User talk:Stifle/Archive 0106

This page is maintained as an archive. Do not leave messages here as they will not be received.

Secularization of Christmas

I was wondering what you thought was POV about the secularization of Christmas, and what you would like done with it to get it to NPOV. Cheers, JDoorjam 16:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Xacto article

I noticed you categorized the stub artice Xacto as being a 'weapon stub'. Wouldn't it be more appropriate for it to be under arts and crafts? - Amazon10x 00:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I've added the additional art stub tag.

Just so you're aware, it is permissible to be bold and edit articles yourself if you think it's justified. :) Stifle 10:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Usually I would have just changed it as you said but I wanted to ensure it was permissable to mark an article as being in two different stub categories. - Amazon10x 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, although two is a maximum. Stifle 15:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Shared parenting

Strange. I didn't edit the stub link, but I do the see the edit history like I did. Must of edited and outdated version somehow. — Dzonatas 11:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

vocab-stub's

Please see the active page at:[:Category talk:Vocabulary and usage stubs]] regarding an ongoing discussion as to the best use of these stubs. Thanks! xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 13:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Pankow (band)

Stifle, would you please stop adding the {cite} tags to the stub Pankow (band). As it stands, it asserts nothing that isn't already in the German Wikipedia article. It's hardly a fan article (indeed, I am not a fan of Pankow), and there aren't any reference works on East German rock music in English that could supplement the sources available in German. I did not, as your edit summary says, "ask you for time" when you last did this. I simply pointed out the absurdity of your adding {cite} tags to an article that was only eight minutes old, and said that, given time, I will add more to this article if others have not already done so.

As I said before, it takes no great effort to point out the flaws in a stub. How about helping to write it instead? Lack of citations isn't the article's main flaw, it's lack of detail, and there are precious few German-speakers on Wikipedia able to do the research into subjects such as Ostrock. ProhibitOnions 23:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Alumni Memorial Gym

how dare you insinuate that support for the Tennessee Alumni Memorial Gym entry is fake. Get a clue about sports and historic sports venues. This one is still in use! WillC 13:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I am as entitled to an opinion as you are. I have not at any stage suggested that the venue is not still in use, however nobody has yet given any third-party, verifiable evidence that the venue is notable above and beyond the university on whose campus it sits. Stifle 14:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not the topic at hand. You were not being civil by accusing me of inventing Wiki users to support my side. Do you realize how many hundreds of current and old sports venues have entries on Wikipedia? There is a category just for defunct venues! WillC 14:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of inventing Wiki users, merely suggested that they may exist. I do not realize, nor do I particularly care, how many hundreds of current and old sports venues have entries on Wikipedia. Stifle 14:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do be careful about throwing around sock puppetry accusations against users before checking edit history. I have been editing in good faith around here for almost a year and I was somewhat offended by your comment. I am assuming good faith, however, as I know that WillC is not acting like a model wikipedian on this AfD and could be pressing your buttons. Still, it does not help the project out to even mention the word "sock puppet" without some evidence. Otherwise, keep up the good work on new articles (alot of which are indeed crap) and Irish topics. Cheers. Youngamerican 03:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've apologized on the AfD page; not at all sure where I got the idea of sockpuppets from. Stifle 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Influenced by the amount of sock/meatpuppets contributing"---I falsely thought that was pointed in my direction. We are cool, and I offer to buy us a couple pints of the black stuff next time I'm in Ireland. Cheers. Youngamerican 03:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

AFDs

Thanks! I try my best. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-07 21:28Z

Jung Han article

Yes, the article should be deleted. I know the poster and I know who he is referring to (as you can see by the post he made on my talk page. If you are an admin, go ahead and delete the article. By the way, don't associate the improper addition with me because I know him. I did not put him up to it. joturner 02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User-AmE-0

