the unlikely event that your behaviour requires the remedy to be invoked again, it would not be effective. The idea is to let you know that the remedy exists, because it requires people to be given notice of it.

I am responding to the other message in its section on your talk page. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I actually wanted feedback on how I was approaching these problems as written in User_talk:Ronz#Another_solution:_Balkans_arbitration_remedy rather than help with individual cases (not that I don't need help with the cases too). I'd like to expand it into an essay once I get some initial feedback. Or perhaps it could be incorporated into an existing essay or even guideline. I'm not sure at this point. Instead, I'd just like to get feedback on the approach first. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I think that is a decent approach and a good way of going "softly softly" for people who are genuinely trying to contribute while not tolerating any nonsense. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your time! --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

By rights you should really be blocked for edit warring at cold fusion and hydrino theory, but as you've undertaken to stop I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Remember that only obvious, simple vandalism (e.g. replacing the text with rubbish, adding swearwords, or tests) are exempt from 3RR, and adding and removing disputed statements generally is not. Be particularly careful as other admins may not be as forgiving :) Stifle (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am over-interpreting WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, but doesn't removing the statement that hydrino theory is generally considered pseudoscience - which is most definitely true, and required to make Wikipedia consistent with the scientific consensus constitute vandalism and POV-pushing? This (removal by User:TStolper1W) was what I was reverting in most of the edits cited in the 3RR report, hence my mis-counting regarding the number of edits. If I may be so bold, I suggest you also warn User:Pcarbonn - for the reasons I described in my posting to the 3RR report and because he also has been editing the article to excess. User:TStolper1W was blocked for a 3RR violation, but I would also issue him a ban for blatant POV-pushing - every single one of his edits consists of removing/attacking legitimate criticisms of hydrino theory. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It probably does constitute those things, but neither of those are exempt from 3RR - they are not "simple and obvious vandalism", which is defined as something that any admin who had never visited the page or heard of the concept before would be able to identify as vandalism.

I will warn Pcarbonn and TStolper1W but do not see evidence justifying a further block of the latter. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hagger nonsense

Be wary of the musical fruit, if you catch my drift.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to go down that road, but what is the point in having reams of protected titles? Stifle (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

False positive

Hi Stifle, I just reverted your edit to Credit score (United States) as I thought it was spam/vandalism. However I undid my mistake. But still, do you think that a telephone number in a Wikipedia article in this style is a good idea? Should it preferably not be linked? --Poeloq (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should. Wikipedia is not a how-to, and including US telephone numbers is both an introduction of systemic bias and an invitation for the next 100 countries to include their phone number for getting your credit report. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I thought and was surprised that you only took one out and not the other. However, I am back to vandal fighting. Enjoy! Poeloq (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Hey - re: your comment in the RFAR, you're misinformed. The the biographies of living persons policy clearly and unambiguously states:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Hope this helps! FCYTravis (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's news to me. I still think you're going overboard though (and it's debatable whether it's contentious). Thanks for letting me know. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

X Corporation

Give me a minute with that page. That's why the edit summary said temporary edit. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

graystar (uk)

Why did you delete the page I created for the indie band graystar? The band have been featured on many mainstream radio stations and music media, and are an established indie band. Can you give me a few pointers for creating a page that wont be delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariusxx (talk • contribs) 22:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

Graystar (UK) was deleted per item 7 under the Articles section of our criteria for speedy deletion, because it appeared to be an article about a band which did not assert its notability. Finngall already told you this on your talk page. You can recreate the article if you wish, as long as you can include citations from reliable sources which show how the band meets the guidelines for notability of bands. Sources are required under our verifiability policy.

I'm sorry if your first experience of Wikipedia hasn't been positive. Why not read Wikipedia:Your first article for more information on how to write here? I hope you continue to edit here. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

wtf?

Why did you delete our Penelopism article? It's a blooming, new religion that is becoming more popular BY THE DAY. It's caused more controversy than anything I can think of. It's got hate sites, a SHOOTING GAME, and it's mentioned all over the place. So why? Did you even bother looking into the site? Or are you a christian bigot who won't see the light of day unless god is said to have made it happen? Republican.

And It DID have importance and significance. I don't see the problem. We didn't do anything. Someone just wrote an article about it in our school paper. So if it's big enough for THAT, why not wikipedia. Teachers already ban it for research projects. No one likes wikipedia. It's unreliable. So you can hardly consider yourself to have ANY authority over ANYTHING. So WHY NOT PENELOPISM?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejequeso (talk • contribs) 22:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

Penelopism was deleted by me and again later by Amire80. I deleted it because it fell under our criteria for speedy deletion, number 7 under Articles, i.e. it was an article about an organization or group of people which does not assert its notability or importance. If you disagree with the deletion, you are welcome to open a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

If you can provide citations from reliable sources (a school paper is not a reliable source) that clearly establish that Penelopism is notable and meets the criteria for inclusion, you may recreate the article with those citations included.

Please read Wikipedia:Your first article for more information on how to create your first Wikipedia article. Please also read Wikipedia:Civility for details on the standard of polite interaction that is used on Wikipedia.

Your school paper probably does not have one of the top 10 most-visited sites in the world so it is unlikely that a subject which is "big enough" for it is implicitly includable on Wikipedia.

If you feel that nobody likes Wikipedia or that it is unreliable, perhaps you should consider writing about Penelopism on your own website. List of free web hosts has some options that you might consider.

