User talk:Stifle/Archive 0208b

This is an archive. Please do not post new messages here. Post them at User talk:Stifle instead.

Image:Donna s4.jpg

Hi there, saw your deletion rationale on this. As you primarily contend that the image is of a living person, I have emphasized the point that the article it illustrates is of a fictional character (ie, that living person in costume/in character), much harder to replace or obtain free.

Please let me know if you still have a concern in this regard. Radagast (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The photo has virtually nothing that distinguishes it and provides no more value to the article than a free photo would. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Update :)

There has been a update on the Image:Tramzone6.png. The AMT declares it as public domain. I have contacted the issuer and they replied. I forwarded it to permissions@wikimedia.org... --Party!^{Talk to me!} 19:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs to be permissions-en@wikimedia.org (or permissions-fr@wikimedia.org if it's in French). Once the folks there have checked it all out they'll tag the image correctly. Thanks for securing a free image for Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The permission hasn't been accepted. Please contact User:Bapti to discuss the matter. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:G2bambino

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of G2bambino (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/G2bambino. -- soulscanner (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you may not wish to be involved, but you should know. --soulscanner (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mischa Barton

Hi, I did report the problem last night I beleive to the correct source. we are personally connected with Mischa Barton, and wish to add correct factual information to this page which will be substantiated by links. My understanding is that we surely have the right to do this, but we could not get past the first paragraph of the bio because it was immediately reverted. It would seem there are people monitoring the page constantly to prevent even the smallest addition. Surely this is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines? Why would we not be able to include that she is a stage actress in the first line of the bio? We have many details we wish to add, and there are also some factual corrections. We wish to edit the site today and will be open to any suggestions any one has as long as everything we write is not immediately reverted just for the sake of doing that.15:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Maniainc

Thanks for contacting me. Did you know you can type ~~~~ at the end of a message which will sign it with your name and the time and date?

There will be no editing of Mischa Barton for 10 days due to the revert war - it has been protected. In the meantime, why not discuss the edits you'd like to make at Talk:Mischa Barton?

Once the protection expires you are free to edit as you wish. Here are some pieces of advice on editing:

• Use the manual of style. Rather than "Film, Stage and Television", write "film, stage and television". None of those words are proper nouns so they should not begin with a capital letter.
• Cite your sources. Even if you are or personally know the subject of an article, material in Wikipedia is required to be verifiable. We aren't able to verify it unless you provide a source that everyone can access, whether that's a newspaper article, a website (which can be Mischa's website), a TV program, or a speech.
• Don't just revert. The talk page is there for you to discuss any edits which are not agreed by all the editors at a page.

Thanks again for your message and I hope you enjoy editing here. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, and I apologize for my unseemly behavior. As I was making several edits at once, I confess that I lost track of many times I reverted Maniainc's changes. Regardless, this does not excuse my use of the rollback tool. However, the user appeared to be (and still does seem to be) an SPA; my experience shows that they tend to either be vandalism-onlys or soapboxers, and usually give up after a few tries. In any case, I apologize again and will keep a more careful check on my rollbacking from now on. :) GlassCobra 01:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gillcloseup.jpg

I reverted your revert because you also removed expansion of the fair use rationale. If you want to leave the template, fine. But don't remove valid parts of the page at the same time. DarkAudit (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dorothyhale.jpg

You are requesting more information about an image, I have none. Should I enter some of the data from the Wikipedia entry? or add a link to it? EraserGirl (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know the author of the image, put that into the template. Stifle (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

but it IS in the template. EraserGirl (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't. I just put it in. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

funny I thought I had pasted it in from my notes. My bad. Mea Culpa. thanks for fixing it. EraserGirl (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Today, i went to the AMT offices in Montréal and spoke to a legal representative. she told me that Image:Tramzone6.png is under a full public licence or GFDL. She asked that i must secure the image, so i'll watermark it with the word SAMPLE. --Party!^{Talk to me!} 23:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Watermarking isn't allowed for free images, although you can put the text VOID or SAMPLE across it. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And you must STILL get the permission sent through to Wikimedia properly. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As you have once again removed the license warning tag without taking steps to obtain a proper license, I have no other alternative than to list the image on WP:PUI and make a report at WP:AN. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Alex Rodriguez