As I'm sure you know, user templates are opinions shared by several members of Wikipedia. They are templates employed on individual user pages only, and do not claim to represent the official shared position of the Wikipedia collective. Still, some self-appointed dictators feel it is their responsibility to control individual expression on user pages. Template:User-AmE-0, for example, was deleted by User:Kelly Martin; after being recreated, it was tagged for deletion by User:DreamGuy and its category removed by User:Carbonite. There are but a few people who want to control personal expression on user pages at Wikipedia and hundreds of us who do not want these few to succeed. In standing together to revert tyranny, despotism and censorship of individual expression on our personal pages, we can easily overcome these dictator-wanna-bees. Wikipedia can be for the people. Please help us oppose those in the Arbitration Committee Elections who would turn Wikipedia into a dictatorship of controlled articles and user pages: Kelly Martin, Jpgordon, Fred Bauder, James F., Jayjg, and Mindspillage.

If you feel passionately about this, you can join us in alerting other users of these individual tags, that their personal expression on their user pages is being censored by people like User: Carbonite. To help, just go to any of the templates that User:Carbonite has tried to change, and alert the people in those categories that they are not alone in their outrage and opposition. --لæmäļ al diη 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It must be pointed out that the user who made the above comments is banned. Stifle 14:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply: I tend to agree with what you're saying, but I am unable to vote in the ACE - I missed the account creation time by a week. Stifle 14:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigma Phi Lambda

Explain deletion of Sigma Phi Lambda....Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.60.221.66 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

I voted to delete this article as it relates to a group that is not notable. It is also listed on Bad Article Ideas. Stifle 21:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well you didn't win and you should really look into researching about up and coming GLO's. They are incorporated, 17 national chapters, 15 chapters potential at this point. Their alumni base is up to 3,000 alumni. Do you even understand what you are trying to say is "non-notable?"

I think you should try to embrace American culture and figure some things out before you simply try to go through and delete and oppress us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.60.221.80 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

I do not know what a GLO is. I am not trying to oppress you, but I do not have to embrace American culture, in particular because I am not American. No consensus was arrived at in the debate.

I hold that Sigma Phi Lambda is a non-notable organization. It does not have any notable alumni, and moreover it sets a bad precedent as hundreds of minor random frats will cite this as a reason to be included on Wikipedia.

Finally, please sign comments you make on talk pages, including this one, by affixing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you for your opinion. Stifle 15:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, didn't mean to offend you. It is an enormous national organization and it looks like it won in the end.

List of Norwegian photographers

I can find no basis in policy for wanting to delete this article. There must be thousands of "list of" articles on Wikipedia, and we're just getting started on the topic of photography in Norway. This is new entry patrolling gone berserk, and you've just wasted a lot of people's time and causes unnecessary annoyance. --Leifern 11:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. See the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian photographers page for my main response.

Incidentally, I was involved in stub sorting and not new entry patrolling when I created the article. Stifle 14:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Guide to the Territories of Halla

Why did you change the name of the author on my page from "D.J. MacHale, which was right, to "Des MacHale"? Looking at your discussions, I would assume that you like causing trouble.... Link9er 14:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry, this was a mistake by me, I got two people mixed up. Please accept my apologies. However, I do not "like causing trouble" and resent your accusation. Stifle 14:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Luas smartcard

Well, I was plucking around WP today, and stumbled upon this discussion, and it seems like there are people that tend to agree with you, and I thought it was only fair to mention that to you. So if you change Luas back, I won't touch it. And (not that you seek my approval), but I've noticed your comments around WP (mostly at AfD), and I do respect your opinion.--Esprit15d 21:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Closing the vote for James M. Ryan

I noticed that the James M. Ryan article still had the AfD notice at the top although you had closed the vote (guess you must have missed it), so I went ahead and removed it. Just FYI. --DavidConrad 02:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup. My bad. Thanks. Stifle 08:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

HanWorks Research

Thanks for your message. Please bear with me though, I'm pretty new and it'll take me some time before I can learn all the rules and laws of Wikipedia. Thanks again. Jombo 06:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Tedious lists of songs that feature things

I just posted this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that feature a vocoder but I wanted to see what you thought.

