User talk:Stifle/Archive 0308

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Your message on my talk page

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) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already placed a message at WP:AN3, but it was removed.
My message you moved to my talk page - is still relevant. Therefore:
Please undo the current version - being the fourth revert which violates 3RR.
No need to warn the user who has made the fourth version, 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) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is protected, therefore per the protection policy it should not be changed, even by an admin, without good reason. See Wikipedia:PROT#Content_disputes. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. If you can gather consensus for the change at the talk page, then place {{editprotected}} there with details of the change. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Good reason"? that's right, and in my opinion (which you are allowed to reject): being a fourth revert which violates 3RR - is a "good reason" for undoing the fourth revert (of course you're allowed to reject my opinion).
I have already placed {{editprotected}} on the article talk page, but unfortunately it was removed again.
You're not obligated to fulfil my request, but I think it's a legitimate (well based) request.
Have a nice day.

Eliko (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Direct Action Day(protect request)

Hi, you have recently declined the request to "protect" the article. I kind of knew that will the result. What do you think should be my action regarding these changes? I dont want to start an edit war and I know, if I make any changes, this guy is going to come tomorrow and start revarting. He keeps calling me sockpuppet of some Hkelker. After researching, I learnt he was a disruptive user who got banned and created hungreds of sockpuppets. I will appreciate your sujestions. Thanks.Sumanch (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You should seek a third opinion or use dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

re WARNING

Cheers: I was puzzled by your warning as the only edit war I have recently been involved in was resolved with my opponent (User:Ijanderson977) being blocked for 24 hours. Does your warning have anything to do with that? Or is this just one of user:Dbachmann's jokes?, best, --Camptown (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It was to do with this issue and has nothing to do with User:Dbachmann. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that issue was certainly resolved, and I had no idea that he came back to report me the following day. He seems to be a decent editor, though... --Camptown (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

HISTORY

G&D's,the original shop was founded in 1992 by and George Stroup and Davis Roberts, thus the name of the café. Both were recent master's degree graduates of Oxford University at the time. After some initial growing pains, the shop in Little Clarendon Street, whose main product was homemade ice creams, eventually included other offerings such as quality coffees, brownies, chocolate cake, bagels and other items.

In 2001 Stroup and his team (Roberts was no longer associated with the company), opened George and Danver's, a second shop on the corner of Pembroke Street and St Aldates (opposite Christ Church College and adjacent to Pembroke College). This shop complements the original and has more space, a larger service area, and a more accessible location for many, especially tourists and those that live in south Oxford. In December 2007 the G&D's Team opened its latest shop, George & Delila, on Cowley Road in Oxford.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.63.135 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Um... what? Stifle (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is unsourced and challenged material that the user in question has been repeatedly trying to add to the G&D's article. The style of the additions are similar to those a few months ago by User:Enverite and User:PeaceThruSuperiorFirepower, one of whom is now blocked as a probable sockpuppet of the other. It also seems likely that the user has a conflict of interest. All the best, Stannered (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, Stifle, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RevertWar Warning

You have warned me about a 'revert war'. The Rob Bell page, which falls under the exemption from the 3-revert rule because it is a wp:blp, is currently being reverted to a months-old version by an anon user at Liberty University using multiple IP addresses as sock-puppets to evert the 3RR. I am simply trying to prevent 50-70 edits from being wiped out and having multiple erroneous/violatory (wp:blp, wp:v, wp:coat, wp:nor items previously removed from being re-added. I've requested semi-protection for this page to prevent the anon editors from skirting this and refusing discussion on the 'Talk' page.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Those reverts are not exempted. The exemption is only for edits which add unsourced negative information. Thanks for understanding. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Those reverts SHOULD be exempted then, as the edits were adding months-old versions (wiping out information/formatting added in the interventing months) with unsourced (blog-sourced) negative information.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI - I have requested a semi-protect on the page, as for months last year this page (and several associated with it) were the targets of IP-anon editors trying to insert unsourced (blog-sourced) defamatory content. If you examine my 3 reverts, every time is was reverting back to the recent version and away from a version that was, itself, a revert to a months-old version which wiped out months of work during the intervening time.--Lyonscc (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Image