Hi, you don't know who I am but I saw you posted somewhere about editting wars and the 3R rule. I think I've been caught up in an unfortunate editing war with some other people on the Alex Rodriguez page. The page mentions his common nickname "A-Rod." Then there is his less popular nickname "The Cooler." Some people have been repeatedly deleting the less popular nickname even though it references some major mainstream sources like MLB.com and SportingNews. Some have deleted without any explanation. Some have deleted saying it belongs in another section. If they really thought that, they wouldn't simply deleted it. They would have moved it. This gives me the feeling they're simply deleting it because they don't like it. Can you do anything about this or offer any suggestions on how to stop this? I have commented that they should move it instead of delete it if they think it belongs better elsewhere but it still happens. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonbada (talk • contribs) 23:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can, can you take a look at the discussion page for Alex Rodriguez? Sorry to drag you into this but you seem knowledgeable about editting disagreements and I happend to find you and don't know who else to ask for help. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonbada (talk • contribs) 23:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, but I am not getting any further into this. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Further investigation

I investigated a parallel bus company that the AMT oversees too. It's the Société de transport de Montréal. There is a bus pass on it. Altough the image used is not the same, take a look at Image:Cam-may-2005.jpg. Even tough it's not the same company, the STM allows the AMT bus pass to be used entirely on its service territory. It has been uploaded on Commons and look at the tag. I feel like it's the appropriate one. --Party!^{Talk to me!} 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm tagging that for deletion on Commons. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OTRS ticket 2008021310019992

Hi Bapti, can you please send me the text of the permission for OTRS ticket #2008021310019992 (relating to w:Image:Tramzone6.png? Either on my enwiki talk page or by email. I need to see exactly what the text of the permission is. Thank you! Stifle 10:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stifle,

Unfortunately, I can't forward you 2008021310019992 this ticket per the privacy policy. But what I can say is that Party don't have a clear authorization.

What he says be mail "[Cette image] est publique. Elle est donc sous GFDL." ("This picture is public, so it is under GNU") leads me to believe that he is not fluent with licensing issues.

Without a clear permission on OTRS, you can consider that this picture is an unfree image.

Cheers.--Bapti (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That'll do nicely. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Parsecboy

The IP he was fighting with is a banned user who has been using multiple IPs to stalk him and undo his edits. Please lift your block. – Steel 17:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you prove that the IP is banned? Otherwise he is not exempt from 3RR and the block will remain. Stifle (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to be the case. See also the histories here where the IP user repeatedly removes a request, and here where he reinserts simple vandalism. – Steel 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That shows that one or more IPs have stalked Parsecboy, but fails to show how Parsecboy's edits were 3RR-exempt (which would require that they were reverts of simple vandalism, which they weren't, or that the editor was banned, or one of the other exceptions). Who is the banned user? Stifle (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to head out, but if you satisfy yourself that Parsecboy shouldn't be blocked because his reverts were exempt from 3RR, I won't object to you unblocking him (but his rollback bit should not be restored). Stifle (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I will unblock then. I would like to restore his rollback too but will hold off until we can discuss this further. Parsecboy's explanation of the situation is here. – Steel 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Stifle, I understand your adherence to what 3RR states, but I strongly believe that in cases like mine, where it was only a technical violation of 3RR (because you weren't aware that I was reverting the vandalism of a permanently banned user, although I must also share some blame in not knowing of that exemption), you should warn the editor in question, to give him or her to explain their actions. Just to let you know, this is what I've been dealing with since June of last year:User:Parsecboy/Labyrinth13 Sock IPs. He's been following me around ever since, using dynamic IPs to revert edits I make, and other general vandalism. I've added a note to the top of my talk page with a link to that subpage that hopefully will prevent this from happening again. Anyways, I don't fault you for not knowing, but I'd just like to ask that in the future, you give editors like myself at least a chance to explain themselves before issuing a block. It'll save everyone involved a headache. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, from my point of view you were edit warring over a page and have a decent contribution history, so you should have been aware of the 3RR. So, again from my point of view, there was no necessity to issue a warning first. Perhaps if you had left an edit summary rather than just using rollback I would have been better informed. You're welcome to re-request rollback at any stage. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is to just be a little more careful in issuing blocks. The initial edit I made at Alaska Marine Highway was to correct redirects from page moves others and I had performed to fix problems with forward slashes in the titles. It should've been clear that it wasn't a content dispute, just someone editing disruptively, and my reversions of said disruption. I am well aware of 3RR (having been bitten by it before, for the exact same reason as this time); I assumed that anyone who came across the incident would see it for what it was (as most usually do) and either help revert the vandal, or move on to something else. I generally do use edit summaries with vandalism that isn't clear cut, however, in dealing with this guy, I feel it's better to just revert him, as he tends to make dozens of edits (most of which should be apparent vandalism anyways) in a few minutes time. Regardless, what's done is done; let's move on. Parsecboy (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread (Betacommandbot and MickMacNee talk page)

