User talk:Stifle/Archive 1207b

This is an archive. Please leave new messages at my talk page, not here.

Cinderella Complex

Sorry but I never wrote the Cinderella Complex article, pls bother someone else with your Verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janno (talk • contribs) 22:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I sent that to the wrong person. Apologies. Stifle (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Friday Night Lights

Hi. You prodded Characters of Friday Night Lights. However, I fail to see how it fails to be anymore unencyclopedic than any other list of characters for a television series. They are used for summary style in the main articles. If you prefer it be renamed as a list, that's a fair assertion. But if the issue is with the content, I encourage you to look at precedent. Either way, thanks for your work prodding content that does belong here. Cheers. SorryGuy 22:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed your prod on the above article. If you could contact me on how you feel the article needs to be improved to be equal to those of similar content, I will be more than glad to attempt to make them. However, simply unencyclopedic does not provide me with enough detail. Thanks. SorryGuy  Talk  02:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: 3RR barnstar comment

In response to your comment

Lol! :P Actually, it looks like more work than it was: I wanted to field test the latest incarnation of my 3RR script that might make 3RR vios easier to both report and verify. It's not really intelligent in that it can tell which diffs actually are or are not reverts, but it makes it a lot easier for editors to simply remove the non-3rr edits (instead of spending an hour in cutpaste hell) as well as admins to verify whatever's presented (especially if using the popups script). I was probably gonna end up sticking it on the toolserver for public use if it seems like a good idea. If you get a chance, lemme know what you think/what could be improved/etc. Cheers :) --slakr^\ talk / 07:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ballet Fantastique

It's back again. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your eyes must be deceiving you. I don't see it :)

(Listed on WP:PT bearing in mind the multiple recreation.) Stifle (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ballet Fantastique

Hi, I have been working really hard to create a page for Ballet Fantastique (a very interesting and unique non-profit dance organization in Oregon). You deleted the page because you said it lacked significance. I have looked at other ballet company's Wikipedia pages and have been modeling this page after existing pages so I won't get deleted. I also added a lot of source material. What do you suggest I write to satisfy your standards? Christy --Smooshette (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You would need to establish that your company meets WP:ORG or WP:CORP as appropriate. Publications cited to establish notability should be major, e.g. statewide or national newspaper or television coverage, rather than a minor title within one city.

If you think you've already done that, you can file a deletion review which is a place where you can request an amendment to the deletion decision. Recreating pages that are deleted is not the way to go, however, and I have had to disable creation of the page Ballet Fantastique. Stifle (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediating/solving conflicts with User:The Dragon of Bosnia

Hi, again, I continue to have problems with User:The Dragon of Bosnia in relation to the Bosnian Mujahideen article which I have requested mediation for. While that article is protected (to avoid further vandalism from him and User:Grandy Grandy) he is deleting links to it on other, related articles (example from the Mujahideen article [1]). He seems to be claiming that these links should be deleted since the Bosnian Mujahideen article is being mediated. However, this seems a bit backward to me since the reason it is being mediated is because he was vandalizing it in the first place. Anyways, I am getting a bit fed up with what I see as User:The Dragon of Bosnia's continous vandalism. Do you have any suggestions for 'dealing' with this issue (if it can/should be 'dealt' with at all)? I realize that editing Wikipedia can be frustrating but I really want to avoid getting into edit wars with a user who, in my opinion, seems more interested in pushing some kind of Bosniak nationalist agenda. Any suggestion from you would be much appreciated.Osli73 (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am too busy to deal with that immediately but will look into it later today or tomorrow. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I can wait (though the guy is problematic, here's the latest politically motivated POV edit). I can accept time consuming edit discussions, but, to me, this is beyond that.Osli73 (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you need something more urgent you will need to use WP:ANI. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank's for the tip. This isn't something that requires a quick action but rather an ongoing/recurring problem. I've raised the issue on the Talk page and will wait to see if there's any reaction there. No hurry.Osli73 (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a lot I can do here. For you I would suggest an article RFC and/or a user conduct one if The Dragon of Bosnia continues to make unhelpful edits. You also have the option of using WP:AE because of the ArbCom ruling in the Macedonia case. Stifle (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible ArbCom for a wider set of interrelated conflicts and users?

Hi, as you will know, I'm having problems with The Dragon of Bosnia and Grandy Grandy on a wide number of related articles. These, to varying degrees, include: 7th Muslim Brigade, Bosnian Mujahideen, Serb propaganda, Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia, Alija Izetbegovic, Mujahideen, Bosnian War and Srebrenica massacre. These conflict are all related to, what I perceive to be, these editors' use of these articles (and potentially others) for the purpose of pushing nationalist views, with glaring examples of WP:POV, WP:COAT, WP:SOURCES and WP:OR, to name a few. He has also deleted articles or links to articles which which he does not agree with. I feel that I have raised these issues (POV, etc) with him but have met with no understanding. I have also nominated the articles Serb propaganda and 7th Muslim Brigade for deletion. The latter is still pending while the outcome of the afd process on the Serb propaganda article was no consensus. While I agree that the subject deserves an article, Serb propaganda certainly was an important factor in the Yugoslav Wars, I, as did most of the non-Bosniak editors who participated in the afd debate, feel that the current article is grossly POV.