I have purged the cache, but I still see the old image on the page Meda (MI). First, do you see the new one? You can recognise it through the words "CITTA' DI MEDA" on top. If not, can you please try to substitute it with Image:Meda-Stemma-New.jpg? If possible and necessary, please answer me here Thanks, --DoppioM 18:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the same for me. I do not know any other way to change this. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Webhamster Block

His edits are being very disruptive again, on anti-Americanism. You blocked him yesterday I think. Rachel63 (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reminded him not to edit war. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

re Image of pig Salome Yokum

Hi Stifle: Thanks for your reply to my comment HERE.

I've added a followup question; please take a look at it. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your protection of my talk page

I believe your protection of my talk page was inappropriate. As it turned out, the one question that I was asking it was noted above, that my block is a "only a 24-hour cooling-off block" - however Wikipedia:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks clearly notes that Brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation. - how can I be given a "cooling-off block" when such blocks are should not be used? was correct, and the admin who made that note admitted his error.

I'm not sure why you didn't point out his error, but instead ignored my question, and shut down my ability to communicate. This isn't correct, and I ask that not take part in this type of process, unless you are going to do it properly or seriously. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not ignore your question, rather I determined that the three admins who already declined to reverse your block were correct and protected your talk page as warned by the unblock template. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 09:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to as how you determined the block was correct, as at the time you reviewed it, the justification for the block was my block is a "only a 24-hour cooling-off block" - however Wikipedia:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks clearly notes that such blocks should not be used? Nfitz (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Were you going to respond? Nfitz (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring

I requested semi-protection because some accounts partaking in meatpuppetry kept inserting unsourced data and bad grammer to Cell (Dragon Ball). Please read the bottom of this. And in case you were unaware, I was not warring, simply unreferenced, sloppy edits were being added to the article and I reverted each time. What else am I to do? Let people place whatever they like? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you are still subject to the three-revert rule. Wikipedia is a consensus-based project and if a consensus of editors is against you, perhaps you should stop reverting. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 10:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Weren't there exceptions to 3rr? For instance, someone was creating one account after another and using anons to add nonsense to the article. Have you looked through this carefully? Notice the logs and edits of those users. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The exemptions are listed at WP:3RR. Your reverts don't seem to fall into any of those categories. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding protections

Hi Stifle, I did respond to the comment you left on my talk page, but I responded over there. Thanks. Acalamari 15:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandals get on my nerves

I'm gonna take a hopefully-brief wikibreak, as this has been a problem for some time now. Vandals, especially when they unceasingly attack other editors, infuriate me to no end, and I seem to be taking it out on other less malicious users. :\ JuJube (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion

Please see User_talk:The_Evil_Spartan#Possible_3RR_block_circumvention_by_Gni. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved, please let me know if my action is still needed. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 17:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Youth United

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Youth United. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Extolmonica (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why ?

I ain't getting why the article was deleted? I had added 9 third party source for no reason. all the recommendations were based on the earlier deletion criteria. None of them has replied after 9 reliable sources were quoted except of Minimaki, who said "Same, as I already was watching the DRV discussion.. but since you added additional sources since my last comment, it makes sense, so thanks anyway"
there is no point deleting this article without any reason. just answer me one simple straight question: which wikipedia policy was violated this time? Thanx Extolmonica (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for your kindness in putting article Youth United out of its misery here! — Jeff G. (talk\|contribs) 07:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Ferguson-Cohen

Feel free to pull it back into the realm of discussion if you'd like.Balloonman (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Future article

so that implies that if i provide more reliable sources to justify the notability of the article, you will approve it?? Extolmonica (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the right or task of approving that or any article. I would recommend that you take some time to create a new version of the article in your userspace (possibly at User:Extolmonica/Youth United; I've moved the old version of the article there for you to work on) and include more and better references. When you have significantly improved the article, consider asking one or more of the editors who voted on the article's deletion to have a look, and if it is improved you can make a new request at Wikipedia:Deletion review for the article to be recreated.