Last notification (a bit late, sorry) about this thread. As you left Betacommand a warning, and it was that warning that initially alerted me to what had happened, I'm notifying you of the ANI thread I started on the incident (the incident really needed to be out there on the record). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Betacommand's use of bot on MickMacNee's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A question

Although you do not sanction the behavior, you issue a barnstar to the user who maliciously unleashed a bot? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

I don't condone the behaviour, but I admire BC's perseverance in ensuring compliance with our EDP. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

An even more curious answer, like his spunk and reward him, regardless of the blatant attack he issued? I don't know... FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

I thought I was clear enough. His actions in general are laudable; in this specific incident were not. I guess the juxtaposition of the warning and barnstar wasn't timely. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No kiddin' – just after a particularly questionable action, a reward was issued?! In a very brief check of the user's talk page, there were multiple instances of similar instances of testiness, this time, it simply "crossed the line." FWIW, I can sympthasize with his frustrations, but I still question whether he deserves a reward for tenacity. Bzuk (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

Nothing more I can say to this. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too, thanks for the talk. Bzuk (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

the recent anon block

The recent anon you blocked may already have an account and has been deleting cited text for months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Trulexicon troll/sockpuppet account

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.96.171.231

Take a look at the similarities of both the anon and logged in account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bramlet_Abercrombie#Three-revert_rule

By the way, the three revert rules does not apply to reverting a troll/sockpuppet account IMHO.

Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the IP we don't have a co-founder but an architect. The WP:OR was trolling and vandalism. QuackGuru (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not exempt from 3RR unless the user is banned. Trolling and sockpuppetry are bad but are not 3RR exemptions. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP said in part: am a former named editor, inactive for almost a year, scrambled password. I do not know but the IP could be banned or has been blocked or warned about such matters before. In your opinion if a person does not obviously vandalized an article it will count as a revert if anyone reverts it. I hope vandals do not find out about this. They could troll more articles and get people to revert and cause chaos on Wikipedia. Trolls accounts are disruptive. Before blocking the IP I would of asked for the name of main account and do a checkuser and find out if the IP's story checks out and then apply the appropraite block length. I do not see how you could apply a block without all the information. Do you think the Trulexicon is a troll account. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to do detective work and find out what user an IP is a sock of. They were both blocked for edit warring, because they both edit warred. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't know about Trulexicon. If you think he's a sock of someone, file a checkuser. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Stifle, I'm the anon. Your block of me was in order, though I ironically enough actually hadn't noticed I had broken 3RR myself. For the record, I am not a sock (never even heard of Truelexicon before) and most certainly not a troll. The implosion of AGF typified by Quack's response here is indeed one of the reasons I killed my account. Thanks for attending to this matter, and sorry for the resulting trouble and drama. 65.96.171.231 (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dendodge

I've went ahead and semi-protected this userpage. I'm letting you know because you declined the request, however, the request was acceptable per our protection policy. (Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection). Thanks, - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oopsie. My bad. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fight song lyrics

