User talk:Stenun

edit count | edit summary usage

Warning

I am not an administrator but I already told one of them that you delete other people's edits too often which is really annoying. Edit what you need to edit but do not touch other people's contributions!

You have been blocked many times from editing wikipedia. You refuse to discuss your edits on the talk page of the relevant article despite my asking you to do so many times. You constantly delete other peoples comments on talk pages, including this one. Your only edits of any note are to promote your own fansite which has previously been claimed to be a part of a fansite which is already listed in the article. In response, all I try to do is undo your malicious (the deletion of other people's comments) and self-serving (the constant plugging of your own fan site) edits. If you really want to bring an admin in to all of this, go ahead. --Stenun (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fun Lovin' Criminals Wikipedia Page

Hi Stenun I want to add my site to the external links page - its pretty informative and has alot on the history of the band etc. What do you think?

Cheers

Sohail Sohailjuna (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well first of all I think this should be discussed on the talk page for the article, not on my page. But in relation to your question, I don't think your site adds anything to the article that is not already there. The external links should only include fansites that given an impression of the following of the band, they're not supposed to be a source of more information. All the information should be in the article. Thus, as the link itself doesn't add anything to article, I cannot see a reason to justifibly include it. --Stenun (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stenun, I completely disagree. The new link adds up to date news and tour information, and obviously the multimedia content for band followers which you would never (and should never get) on the Wiki page. It tells visitors where the band will be and how they can get tickets.

As for being a site that "given an impression of the following of the band" Im not sure what you mean exactly, but as you mentioned, I have linked the site to the most popular forum for the fans - so i think that says something on that one, as it does illustrate the community of fans who follow the band.

I thought about it, and I appreciate the issues you have been having with other Wiki Users on this article, and believe me I have no intention in starting one of those! But at the end of the day, I feel that most users would find it a very useful resource, and so move to re-instate the link. My thinking is that, within reason, The External Links section of this article means "you may also want to look at these relevant sites". So really, providing a new external link to a useful resource can only help and does no harm.

Thanks Sohailjuna (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you disagree, it's your site. That's why, on the FLC talk page, I asked for the opinions from unbiased wiki editors. You are always going to believe your site should be there, no matter what. And I'm afraid that the "External Links" section does not mean what you want it to mean; the sites should be there for academic purposes, not for plugging the band. Advertising where you can buy tickets is NOT academic - you wouldn't put it in a university paper about the band, therefore don't put it in this article. I do not believe your site adds anything to the article that is not already there. Furthermore, by putting the link back in you are breaking a wikipedia rule about linking to a site you own [1]. Please allow other editors to reach a consensus about the page and then one of them will make the relevant change. --Stenun (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What planet are you on? A university paper about the band? Academic reference? I think Im starting to agree with the others - I think youre very wierd and are just arguing for the sake of some sort of power trip. I dont recognise you as any authority on the matter. Besides, It wasnt me that put up the link in the first place - so in fact I didnt break section 8 of rule 1,598!

If its not there to provide further info on the band whats the point? and then what are the other links doing there? Or did they just ignore you? Sohailjuna (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A gave the example of a "university paper" as a comparison for the article. This is an encyclopeadia, it's supposed to contain academic articles - the FLC article is not about pulbicity for the band. It's not a place to advertise your own website. Youmight not have been the one to put up the link in the first place but you are the one who keeps putting it back, which is against the rules. In articles about pop culture, one or two fansites are allowed as an aid to the article itself, hence why there are links to two fansites in the article. However any more than that is against the rules.

Please try to understand, this is not a slight against you or your site; I'm sure you're a nie guy and the site is fantastic. This is about the rules of wikipedia and an ENCYCLOPAEDIA ARTICLE - not an advertisment. --Stenun (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