In any case, I hope that you continue to contribute to Wikipedia and will enjoy being a Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Boston Teran

Not my article, but I think perhaps you were a little quick on the trigger finger deleting it. Teran has published four novels with major mainstream publishers, the article referred to (although failed to link to) multiple reviews in legitimate publications, and there was a definite assertion of notability ("award-winning") which is in fact correct.[7] You deleted it so fast I didn't even have chance to see the speedy template and put a {{hangon}} on the Talk page. Regards --ShelfSkewed Talk 22:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd restore it but it's a copyvio too. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Maybe I'll try to put together an article that's not--but it is true that facts about this author are a little thin on the ground. Cheers. --ShelfSkewed Talk 12:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sean Morrison

I would like to know why this page was deleted and/or what I could do that would make it acceptable to repost the page without fear of deletion. For instance, Sean Morrison has won the following awards, and is notable for a number of other reasons. Also, I would like access to the text of the deleted page.

These awards include, according to the Detroit News, "The Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers in 2003, Wired Magazine's Rave Award for Science in 2003 and Technology Review magazine's list of 100 innovators in 2002. Morrison earned the prestigious title of investigator from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in 2000. He became one of more than 300 scientists at research institutes around the county chosen because of his potential to make significant contributions to science" http://detnews.com/specialreports/2006/michiganians/morrison.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aptanalogy (talk • contribs) 00:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I didn't delete the page Sean Morrison, please try contacting User:W.marsh, User:Zoe or User:Bucketsofg who did. You can see a list of actions regarding a page at Special:Log. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement regarding Durova/!! matter

FYI, I am alerting user's who have voted to oppose based on my comments about the Durova matter that I have written a longer statement regarding my views on the matter which I hope clarifies a few points of apparent misunderstanding. See User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !!. Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. FYI, I am alerting you that since the "user" in your message is plural and not possessive, it should be "users", and not what you wrote. Please see Eats, Shoots & Leaves. :) Stifle (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop!!!

you are at this moment going through every single one of my uploaded pictures and tagging for deletion everyone that conceivably could be. first, I'd like to urge you to use common sense and not tag things like 17th century maps, 19th century paintings, etc for deletion that are obviously not copyrighted. If there are others that you feel are dudious, please take it up on my talk page instead of tagging them en masse.--victor falk 17:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am finished.

Per the image use policy, the source of all images must be provided. I have therefore tagged some images you uploaded as lacking a source. To fix this, just provide the source, i.e. where did you get the image from, on the image page and remove the no source tag.

Some images you uploaded are tagged as public domain due to author dying more than 100 years ago when this appears not to be the case. For these, you should comment on the relevant section of WP:PUI.

Copyright violations, when they occur, are an extreme legal danger to the project so we need to be quite careful. I am sure you will understand. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

XRumer

Thank you for the note - I hadn't read that particular page, but I did indeed delete this page earlier. These pages do occasionally crop up on Newpages, and I will keep an eye out for them in the future. Bobo. 17:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted article

Dear Stifle,

I don't understand quite why my article on Richard Scarry's book Best Word Book Ever was deleted. I looked up the thing about Blatant Advertising and I don't see quite why this applies to my article. I am nothing to do with Richard Scarry or his publishers and neither are the two sources I quoted as reference. I am fairly new here and I am sorry if it isn't quite right, but I am disappointed that the article was deleted without any attempt to explain or put it right.

It had a No Reference tag put on it by someone, although it did have to references when I posted it. When I queried it with him he said it only needed a clean up, nothing else. OK I can try and 'clean it up'- when I figure out what that means

Richard Scarry has a page on Wiki and this is his most important book- the one which got him started on 300 million sales and is still in print after 45 years. It has quite a lot said about it - including about the PC changes which have been made to it- on the internet, so I thought it should have a page of its own.

Please can you help me to create a more suitable article

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not the best person for creating articles, but if you do create that article again you should try to write it from a neutral point of view. For one thing, sentences like "Scarry's fun style that has carried on through 300 books has made it popular and remembered through the generations" and headings like "Updating the Best" don't conform to that. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

omp

Importance? Maybe not to you. But to those poor Penelopists who are sick of christians, etc. takin' up all the space! What about them? Do they not count? Penelopism is a religion. Does it not deserve the same respect that other religions recieve? Do we not deserve a small paragraph explaining to all those antipens that Penelopism means no harm and that we are a peaceful people who wish merely to befriend them all? Even you. Even though you have used your bigoted, republican views to attempt to run out Penelopism, Penelope doesn't hate you. And there is a site. It's right here. http://www.freewebs.com/penelopism And, ok, maybe not everyone can afford an official domain name. The Bragens are not rich, you know. I mean, they couldn't even afford the Penelopism hoodies. Only the T-shirts. Which they are, of course, just as happy about. But it's winter and cold and hoodies would have been so much better. But still. The point is made. T-shirts. T-shirts. Now, I hope you will stop being like this and embrace we Penelopists as we are. Penelopists. We may even grow to only mildly disdain you. Unless you are a Republican. Then we will hate you forever.

And I would do the squiggles, however, I do not know what that means and I cannot possible agree to do something unless I know fully what I am agreeing to do. Kudos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejequeso (talk • contribs) 06:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(This refers to Penelopism, which I speedied recently under CSD:A7.)

I'm not going to attempt to reply to your message, because you don't appear to be open to my point. If you want to dispute the deletion further, you will need to take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:NSLE/w/index.php

Thanks for the notice, I guessed it was a bot of some sort but I didn't know it was THAT bad... :x -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Best Word Book Ever

Fair enough. I take your point. That is all I really needed to know. Will do. Thank you IceDragon64 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)