However, I don't think that this will be successful. I understand that you are connected with the club. Please understand that your club probably is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page and consider writing instead about other more notable topics here, or about your club on its own website. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

that is exactly where we both share a point of conflict. I have been saying that this organization is notable, though not acquainted to people outside India. An organization can well be notable within a nation, as in this case. the news of this organization is being covered by National Newspapers as well as by the local dailies. The events and activities being undertaken are of national interest, though as this point of time it is not doing anything for global interest. You may not deny the fact that notability here does not refer to global notability. Regards, Extolmonica (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 15:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Moroch

I'm not gonna fight you (you do some good work); but notability is not contagious. Having a famous customer doesn't make you famous. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the company probably isn't notable, but all that's required to defeat a CSD:A7 deletion is a mere claim of notability. This low standard is intended to ensure that only the most clear-cut cases are speedied. There is a claim there (having some famous customers), so a speedy isn't on. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 09:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence protection

Hello Stifle. Please reconsider your protection to this article. The main edit warring user had been warned about an imminent 3RR transgression, and has just vowed on my talk page to stop warring. Will use talk page to discuss the disagreements. Therefore, protection is likely no longer necessary. In fact, this article documents a series of current events that need to be updated. By being locked, very important updates are being prevented. Thank you. Regards, Hús ö nd 13:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Can i ask why has International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence been blocked? I have not been aware of any disputes. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It was requested at WP:RFPP. I will go and have a look to see what is going on. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Now unprotected. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

afd

Firstly Stifle, WP:DTTR. Secondly, being that all those afds where from an anonymous IP, who was drive-by tagging I might add, they can't actually complete the AFD process. I directed the user to create an account. Those articles haven't been nominated properly, and such the notices are just disruptive to any potential reader and should be removed. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Despite all this, I commend you for going out of your way to help a user. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk \| Contribs) 11:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions on my RfA

Hi Stifle,

I just wanted to let you know that I've answered the questions you posed at my RfA. They were some pretty good ones, so hopefully the answers won't disappoint. Thanks! --jonny-m t 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Halibutt block for 3RR

I've noticed that on March 12 you've blocked User:Halibutt for 3RR violation at Republic of Lithuania. Could you link the 3RR report that led to this block, or in the absence of thereof, the 3RR violation? I try to mentor Halibutt, and would have tried to talk to him if I had noticed it sooner.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You will find it in the history of Republic of Central Lithuania between 16:44, 11 March 2008 and 10:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC); the report was at 3RR Archive number 68.

As he was edit-warring with you, I would have thought you had noticed it. Stifle (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I missed it - since I was not counting reverting disruptive anon's edits as 3RR (perhaps a bad habit of mine, yes :>). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

I answered your question. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AN3 block of Marc KJH

You beat me to it - I was about to block both, though. Mikkalai created the situation by hitting the rollback button rather than explaining the reason for the reversion. I'm willing to defer to you, though, especially since (and I realized this after I tried to take away the rollback button but the option wasn't there) Mikkalai is an admin. --B (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I did do a Special:Listusers to see whether he was a rollbacker or an admin and would also have withdrawn rollback in the former case. In this case I have warned him about the use of rollback - and he should know better - but am reluctant to block in the absence of an actual 3RR breach. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you know that we are obnoxious people? [1] --B (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was already aware that I am... Stifle (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

British Airways discrimination against male passengers

Hi, last month you contributed to a discussion in the British Airways talk pages regarding BA refusing to seat children next to men "because of the dangers of peadophiles". A few other people have also been kind enough to revert changes each time this content has been deleted.

Unfortunately it the content has now been relegated to it's own article, merely because Qantas/Air NZ have a similar policy, whereas I would have thought it was of such significance it still need to be covered briefly on the main page, at least briefly. Given the close relationship between BA and Qantas it is pretty obvious that they are likely to have similar attitudes to such issues.