Comment. List of songs featuring cowbells survived AfD not once but twice. I have to wonder, based on precedence, if this should be withdrawn? Not that I agree with keeping either. Thoughts? -- Krash 16:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Trying to see what a similar opinion might have to say about the situation. Not sure if listing that other article for deletion would be perceived as good faith. I will admit that I'm fairly anti-list, but I try not to push that agenda unless the situation seems to warrant it. -- Krash 16:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jet2.net

No. If you found me voting as such in every AfD I feel your request would be more justified. Maybe spam and notability should be criteria for speedy. If enough users feel strongly about something, policy doesn't seem to matter. Application of the rules is highly subjective. I'm not trying to be a politico. Just sticking to my convictions. There are plenty of rules lawyers around here; there's gotta be some people like me to balance it out. -- Krash 15:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just think that it's unlikely to be effective. Stifle 22:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Seth Ravin

An AfD you participated in is now at deletion review. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Too many boilerplates

Heh, did you make that up just now? There used to be a "too many pastel boxes" tag but I think it was deleted. Quarl ^(talk)

I saw it on another page, but couldn't remember the template. The box I added is not a template, yet; I may consider making one. Stifle 14:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Berumen AfD

Hi, Stifle, I completely agree that we should not delete articles about people just because they request it. However, in this case most people want to delete due to non-notability. Could you consider the notability question? Otherwise I could write an article on myself and then immediately request deletion (and thus have the article preserved, as 'people don't get to demand deletion...') As the man admits himself, he is an amateur with one self-published book which has not received critical review or citations. If after reading the discussion you _do_ consider the man notable, then feel free to keep your keep, but if you end up agreeing that he is non-notable, surely you must delete -- Blorg 17:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I amended my vote on the grounds that I was being contrary. Stifle 11:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Nation

In regards to The Nation, please discuss your thoughts on the article's talk page instead of perpetuating an uncivil revert war. You will find that there are a lot of other issues at hand than just catering to a "global perspective". --Howrealisreal 02:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I did read the talk page. My opinion was that the only compelling reason to have The Nation redirect to The Nation (U.S. periodical) was that more American editors than those from any other country gave an opinion on it, resulting in an Americocentric view being imposed on the rest of the world as a supposed "consensus". There are other countries than America in the world. Stifle 11:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you might want to go back and give the talk page a more thorough look. Like I have said to User:Jtdirl, you are only obsessed with the surface phenomenon here and cannot see the depth of the problem. The most important aspect of keeping "The Nation" linked with the U.S. Periodical page has to do with the fact that over 200 pipes in various Wikipedia articles will suddenly go to a disambiguation page. This creates a lot of extra work for other editors and is ultimately confusing. You guys seem to be very outspoken when it comes to the "global perspective" ad hominem argument, but pretty quiet when it comes to sifting though and correcting all the broken links you'll create as a result of your opinions. --Howrealisreal 15:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. As an indication of my good faith and that I am not trying to create a revert war, I have started to adjust links to The Nation so that they point to The Nation (U.S. periodical). I will continue later. Stifle 16:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you not do this. The majority of those who have commented oppose the move made by Jtdirl, and any changes you make now will just have to be changed back later. Let's try to reach a resolution on the talk page instead of moving the article back and forth and changing links. JamesMLane 19:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe discussion on the talk page has broken down. These changes will not have to be changed back later - as it stands, the article is at The Nation (U.S. periodical) and there is no disadvantage from having links pointing there. On the other hand it is dealing with the problem that may arise in advance. The non-global perspective of various American Wikipedians is hampering this effort. Stifle 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that further discussion will accomplish nothing, then the majority position should prevail. Most of those who've commented believe that The Nation should be the article on the U.S. magazine. Please don't assume that your preferred setup will be implemented just because you've concluded that people who disagree with you are Americans acting on a "non-global perspective". JamesMLane 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, four people have suggested that The Nation should be the article, and three that it should not. Hardly a clear consensus. If we can't come up with something I will probably take this to WP:RFM. Stifle 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is no clear consensus in suppport of Jtdirl's move. Under those circumstances, the article should remain where it was for more than two years without objection. Would you agree with my suggestion on the talk page that the article be restored to its prior position, after which you or any of those who agree with you would propose a change at Wikipedia:Requested moves? I'm not sure whether your reference to WP:RFM means that you want mediation or if you simply thought that was the shortcut to Wikipedia:Requested moves. JamesMLane 20:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I was asserting that there was no clear consensus in support of The Nation redirecting to the US publication page, i.e. that it should be a dab page. My preferences, in order, are:

1. The Nation redirects to The Nation (disambiguation)
2. The current situation
3. The Nation hosts the US periodical page and links to the disambig page.

The RFC has not brought many new voices and I don't know if we can resolve this as is. Mediation was the suggestion I was making; I don't know if we can meet halfway here. Stifle 20:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggested Wikipedia:Requested moves because it's more precisely tailored to this sort of issue. It would probably be more efficient than mediation. The RfC brought in at least a few new voices, and a listing on Wikipedia:Requested moves might bring in more. I also agree with you that there may not be any halfway point that would be a logical outcome of a mediation. JamesMLane 20:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Last.fm TfD

I see you voted for deleting the Last.fm template per my post, yet my post is for keeping the template. Would you mind clarifying your vote? I didn't think my post had anything in it that supported deletion. — Mperry 02:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant to delete per Radiant's comment but ended up reading your reply and thinking that was part of the comment. I've fixed my vote. Stifle 11:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Seth Ravin

You voted in the DRV for Seth Ravin, and I wanted to let you know that the article is again at AFD: Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin 2. Thanks. -R. fiend 15:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teagames

Hi Stifle - this is on deletion review, and I'd like to inquire as to why you still wanted to delete even after the high alexa ranking note by astrokey... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 18:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to this at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Teagames. Stifle 08:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibbs Smith, Publisher

If you took the time to place the advert tag, why don't you vote in AfD? It is the direct text from their website! I originally put a copyvio, but the publisher's PR person said that they authorized it; but it's nothing more than blatant advertising, and further, it isn't really notable. So, one way or another, let your opinion be heard here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gibbs Smith, Publisher -- Avi 01:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought I had voted but the edit must not have gone through. I've done so now. Thanks. Stifle 08:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Bat-embargo

If you think the bat-embargo is not a stud, please vote against its deletion. I do agree with you, but by using that tag, I was trying to imply that the article can be improved rather than ereared (merging is a trick to get erased, the people who proposed the deletion did it once)--T for Trouble-maker 15:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My stub sorting is irrelevant to the AFD debate in my opinion. An article not being a stub is not a reason for it to not be deleted (or, indeed, to be deleted).

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:

You don't have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if:

• a nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.
• you agree with what has already been formed.

which I think applies here. I don't intend to vote either way on the topic for the time being. Stifle 21:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Donation Soliciting on a User Page

Hi Stifle, the user page User talk:Shanedidona has a image which is hotlinked to a donation page for the Catholic church. Do you know if this is against rules and if it is where the issue should be lodged? Or should I or an admin leave them a message? --kingboyk 19:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy prohibiting it. User space is pretty much unpoliced unless someone's blatantly using WP as a free wiki host. Stifle 21:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

more advise, please

thanks for the advise, but when you sais "consider not participating if..." were you talking about yourself or me? 'cause i actually did the current version of the article (without knowing there was a previous article that was deleted the same way this one will probably be).--T for Trouble-maker 22:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to myself, apologies for the confusion. Stifle 18:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No ploblem!! So nice to talk to somebody so polite! Keep it real!