GODDAMMIT!!! Why are you changin difontaine.net information!!!! You are from flcnyc.co.uk. so stay clear from that site ffs. and there was another person deleting all the arguments on the flc backroom discussion board. i reckon you shouldnt fight online - at least do not bother the flc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GHG23 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before and quite obviously need to repeat again, I am not affiliated with any FLC site. Be it official or a fan site. I merely make the edits that I feel are best for the article here on wikipedia. And not specifying that difontaine is a fansite is against the rules. So I reverted the edit. And wikipeida is not a search engine or other place to promote a fansite, fan sites are listed purely as an aid to the article, not to publicise the site in question. So whether or not difontaine has a "new biography" is irrelevant. So I reverted the edit. Plain and simple. --Stenun (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what i'm sayin!! wikipedia isn't a promotion place. and you can't decide what is irrevelent and what's not. u bloody get on anyone's nerves now. please stop being so heady. people asked you politely to interfere with own business, please. if you reckon it's wrong or irrevelent, please first mention that on their talk boards to discuss before u make this bloody argument again. --GHG23 (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you acknowledge that wikipedia isn't a promotion place then we are you getting so upset over the edits I made? I took out one line that was clearly promoting a fan site and I put back in one word that made it obvious that said site was a fan site in the first place. I fail to see why you are upset over such edits. I suspect that the only people whose nerves I am getting on are those that are connected to the various fan sites that have been trying to big up their own importance on the FLC article page. Quite frankly, some people got upset when I took out claims that the old myspace page used to "run the band", a claim I think we both not is obviously not true. But it upset people anyway, and that taught me not to care if my edits upset one or two people because chances are that the only people I am upsetting are those who are trying to give themselves airs above their station anyway. I will continue to make the edits I feel are best for the article concerned, regardless of how much it might annoy one or two people connected with one or two fansites. If you don't like that then you are free to go to a wiki moderator and outline your case but I will point out that everyime, EVERY time, a wiki moderator has gotten involved before they have always seen things from my point of view. That is not to say I am always right of course, I know I'm not, but I think the attempted repeated hijacking of the FLC article here on wiki has gotten beyond a joke and is making one or two people look rather pathetic. --Stenun (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not meant to be offensive but you should know that flcnyc is not officially the crims' promoting / fan site. I think Ollie told you that before. So it's definitely not prominent or what. It's about promoting the band not anything else. I think it's also been said on Kat's site and on DiFontaine.net. Please edit your contribution and put it under goldfunlovin. I know you are a big fan of the flc so I respect you for that but wish you didn't call it prominent to neglect the other flc promoting sites and please put it under the other external links so the other flc fans do not get confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonynonymous (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have no idea who "Ollie" even is, unless you are refering to the person who claims to "run the band through myspace". A claim which is in serious need of rewording; "runs the fan club through myspace" is one thing but the way it is worded right now it sounds like he is their manager and that he tells them what to do. A claim which I think we all know is not true. I have no knowledge of who the people are that run any of the sites under discussion, I am merely trying to edit the article to be the best it can be. To that end I am going to extensively rewrite it in the next few days. --Stenun (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ollie is a guy who runs the DiFontaine.net at the moment but he didn't set up the site, the boss Martin handed him out the site. DiFontaine.net has loads of registered members, the crims have an account there and other bands too and this site works for companies and companies work for us. DiFontaine.net has got the authority (because it's flc name and Mateo's surname!!!) and was set up in 2003. The administrator decided to put the home page on the forums so people can get to hear the latest news easily and Myspace is something different. I'm not talking it. What is the reason you are going to extensively rewrite it??!! So what! DiFontaine has got the name. FLCNYC is not officially dedicated to the band. I know that you are working with Aitch, Angela (Coffeebug) and Lexy. If you don't want to come across as a pathological liar please do not tell me you don't know Ollie aka TheFLCguy.

Do not grime DiFontaine please!!! http://www.difontaine.net/forums/viewthread.php?tid=2654#pid69505

You know which path to follow and stay clear and DO NOT edit my contribution!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.195.148 (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just two things to say in response to these comments. Firstly, I have never met Aitch, Angela, Lexy or Ollie. Secondly, don't tell me what not to edit. I'm going to make the article the best I can. You are free to improve it afterwards if you think it needs it. --Stenun (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm seeing you're not that person who I thought of. Sorry. A lot of things happened in the past and I thought it might happen again. Hope you checked that difontaine link I sent. That's what I was afraid of. I think it makes no sense to argue about the promotion. And I have seen you are not offensive at all.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.195.148 (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already done. Now you have got to delete the word 'prominent' and that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.195.148 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't tell me what edits to make, that's my decision. --Stenun (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We have seen you have deleted Ollie's contributions!! Well done!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.49.2 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Stop being offensive to us!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonynonymous (talk • contribs) 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I have no idea who either of you are. Please don't bring your fight onto my talk page. --Stenun (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It will stop if you just stop slagging off us DiFontainers!! That's it. I can now say thank **** that you have deleted the prominent thingie. And the person with the username skillsomega is a person out of the flc crew. Just be careful!! :P Anonynonymous (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please point out where and when you think I have "slagged off you DiFontainers". I really don't care what website you are associated with, I'm just trying to make the article better than it was and is. And whether or not "Skills Omega is a person out of the flc crew" is neither here nor there. If s/he wants to help work on the article, then great. If not, then no worries. I fail to see why it's otherwise relevant. I'm sure they're a nice person, I'm not disputing that. I really don't see why people are getting so upset. --Stenun (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough!! I think I have also been messing about. And thank you for correcting my contribution!! ;) Anonynonymous (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please either point out where and when I slagged off DiFontainers or retract that comment. I really am quite irritated about that message of yours. --Stenun (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Science Fiction and Fantasy

I like the idea for the article, and like what is there so far, but I'd suggest changing it a bit so it can be better defended against a potential AfD. They sure love deleting stuff over there. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 22:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey cool, thanks for the comments! I started the article because it was listed on the "requested articles" page so it would be a bit bizarre if it were nominated for deletion now. *g* I take it "AfD" means "Article For Deletion"? I'm rather new to editing wikipedia; I don't even know all the formatting structures and language yet, let alone any commonly used acronyms! --Stenun 00:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How on EARTH did that message get that box around it?? --Stenun 00:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The spaces at the front of it. I deleted them for you. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 14:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ta *g*. I'm learning formatting slowly but I am learning it.  :-) --Stenun 03:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello Stenun, and Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are some good places to get you started!