Anyway, I basically just wondered what your thoughts were on the matter? Also, I wanted to say thanks for contributing to the discussion last month as it was rather frustrating being faced with people who couldn't (or didn't want to) appreciate why the material was so important and were so keen to get rid of it.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I will look into this, but do not have time to do so immediately. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks --Shakehandsman (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Love handles and Muffin top

Regarding your comments about my requests for protection of Love handles and Muffin top - I'm actually trying to encourage discussion - surely merging the articles without debate, ignoring what consensus has been achieved is what stifles discussion? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Who's ignoring consensus? Would it change if the page was protected, or is that just a way for you to ensure that the page doesn't change until you're ready? Stifle (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I just think it's rather poor form for users to keep merging the article when there are discussions (here, here and here) that don't (as yet) support a merge. I'd much rather have more of a discussion, and actually achieve consensus one way or the other before the articles are merged. It may be pertinent to mention that the Muffin top article has already survived the WP:AFD process, with a consensus to keep the article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muffin top). -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have left However whatever a warning for the moment. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: reversion

You are absolutely correct. I have apologized on the talk page of the user in question and I removed the warning. As you may have guessed if you looked at my contribs, I am using an automated tool to revert vandalism. I am not trying to justify my error, I am simply saying that I see so much vandalism that sometimes I lose focus. I am working on finding a happy medium where I can revert vandalisms quickly and efficiently without making errors. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Regards, J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just read the thing about 3RR's that you linked to near the top of this page, and I have a question. Around the time that Kosovo declared independence, there was no set rule on Wikipedia about whether things were in Kosovo or Serbia. As a result, IPs (I assume from Serbia, never actually checked) kept changing articles that said "Country: Kosovo" to "Country: Serbia". Because the US recognized Kosovo as an independent country, and basically the entire western world, and all English speaking countries I knew of at least didn't say outright that they would not recognize Kosovo, I reverted people many, many times changing the articles back to "Country: Kosovo". Since then, I believe the ArbCom has issued an injunction to stop the edit wars. I was never called out for my reverts, nor was I mentioned in the ArbCom ruling. Indeed, I started a thread at the Village Pump to try to draw up a preliminary guideline. (I think that the ArbCom ruling was the end result of that discussion) What I am asking is, by continually reverting those articles in the absence of any consensus, do you think I was revert-warring? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See {{uw-balkans}}. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keith Howard

What do we do? :) Rudget . 11:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Snap! (Change it back if you like.) Stifle (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. We'll leave it with yours, and see what happens after it unprotects itself. :P Rudget . 11:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Keith Howard

Reverting vandalism doesn't violate the 3RR rule. This is obvious vandalism. JuJube (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Which would be why I made this edit... Stifle (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No violation?

_{copied the almost same comment from AN3 and added some for getting a quick response.}

With all due respect, I think it is a clear violation on 3RR and civility. According to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Moreover, I'm getting a threat by the editor. Why is he free of any sanction?--Appletrees (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Answered over at WP:AN3. Stifle (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would respond that user : Ajjay has already been warned once by senior admin for violating wikipedia rules by requesting other users to block me, by asking them to do so in a language other than English, this I understood later to be against wikipedia rules, correct me if I'm wrong.

I would also request you to look at the discussion page of Islam & Sikhism and the view is that the article is written purely from a Sikh perspective and not a Muslim one and therefore lacks balance.

The paragraphs regarding the 10th Guru are made up and there no cited references - as a lot of the stuff on the Sikhism threads and thats why many of the treads are protected which has nothing to do with me btw.

Another example is when I tried to put up information regarding banned Sikh terrorist by US & EU Govts, groups I was harassed above for doing so in the Bhindranwale thread

The paragraphs of the 10th Guru Guru Gobind Singh were removed by me as there are no references and he himself was killed by the Muslim rulers of the time, but many articles play that down saying he was killed by a wound which 'may' have been the result of an attack by Muslim authorities, you can clearly see the pov in that. The article has no references to Islam and its practice with respect to Sikhism, so the reader cannot compare and contrast the two, thats why I added the info on Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to do about that. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