I have a question regarding the inclusion of lyrics in the articles for fight songs. Can they be there or not? In the past, you've removed them from some articles, summarizing "remove lyrics which, if copyrighted, shouldn't be on any Wikimedia site, and if not, should be on Wikisource". Nevertheless, there is absolutely no consistency on Wikipedia in this regard. Some articles include the lyrics (public domain and otherwise) while others do not. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion they should not be, and that seems to be the consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For the consensus, are you referring to this? I'm not familiar with how Centralized discussions work but it seems like it just petered out rather than being formally closed with a definitive decision being stated. The problem I see with that is, when I point other editors in that direction, they're just going to argue that nothing final was determined and they may even add to the discussion. My edit removing the lyrics from Aggie War Hymn was reverted with the argument that the lyrics are not copyrighted. Same with The Victors and, likely, others. (You may reply here. I'm watching your talk page.) →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think I'll close off the discussion in a day or two. There is a fairly clear consensus there. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted those articles back. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That gives it teeth. Thanks for the help and keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to weigh in on the discussion here? If not, I understand. I don't want to drag you into the middle of something. Thank you. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

article

thanks for your attention to Israeli settlement. i may request further help from you later at the article, just to help things proceed constructively. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors claim that repeatedly misrepresenting a source is OK

You categorize this issue as a content dispute.[[1]] Have you read the discusions I have had with PresterJohn and Skyring that I referenced in my original post to you?here on the article talkpage and archived User_talk:Prester_John#David_Hicks allegations I ask "Please tell me why you categorize this issue as a content dispute?" SmithBlue (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but telling me the same thing again and asking for a different answer will not achieve anything. I recommend further consultation with the community on your content dispute, either by way of a request for comment, or the Mediation Cabal. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not ask for a different answer. I explicitly asked "why you categorize this issue as a content dispute?". You are of course under no compulsion to share your reasoning. However to frame my request for information on your processing of this issue as "telling me the same thing again and asking for a different answer" is inaccurate and remarkable. If you have better uses for your time I do understand. SmithBlue (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All right then. I categorize it as a content dispute because it is a dispute (which I believe is common case) and because I believe that the underlying cause of the dispute is what content should or should not be included in an article.

I am sorry, but I will not be responding further on this issue as I have said all that I have to say. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and effort, I do appreciate your suggestions. I am still trying to understand how this can be seen by so many experienced Wikipedians as a "content dispute". Hence the request for information on your process. I should have worded my request more clearly.

User:Agha Nader at [|Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John (2nd nomination)] wrote "In his sandbox [1], he has a user box "This user is Satan." If you click on "Satan" it links to [2]. It states "One technique for managing conflict in groups is to set up one person in your faction to be a LightningRod, which is like a more intense, ongoing ScapeGoat. Their purpose is to attract all the hate and bile and frustration which arises, and to shrug it off. In the process, careful thinkers are not slandered, leaders are not distracted, topics aren't changed, and all that." Prester John implies that he is this Lightning Rod (what you and me would call a troll). We ought to see through this crap."

Found this today. I will seek further advice from Agha Nada. And keep in mind the possibility of 3 WP admins being correct that this is a "content dispute". SmithBlue (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Muffin top

Hi there. I saw your response to my request for unprotection of the page Muffin top in which you said "It would be unhelpful to permit this article to be created". I think you mean re-created as there was a perfectly well-sourced and reasonable article there before Cumulus Clouds decided to arbitrarily merge it (see this revision). Given that the phrase was awarded "Top Word of 2006" by the Macquarie Dictionary [2] and has received extensive coverage in the media, I don't see how the article is in any way unhelpful. Surely the correct procedure here is to restore the article and have it open to an AfD debate?-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 11:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your actions. I've restored the article to how it was before Cumulus Clouds merged it. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 11:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that Love handles has the same problem! I'll list that one on the WP:RPP page, too! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be less happy to unprotect that page as it's a poorly-referenced slang term. But I won't formally decline it on RFPP. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was protected because it was word-for-word identical to Central obesity and continually had the redirects undone without explanation. To prevent the duplication of this material, I requested and was granted protection on that page. Now JediLofty seeks to undo that change as he has on many of my previous edits so that he can argue it out in an AfD when this absolutely isn't necessary. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So noted. You can feel free to use regular editorial processes like {{merge}}, {{split}}, and so on to discuss and come to a consensus on the edits you wish to make. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Terran Federation

Hi, I think there may have been a little mix up, this should explain it all. My bad, sorry, I've never used this process before, didn't realise the links would mess up :) Ryan4314 (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Using the preview button

For which edit you were referring to, maybe some reasons exist. Regards,--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Uw-balkans

Hello Stifle, I just wanted to ask you again about your usage of {{uw-balkans}}. I think I brought it up on an ANI discussion some time ago, but I'm not sure if you saw it there. Are you using that template on users without specific motivation in actual preceding disruptive behaviour? I saw you giving it to the new Klungel (talk · contribs), along with a welcome, and it didn't seem like they had been doing any serious harm previously. Isn't that rather bitey? Or did I miss something in what they did?