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Template messages
• Sandbox

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, please either visit the help desk, or leave a new message on my talk page at any time. You can also add {{helpme}} to your User Page or your User Talk Page and someone should be along to help you. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!

--Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 14:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Science fiction and fantasy

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Science fiction and fantasy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Science fiction and fantasy. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. As predicted above... I'm sorry, but I think this is really sort of a half-baked idea for an article. What you wrote isn't terrible, but I don't think the subject is terribly encyclopedaic. Brianyoumans 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wonder Woman - Bi-Monthly is correct at the moment

The linked article, which is a citation to that bit, explains that yes, they really do mean every other month. Which is how it's been released :P Really freakin annoying, but if you can cite a newer article to explain that it's twice a month now, please correct it. However, the curret reference is correct. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 04:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That is just way bizarre, and I have the feeling now that they're burning off the issues! Well, anyway, your change was incorrect in how it was worded and cited ;) Just changing that word made the cited article out of place, so I added that in as "With issue 3, Wonder Woman (vol. 3) was placed on a bi-monthly publication schedule. In March and April, DC has scheduled for the series to be released twice a month." citations and all! Woot! Thanks for pointing out where! -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Goldeneye Trivia

Don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.114.251 (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Freakangels

A tag has been placed on Freakangels requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dethme0w (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, the article doesn't explain why the subject is notable because I'm still writing it. I hadn't even got back to the page after saving the first draft before you came along and slapped a speedy delete notice on it. Don't you think maybe you're a bit too eager to delete it? --Stenun (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Stenun, because of the large volume of articles about unnotable websites that get posted on Wikipedia every day, an assertion of importance is the first thing that should be stated in the article. Without it, articles on this kind of subject can be deleted without discussion. Marasmusine (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I would suggest that maybe you could let me write the frigging thing first, yes? The article was a long way from finished, and you are basically saying you deleted it because it didn't meet wikipedia standards. Show me one article that does within 15 minutes of it being created. I was still working on the thing as you deleted it. --Stenun (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • If it is going to take a while to write, then please consider creating your draft in your user space, here: User:Stenun/Freakangels, or it's just going to be deleted again. I'll move it there for you. Marasmusine (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Forget it, you've killed my interest in writing it. Despite the fact that I'd added a sentence explaining why it was signifcant you still weren't happy. Whatever, have it your way. But I guarantee you that others will create the page again soon. This is a big project by a major writer and it will be back. --Stenun (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Contested speedy deletion

I'm contesting your proposed Speedy Deletion of the Freakangels article on the grounds that it wasn't even a minute old before you slapped it with the speedy delete notice. I maintain that this is a bit too soon to judge an article and maybe you should wait a few days and see what the article becomes after it's been worked on a bit before trying to get rid of it. If you don't believe me about the timing, check the edit history of the page. According to the edit history both the article and the speedy delete notice were made ON THE EXACT SAME MINUTE. I would suggest that maybe you could wait a while before leaping for the eraser. --Stenun (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't show how it was notable. This article was about web content that didn't even exist yet (article created Feb. 6, launch date Feb. 15th). That is practically an admission that the web content is non-notable. If the web comic catches on, and the site gets lots of hits, and most importantly of all, if it is reviewed or otherwise written about by reliable sources such as major mainstream media, then you're welcome to re-create it - but start with why it's notable. This is very important - the article as it existed unquestionably met the criteria for speedy deletion for which no wait period is, nor should be, necessary. Until then, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

I was still writing it. I did show how it was notable in a later draft but it got deleted. --Stenun (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article sat there in your edit box for however long it took you to type the initial text. I'm sure that was much longer than a minute. Policy is clear: an article that does not assert notability may be deleted at any time. You should have included why the subject was notable before the very first time you clicked the "Save Page" button. Note that just saying "this is notable" is not enough - you have to indicate how the subject meets the criteria for web content notability immediately, even though you don't have to actually back it up with references right away. For example, if the site had been reviewed in a major magazine, you could include that fact in the inital draft and then later actually dig up the needed references and links. Dethme0w (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well gee, and here was I thinking that we were allowed to work on and edit articles over time. I don't suppose it occured to you to try asking me why it was notable and then waiting for an answer? No, of course not, that's not "policy"... --Stenun (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

One more thing - the place to make your case to keep an article that is proposed for deletion is on the article's talk page, not the user talk page of the user who proposed it. That way every interested party knows where to find the discussion. Dethme0w (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I did. But that got deleted too. I'm not even sure anyone bothered reading it first. --Stenun (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jetsam movie poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jetsam movie poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem

It's all in a day's work. Happy editing, Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 06:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

test

test --Stenun (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Stenun. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)