Regarding this - why on earth are you trying to threaten me, when I have only made one revert? Why have you not warned 90.196.3.244? Is it simply because I was the last person to edit the page (barring your admin chum Utcursch)?. From Annoyed 05:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn the warning, but please be civil to other users. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

About Islam and Sikhism

The current dispute arose because of disruptive edits by the anonymous user [2]. You should see his comments on my talk page.[3]. He wants to include wars between emperors of mughal india and sikhs, in the article. The article is about islam and sikhism and not about sikh and muslims politics. Further he added a lot of content in bigenning. The article originally started with introdution reading "Sikhism arose in a climate....." The first six lines were added later on by the anonymous ip address (one by me though), and do not reflect on realtionship, but contradictions (which is not the article theme/content).Kindly do the needful and revert the necessary content.Ajjay (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Even admins are not supposed to make significant edits to protected pages. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. If you establish a consensus for the edits you would like to make on the talk page, place {{editprotected}} there with the exact details of the edits and an admin will come along and change the page. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

AN3

I agree with your judgment, and I responded on my talkpage and at WP:ANI/3RR. Cirt (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Abusive attempt to edit war and silence co-opting the threat and use of an abusive 3RR report. Use of 'disruptive' as a magic word doesn't alter those facts.Mesplay (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have considered the report and agree with your side of things. I consider the matter to be closed. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Mesplay

Sir, I have good reason to believe that Mesplay is a sockpuppet of the banned user DavidYork71. Changchub (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should make a listing at WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. I am not familiar with either user. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, an update: Mesplay (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked by Khoikhoi (talk · contribs), as a confirmed sockpuppet of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You have added this template to my page, and I kindly ask you to remove it. I was not engaged in an edit war, but rather removing content placed by another editor that was not supported by the citation that accompanied the edit (he disputed the accuracy of the study, and put his personal opinion about the study into the quotation accompaning it). if you look at the editors account you will notice that all of his edits have been pov and disruptive in nature, while I have never had a template added to my page untill now.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

additionaly I discussed issues on his talk page (added templates according to vandalism guidelines) so I did attempt to stop the situation (and was called a religious nut in the prossess)Coffeepusher (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You may remove it if you wish (which will acknowledge that you have read it, but nothing else).

Reverts are only exempt from the three-revert rule in a very limited and specific set of circumstances. Uncited edits are not one of those circumstances except where they are negative and added to a biography of a living person. The three-revert rule is very specifically intended to stop bland reverting as an editing method, even with the best of intentions. Stifle (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

i read your comment, and appriciate it. however I do think that in this situation applying the 3RR rule to my edits (or even giving me a template) is in poor spirit. the sentance origionaly stated that "evidance has been found to support the use of Alcoholics Anonymous in treatment (paraphrase)" and it came with a citation. it was changed to "there is no scientific evidance to support the use of Alcoholics anonymous in treatment (again paraphrase)" and the origional citation was left. I do not understand how this isn't blatent vandalism, nor do I understand why we should discourage its removal. In short it really upset me that I was warned by an outside editor of wikipedia policies while I was defending the content of wikipedia from a POV vandal, and feel that while the template can be considered technacly correct, it ultimatly served as a distructive force for wikipedia (I will be much less inclined to defend wikipedia in the future). I have no idea what I am looking for here, since I doupt that either one of us will admit wrongdoing right now, but I am sorry that this is our first contact with each other.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CastleHill.jpg

I have read the article on permission and have sent a request today to the copyright holder for an email with the appropriate language granting a GNU Free Documentation License and will forward the email upon receipt Jdgowdy (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, send it on to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and quote the name of the image. They'll check that the permission is in order and then undelete the image. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reckless Page

I was still working on my page and not even given the chance to fix it and it was deleted. I even had the "hangon" tag on it. It just seems somewhat unfair0025Paperboy (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reckless Youth Tom Carter was deleted per the criteria for speedy deletion, specifically #11 under "General", as it was an advertizement. The {{hangon}} tag does not provide blanket immunity from being deleted, it just requests an admin to check the talk page for a reason why the page should not be deleted.