As a matter of principle, I'd say we should use this warning like any other administrative warning: Warnings are given if and when somebody does something bad, to tell them to stop doing that. I'm pretty sure that's also what the Arbcom had in mind when they told us to warn first and then to apply sanctions. It's very confusing and hardly helpful for an editor to be "warned" if they don't know what they are being warned of, don't you think? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I understood it as meaning that users who are involved in editing in Balkans-related topics should be put on notice of the ruling so that they could not claim that they were unaware of it. User:Klungel has shown up and edited nothing other than Balkans-related articles in the last couple of weeks, so I was advising him/her that the ruling existed. However, the template is a bit bitey. I didn't notice your edit which changed it from a neutral advisory to a warning of previous bad behaviour and have edited my message to Klungel in the meantime.

If your understanding of the ruling is different, perhaps we could request clarification of the ruling, or come up with a better wording for the template. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's get this clarified. Of course, one option would be to split it up into two different templates, one completely friendly and non-bitey and simply informative, and the other a "warning" in the proper sense. Note that the mismatch problem works both ways: giving a "stop this disruptive behavior!" warning to somebody who's completely innocent is just as counterproductive as giving a "I'm not saying you did anything wrong" template to somebody who actually did. But note that there's also been the proposal of merging the whole thing into a general cross-areas Arbcom warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not opposed to that. Meanwhile, {{uw-balkans}} is now an AGF version and {{uw-balkans2}} exists for people who caused disruption. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page was not perceived as a message from somebody with great social skills. Please warn people when they misbehave, not by proxy. Your phrase "User:Klungel has shown up and edited nothing other than Balkans-related articles in the last couple of weeks, " is a misrepresentation, please check the content of my edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Klungel ) before commenting. Klungel (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Have done so. My original warning was inappropriate, but you should be aware of the ArbCom case. Stifle (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thanks! I appreciate that. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about "spamming"

Dear Stifle,

Thank you for unblocking me. I'd like to ask you a question about what constitutes spamming on Wikipedia.

I added links to an enthusiast website (www.microcarworld.org) to several pages that were specific to microcars and minicars. While I understand that Wikipedia frowns on links -- preferring that content be attached to the pages themselves, I'm not sure why these links were considered spam. (The clubsite I added offers resources that I believed would be of interest, and of value to readers of the pages that I attached them to.)

If I have a clearer understanding of why the links were considered spam, I will do a better job in the future of not stepping over the line. I read the Wikipedia page on spam, but I might argue that the links I attached don't fall into that category.

The following lines were pulled from the Wikipedia page on Potter Stewart, former US Supreme Court Justice.

To the lay public, Stewart may be best known for a quotation, or a fragment thereof, from his opinion in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it." Usually dropped from the quote is the remainder of that sentence, "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." He later recanted this view in Miller v. California, in which he accepted that his prior view was simply untenable.

It seems to me that spam falls into a similar category.

Contritely yours, Ed.minutia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed.minutia (talk • contribs) 04:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You can read the external links policy for details on what is and is not permitted to be linked on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reggaeton discussion

Hi,

The anonymous user keeps on deleting my references; he even goes to my 3RR complain and deletes my comments stating it´s vandalism (they were clearly distinguised by bold letters), and deleting my 4th revert report. I think he´s getting too personal about this. He insists on saying there are no references, when I have provided links and examples of lyrics (by the way, he hasn´t provided a single reference).

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=193005175&oldid=193004944

As I told, he deleted my 4th revert report and my comments, which were clerly differentiated in order not to make them appear as his.

I need you advice to end this up civilly.