AfD / Afshar experiment

Hello. I wondered whether you could please clarify your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment (2nd nomination). I especially hope that you will explain what you mean with a "verifiable third-party reference". Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have done so. Stifle 14:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Dear Stifle, The New Scientist article was NOT written by me. Nor the Analogue, nor the OE, nor the Independent, nor..., nor the book Schrodinger's Rabbits. They are all 3rd-party ref.s according to your view then aren't they? If not, why? -- Prof. Afshar 19:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I could not find verifiable third-party references as to the notability of the entire article. Stifle 23:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Here are some links to 3rd-party ref.s for you:

New Scientist Ediotrs New Scientist Article by Marcus Chown The Independent article by Marcus Chown Analog article by Prof. Cramer Philosophers Magazine

Cheers! -- Prof. Afshar 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• All but one of those are to subscription-only websites. The article by Cramer is enough to convince me not to delete; while I'm still not at all sure the content is encyclopedic I do not have enough physics knowledge to tell either way. In the absence of anything else I am voting a very weak keep. Stifle 11:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Z. Alexander Looby

Hello Stifle,

I notice that you tagged this new page for speedy, and I don't think it is one. I put this link on the talk page [1] which I think suggests notability. Would you consider removing the speedy tag? I'm going to expand the article in a while, and you're welcome to AfD it, of course. Cheers, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy that he's notable and I hope there will be some expansion. (I originally replied to this on Talk:Z. Alexander Looby. Stifle 13:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply from James084 concerning AfD (Funeral Folk)

Hi and thank you for your message concerning my Speedy Delete vote for the article Funeral Folk. I had actually attempted to tag that article for Speedy Delete but while I was editing it somebody else posted the AfD. I did not know it was appropriate to add a Speedy Delete tag to a page that a AfD had been opened on. Can you clarify please? Thanks. James084 15:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to add a speedy tag to a page on AFD, just add it below the AFD block. Stifle 16:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The rules, as you so mention, should then, be made clear upon registration, and when creating an article and/or comment. They are not. They become apparent afterwards, which is by far unsufficient, which is a likely cause of the many problems this site incurs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ukpcdaz (talk • contribs) 18:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

Um... what? I think you need the village pump. Stifle 18:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I do/did, but do you not think NEW USERS, should be guided towards it when they join, rather than after they are insulted because they do not know the full etiquette?Ukpcdaz 23:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill37212 left such a message on your talk page on January 25th to do just that. Stifle 16:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD closure tags

I'm not sure what you mean — I use subst:at and subst:ab in every AfD I close; I use a script to insert them automatically. Do note that my closure was way back on 19th September 2005, and a new debate was recently reclosed by another admin. (Plus, Template:Vt has been a redirect to Template:At for months.) -Splash^talk 22:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I misread the date. My bad. Stifle 08:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD: New Wave of American Heavy Metal

Thanks very much for the information -- I thought that there might have been a problem, but it is sometimes easy to get lost in the vast policy processes of Wikipedia. Sometimes the best way to learn is through making mistakes. I appreciate your help, and hope that it didn't waste too much of your time to fix. Thanks again! --AaronS 15:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed policy

Hi, you recently commented on bible-verse articles, and may therefore be interested in commenting about a proposed policy covering roughly 50 specific verses:

• Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of 1 Kings 4 and 5

--Victim of signature fascism 20:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to this on the centralized discussion page, with reference to WP:BEANS. Stifle 13:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

DC streets

An AfD that you recently particpated in has been recycled. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination). - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It was speedy kept before I could get to it. Thanks anyway. Stifle 13:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hi Stifle, I usually put the {{db-copyvio}}, but this was my 15th copyvio-article I've found tonight so I was getting a little tired.

I didn't know about blanking the page, but thanks for telling me!

--Snailwalker | talk 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)