On top of that, the page seemed to consist substantially of information from http://www.wrestlingclothesline.com/HallOfFameReckless.htm and could be a copyright violation.

In any case, the content you were writing about doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia; perhaps you should consider writing about it on your own website. Read Wikipedia:Your first article for further hints and tips about what to write about here.

Finally, having read over these guidelines if you still think I have deleted the page in error, you can drop by Wikipedia:Deletion review and make a listing there. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales protection

Why is there any level of protection on the article Jimmy Wales, yet there are few other biographies of living persons on Wikipedia that are so protected? Is it because you and Jimmy don't trust the "wiki way" to produce responsible, accountible reference pages related to living people, but you extend the courtesy of "protection" to those who are on the "inside"? It just doesn't seem fair. Like a Chevy salesman who won't let his family drive anything but BMW's. You seem like a hypocrite, just like Jimmy. - Six Eleven (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's because a hell of a lot of people introduce disruption to the article. Same as George W. Bush. If you want the page unprotected feel free to make a listing at WP:RFPU. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the speedy deletion of the Triforce (arcade system board) talk page

Excuse me, what do you see in that talk page? I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the page is now a redirect to another article and the only things on that talk page are project tags which don't need to exist anymore now that the page is a redirect. In which case, removing these tags leaves a blank page. I recommend you reconsider the speedy deletion of that talk page. Red Phoenix (Talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's deleted now. The reason you gave was that it was a talk page of a nonexistent page, which wasn't the case (all I saw was a blue link to the content page). In future, consider using {{db|talk page of a redirect with no relevant discussion}} Stifle (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

why??

You never warned the anonymous ip adress[4] for 3RR. He is the one who started it all [5]. Plus he removes /reverts reliable sourced material to add non-reliable sources. [6]. And i never indulged in vandalism. Ajjay (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you from warning him. By the way, comments like this are not in order. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

magic

Thank you kindly. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Paddy Lawlor

Are you sure that Paddy Lawlor was a valid CSD A7? I would say that being captain of a GAA club is a fairly significant assertion of notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC).

Not a two-bit one like Emo. Feel free to DRV. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC).

Quidam Software

Hello Stifle,

I understand why you erased the article about Quidam Software. It was too short, without references etc. But actually it is my first article on wikipedia and I don't know how to ask that the article is "under construction". Can you let me know please?

Thanks for your help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeptune (talk • contribs) 14:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and welcome to Wikipedia. Please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

Quidam software was deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion, specifically number 1 under Articles, as it was a short article with little or no context.

Articles on Wikipedia should generally be more than a single sentence long and need to include citations from reliable sources to comply with the verifiability policy.

You shouldn't put an article up before you've got these added, but if you want to work on an article for a while, you can create a user subpage and work on the article there, before moving it to the desired article title when it's ready.

I hope that this experience hasn't put you off and that you enjoy being a Wikipedian. If you require further help using Wikipedia, please place a message on Wikipedia:Help desk or just put {{helpme}} and a message on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to help. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Two users who are engaged in edit warring in the article has again added a bad faith kind message in admin notice board that they are waiting for article to be unblocked. This probably leads to another edit warring. I also think that User:RegentPark’s suggestion at the talk page can also be considered. But these users still want their pov to be pushed again. I think it is better to extend the protection or do some appropriate action. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The protection has been expired for just over 7 hours without disruption. If it restarts, I suggest making a listing at WP:RFPP. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war is happening because of blind reverts by Harjk. Calling something POV does not make it POV. It is a well cited section and Harjk has been revert warring and trolling without any reason for quite sometime now. Why should you protect the article after listening to a troll?

I can prove how almost every sentence of Harjk is misleading, but you will arrive at the same conclusion if you just watch the aforementioned page for a couple of days without intervention. As you are an administrator, I urge you to take a look yourself at the section and the report on the notice board. It is surprising that no administrator has taken any interest in resolution until now.---talk

I think this quagmire is one that I don't really want to get involved in. I recommend you try dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

:) I. Oh the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit... how thy caused me a lot of mental trouble.--talk 01:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You barnstarred-ed me!!