Best regards

--Xareu bs (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This user has been wikistalking me for the last week. He's editing my comments on the noticeboards and refuses to sign, he's edit warring without providing references. I'm following the rules by requesting references and asking that he not edit my noticeboard comments. The guy has yet to post an actual ref tag. A little help here? 74.228.158.68 (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I signed all my comments; stop the references issue: please read them, and then we may discuss peacefully. If you want, I´ll give you a hand with the translation. What more references do I need?. Which is the problem about them?. The format?.--Xareu bs (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC).

I do not wish to get involved with your dispute. Please use the dispute resolution process. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, bro, won't happen again. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad

The picture of the Prophet Muhammed (SM) should be removed as it is not permissible or the does not represent the true picture and it may send wrong message to the followers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masudur (talk • contribs) 12:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please leave it at the bottom of my talk page and sign it by typing ~~~~ at the end.

While I understand your concern about images of Muhammad, it has been determined at Talk:Muhammad/images by a very strong agreement that since Wikipedia is not censored, we will not be removing them. You can choose to block the images for yourself if you wish, here's how to do it. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for the answers to some other questions you may have. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for your kind patience! Here's a reply! A free barnstar! Party!Talk to me! 16:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR Question

I appreciate you taking a look at the 3RR I posted on Zsero, and your quick response. I don't understand, though. I know there's a discussion going on at WP:ANI, and the actions of this admin are up for debate. However, I didn't think there was ever an excuse for edit warring, much less willfully doing so. Is there more to this than I'm understanding, and should I not have brought it to the ;;WP:3RR]] page? I appreciate your time. Snowfire51 (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You were right to bring it there. However, as the discussion of Zsero is wider than just edit warring, blocking him at this stage would be unhelpful. That's why I've deferred to the ANI. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the quick response. Snowfire51 (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...your question.

Thought I'd stop by to let you know I've posted my response to your question. Thank you for participating! _GB^T/C 15:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully that doesn't breach your talkpage rules on RfA messages. _GB^T/C 15:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I just don't want people spamming with "thanks for voting in my RFA!!!!" cruft. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind at 17:07 tonight (whichever way it goes)! _GB^T/C 15:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Justification of copyright infringement

An article that you have been involved in editing, Justification of copyright infringement, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justification of copyright infringement. Thank you. LightSpeed3 (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Carl the Intern

How do I create a subpage? Sorry for being a newb. Joe target (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Create a link to a page starting with your username and a / (like User:Joe target/Subpage 1) and click on the link. Stifle (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Stifle. You are the Stifleist. Joe target (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:User talk:Douglasfgrego

I have seen this user abuse the unblock template, go around his block by using an IP to edit, and he has already had a right to vanish request and came back 3 days later. The community is only so giving to such people. The right to vanish is granted to users in good standing, and he certainly isnt. That said, I wouldnt be opposed to leaving him a message stating that if he leaves that his user page will be deleted and his talk page will be courtesy blanked, but I would be very against deleting the talk page, especially since this user seems to be a sockmaster and it would hurt the project to delete that talk page. Cheers! – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to accomplish what we're trying to do along with what he wants. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to implement it, I have to go into work right now. I think a note saying that if s/he stops editing with his IP that in a day or so his user page will be redeleted and his talk page will be courtesy blanked, with the protection remaining and if we feel s/he has abused the right to vanish that the page will be repopulated and the user page undeleted. If you dont want to do it, then I can, it wont be until tonight. Cheers! – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It has since been courtesy blanked after an OTRS request. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR

1. Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
2. On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
3. On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
4. On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
5. On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.

Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As per the message on my talk page, I was away until today without internet access. I assume this message is no longer relevant but if I need to take action, please leave me a new message. Please file reports of 3RR violations at WP:AN3 in future and not on my or anyone else's talk page. Stifle (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Faraz Ahmad.jpeg listed for deletion

go ahead and delete that image. not just that one but all others, and revert all edits i did in wikipedia. i am finish with wikipedia. i will be very much happy if wikipedia remove my user profile and every contribution i did when i was a kid. i know wikipedia is good for nothing anymore. Farazilu --82.12.122.236 (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to exercise a right to vanish, you can do so. See that page for more details. Stifle (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)