My question is, rather than engaging in never ending reverts and engaging in lengthy and extremely time consuming mediation processes for each and every one of these articles / conflict, is there a way to deal with what is the underlying problem with all of them, namely WP:POV, in one single mediation/arbitration process? All the other problems are merely symptoms/results of the underlying nationalist POV being pushed in these articles? You recently mentioned that there was a precedent for dealing with conflict where an "editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process" (where I take the first two to also cover POV issues) related to the Balkans. Could this be used as a basis for such an arbitration process?Osli73 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There was already an arbitration case, and a new one will be declined with the instruction to use the discretionary sanctions.

What you need to do is list at WP:AE, not here a history of four or five diffs that indicate how one or more specific editors has/have disrupted at one or more specific articles, then an uninvolved administrator will be able to apply the discretionary sanctions such as an article ban, block, or other limitation. Please stop making these requests on my talk page as

1. it may make me an involved administrator and unable to help out
2. listings on the noticeboards will be dealt with quicker, and
3. I am going on vacation next week and won't be able to deal with it anyway

Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I must comment Osli73's claims. He says he is having problems with me and user:Grandy, which is wrong. He is just having problems with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you look at his block log he is constantly blocked because he permanently breaks Wikipedia rules:

• 00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)

• 09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)

• 01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli7 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎(violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)

• 02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)

• 07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months ‎ ({{UsernameHardBlocked}}: {{arbcom}})

• 07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎({{arbcom}})

• 12:23, 5 December 2007 Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen

Regarding his claims that the problems are results of the nationalist POV being pushed in the articles he mentioned above, I also can't agree on that. If you look at the history of those articles you will find this:

• Osli73, wrote Bosnian Mujahideen in order to replace the existing article with the offical and precise terms 7th Muslim Brigade. He also nominated 7th Muslim Brigade for deletion after he wrote Bosnian Mujahideen (which is mostly based on WP:NOT content).

• Osli73 then wrote Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia in order to replace the existing Serb propaganda article based on International court for War Crimes verdicts. And he also nominated Serb propaganda article for deletion. But it didn't go well, and now he is asking another way to destroy other users effort and contribution. I was also suggested to start a request for comment if he continues to behave this way. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I ask you to kindly list this on WP:AE and not here. Please see the reasons above. Stifle (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

my page about TITOBA On Net has been deleted by you

my page about titoba on net has been delted by you recently.

i have a feeling that you have deleted it becuase you could not understand the relevance and significance of the content of this page.

i would like to request you to bring that page back to life at the earliest.

you an find out more about titoba on net on the website www.titoba.org

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.13.212 (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. In future, don't forget to log in and sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

Titoba was deleted under Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, number 7 under Articles, because it was an article about a club that did not explain what makes the club notable.

While I appreciate your reference to your website, Wikipedia requires that articles be verified using independent, verifiable sources. Your website is not independent. If the club "Titoba" has received coverage in media or otherwise meets the criteria at WP:ORG, you can feel free to recreate the article, making sure you cite your sources when doing so. Recreating it without any such sources will make it very likely to be deleted again. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwartz

Can you take a look at this first stab at a draft, and see how it strikes you?

It could be trimmed more ruthlessly if needed, but I've written as a first try, to the limits of what I felt could be represented fairly and within BLP. I've used government sources and her own filings for claims, where they exist, and drafted with care to make sure the wording does not imply a stance.

As a first question, is it reasonably fair, neutral, covers the main bases, and BLP compliant in your view? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. The only three suggestions I have are:

1. Cite or remove the sentence "The Department of Justice and a number of courts have strongly criticized these actions."
2. Cite or remove the clause "the Department of Justice as a whole taking the unusual step of authorizing non-service of further requests until payment is made for past requests."
3. Change the link to Department of Justice to a piped link which skips the disambiguation page.

Good work! Stifle (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Rum

I appreciate that you took the time to read my report but the guy just keeps removing the link for no good reason. I don't see how the website is different from the other rum sites and I do think the site offers good information about rum. He does not even respond to my messages. He has been doing this ever since the link was created on this page and it appears he keeps reverting links on other articles as well. While he may not do three or four reverts within 24 hours the keeps doing it every day, possibly to avoid this rule. I would appreciate it if you reconsidered this. Thanks for your time. Count Silvio (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Count Silvio

You haven't even warned him about 3RR. You put the warning on your own talk page. I am warning him now. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, still a little confused how things work here at Wikipedia. The warning is on the talk page now though. Count Silvio (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well he has just done it again despite your warning. I'll leave it up to you this time. Count Silvio (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Italian Violinmakers

Hi you deleted my articel about the book italian violinmakers by walter Hamma. This artikel was about a known book and not about a person!!! A7 applies only to the articles on the people, organizations and web content themselves, not articles on their books —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hill&Sons (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I am unsure as to whether "Italian Violinmakers" by Walter Hamma should have a Wikipedia article but in the interest of following process I will restore it and place it on WP:AFD.

Please note, however, that the article is not "your" article. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Italian Violinmakers"

Hi. This user Hill&Sons has created another similar page "Italian Violinmakers". I think he/she should be warned. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to warn him. Uncle G has already deleted the page. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

I had a question here about 3RR, would be grateful if you could explain this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)