I am speechless with pride! (Someone mark the calendar; a speechless Gladys is a rare find, as my co-workers and cube-sharers will tell you.) Thanks for the compliment...those AN threads get so serious sometimes.Gladys J Cortez 01:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S....there's actually a town, an honest-to-god place, called Emo?? Wowzers. That's...informational. Gladys J Cortez 01:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's about an hour's drive from my apartment. And you're welcome :) Stifle (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion

Sure. This was one of the first images that I tagged today and I wasn't sure about my actions. I knew that there was a thin line somewhere, which you elucidated on my page. Thanks for the heads up. I'll bear such a thing in mind. Mspraveen (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

List cruft

What on earth are you talking about? Since when has astronomy been a "trivial subject"? Please read your "guideleine" carefully before making rash decisions thankyou.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Other than this, the lists serve as an excellent way to build content on wikipedia and to identify the notable biographies that are missing. If given time to develop I think they provide an excellent overview of people by country on wikipedia. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the {{prod}} tag to List of Slovenian astronomers because I think that it is a list which has an underlying concept that is non-notable. You should create a category for Slovenian astronomers, then if any of them are notable, add their articles to that category. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Slovenian astronomers already existed but due to the huge uneveness in knowledge as yet we only have one article but this isn't to say that no others are not "notable". Identifying what is missing is the most important thing we can do to develop this encyclopedia and plan for future growth and I am not the only one who agrees with me, many administrators and good editors have also agreed with me. Other than this many editors find such lists useful . I doubt I could have made 136,000 edits to wikipedia and not learned a thing or two about how to build this site ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If they're notable, create articles about them, eh? Stifle (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly this is what we plan to do eventually my friend. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/Slovenia and you;ll see the lovely wikiproject I got up and running dedicated to vastly improving the amount of content on Slovenia related articles. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't speak Slovene so if I start the articles they are likely to be small stubs until somebody can translate later, which is likely to attract editors such as yourself who will try to delete them and plaster them with tags. Not exactly an ameniable environment to work in ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you create an article about a person that explains why the person is notable and gives one or two sources to back it up then I'll be happy. Same requirements as for everyone else here. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that I'm actually closer to your outlook than you think. Plain lists really are pretty useless as an encyclopedia article. They are merely to provide a temporal platform to identift missing articles and try to build content to the best we can. Trust me I wouldn't do anything if I didn't think there was some way in which the project could benefit from it. One such example is the stub which may have appeared "not notable" the other day Jože Javoršek. Now check out that article ten days later. This is why I am bothering to do this as I remain optimistic these articles can not only be started but can make the encyclopedia flourish. You can't find fault in me for that ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

ICC profile & ICC Profile

Why does WP:NAME#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles fail the WP:CSD? Isn't this exactly what {{db-move}} exists to address? I looked at Help:Moving a page#Moving over an existing page. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask. If you want to know why I didn't move/delete one of those pages, it's because the request was made on the talk page and there's no reason to move the talk page and not the article. Stifle (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Just wanted to say hi it's not every day you meet a admin! Sexy Steeler Fan 18:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It probably is, actually... Stifle (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Preview Button

Thanks. Will do :-) Desione (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Those protected Philippine radio station articles

You'll have to go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pinoybandwagon for the full ugly story of the mess which this represents. Basically, a COI guy in the Philippines, with one or more each of sockpuppets and meatpuppets, has decided that every Philippine radio station has to have a separate article for each new advertising/brandname it has used throughout its history. He has rewritten the naming conventions for radio stations there; has moved, removed, deleted and redeleted, etc., until the GFDL history is probably a hellish nausea of tangled spaghetti almost impossible to trace. (I'm not even going to get into the NPOV and possible BLP violations in the articles he writes.) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that SSP page but it looks like a trainwreck.

I'm sure you'll unprotect the pages when it's all done; please do leave a comment/reason in the relevant field when you're protecting stuff again. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Landmark Education

Could extend the protection for the Landmark Education page? Issue at hand is still unresolved. Editor who requested protection not participating in discussion. --Pax Arcane 07:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the protection is still in place for the moment. If there is trouble when it expires please place a new listing at WP:RFPP.

On a side point, please use wiki-markup (e.g. ''') rather than HTML markup (like <b>) in your sig. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth!

Did you even read what I was putting on the Ferrum_High_School page you idiot! How about read the page one is writing before deleting the content you... I am writing for out sister school south-africa!

Please be less reckless in future! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capslock99 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end and remember to be civil.

Ferrum High School was deleted in accordance with the criteria for speedy deletion, specifically number 11 under General as it was written in the form of an advertizement. Feel free to rewrite it from a neutral point of view, adding citations from reliable sources to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me what wasn't considered "neutral" about the text???

Capslock99 (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire text. It looks like an advertizement for why you should send your kids to this school. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Look at Aquinas College, Perth for an example of a good article about a school (which was previously very bad).

Please note that if you continue to recreate the article with the same text it is likely to be protected to prevent its recreation. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC

I'm not make and advert for a school, i'm trying to make a page about the school and it's history for everyone to enjoy... i think simply deleting a page is a bit backward... rather a simply this is good and this is bad and this needs to be improved would be far better

Capslock99 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cazazza Dan Article Deletion

Stifle,

My name is Dan Garrity, my recording name is Cazazza Dan. It has come to my attention that one of my fans attempted to create an article about me and my music, but aparrently it was deleted because I am not regarded as being significant or important, which I find odd considering I have found plenty of articles on Wikipedia containing around three lines of text concerning relatively unknown baseballs players. I am requesting either the restoration of this article, a more detailed reason as to why the article was deleted, or perhaps even an offline copy of the article for me to view.

Thankyou for your time,

--Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.202.180 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Cazazza Dan was deleted under the speedy deletion policy, specifically number 7 under Articles, as it was an article about a real person which did not explain how that person was significant or important. It also had no references or sources and so failed to comply with our policy on bands and musicians and verifiability policy.

If you create an account and set up an email address, then let me know here, I will email you a copy of the article. Stifle (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What original research?

I never added any original research on the Bigfoot page-- not one shred.

Everything I added was cited from interviews with Jane Goodall-- the world famous Primatologist and Chimpanzee expert.

Did you even bother to read what I contributed?

Sean7phil (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It was a mixture of original research and unlikely synthesis of material. Please understand that while we value your contributions, Wikipedia aims to be a free, accurate and mainstream encyclopedia, and fringe theories and other unlikely stories don't belong. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Now That's What I Call Music! 70

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 70 (U.K. series) (2nd nomination) for one of the original AfD discussions. --fschoenm (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Now deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: rollback

Well, I am not sure if the guidelines surrounding Rollback are subject to interpretation, but the reversion you referred to was, in my opinion, fairly obvious. The vandal made a header nowiki and signed his name. Basically, when I am vandal-patrolling, if anything I see is vandalism, whether it is replacing a page with "f*** Wikipedia" or simply inserting one character before an infobox, if it is vandalism, I use rollback. I do not mean to seem like I am trying to "defy" your interpretation, but if someone is vandalizing Wikipedia, I see no need to take the time to give a custom edit summary when I get rid of their disruptions. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: talk page archive

Thanks for fixing that. I think I just accidentally used the wrong slashie,... ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability of "The Movies Online"

The article "The Movies Online" has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. J Milburn (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, blame New Page Watcher. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Stifle, in re: Adam Macdoanld

I'm quite curious as to your justification for branding Adam Macdonald as "doesn't indicate importance/significance". He is mayor of Newmarket, a town of with a population of approx 80,000. This town votes for their Mayor in a democratic voting system. As to say the oppinion and political belief of 80,000 (or 50% (if your counting a majority vote)) is " doesn't indicate importance/significance". My friend, are you a communist? Or a Nazi? Was this not the attitude that started WWII? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah's Mom (talk • contribs) 19:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to dignify this uncivil message with an answer. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Ooh, snazzy. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

for the * . :) NawlinWiki (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for the star! J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)