User talk:Stifle/Archive 0806b

This page is an archive. Please post new messages on the main talk page. Feel free to copy posts from here back to that page if they are relevant.

Derek Smart RFC[edit]

I would certainly certify that. It's overdue. Nandesuka 23:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does the process entail?--Beaker342 00:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would just need to read and sign that you agree that you have tried and failed to resolve the dispute. I will let you know when it is ready. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Supreme Cmdr is now ready. Please review, and sign if you agree. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LTTE[edit]

Hi Stifle , I am glad you have protected the LTTE page. However the following sentence states that Janes defence weekly, Amnesty International , HRW, Canada, US , EU, India and the UN have accused the LTTE of certain wrongs because they need satisfaction from child-sex tourism

pro-government countries that need satisfaction from child-sex tourism have accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing[5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000[6], narco-terrorism[7], organised crime[8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates[9], civilian massacres and bombings (resulting in cumulative death toll of thousands of civilians) and assassination of elected politicians.

As it is not cited and plainly a libel, you may want to consider removing it. Ruchiraw 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, each of those claims is cited, except perhaps the last one, which I have removed. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the citations which show the US and Canada and EU want satisfaction from child sex tourism as in pro-government countries that need satisfaction from child-sex tourismRuchiraw 23:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that seems to be missing too. Gone. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Stifle , I have gone through each article in the citation for "relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency". There is no article which mentions that child sex tourism is a foreign currency earner for Sri Lankan government. it is illegal in Sri Lanka according to the following para from the source cited in the article. This is just a libel dreamt up by some vandal.

CHILDREN - The Government pushed for greater international cooperation to bring those guilty of pedophilia to justice. The penalties for pedophilia range from 5 to 20 years imprisonment and an unspecified fine. During the year, 39 cases of pedophilia were brought to court and were pending at year's end. Child prostitution was a problem in certain coastal resort areas. The Government estimated that there were more than 2,000 child prostitutes in the country, but private groups claimed that the number was as high as 6,000. Citizens committed much of the child sexual abuse in the form of child prostitution; however, some child prostitutes were boys who catered to foreign tourists. Some of these children were forced into prostitution. The Department of Probation and Child Care Services provided protection to child victims of abuse and sexual exploitation and worked with local NGOs that provided shelter. The Tourist Bureau conducted awareness-raising programs for at-risk children in resort regions prone to sex tourism.

Who is it libelling? Stifle (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stifle , A user called Elalan who has not previously edited LTTE article is adding unsupported libels against various countries. Ruchiraw 23:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a diff for these additions? Stifle (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is the diff for where unsupported statements added http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam&diff=67897747&oldid=67890785 Ruchiraw 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the edit to

The Sri Lankan government (ranked 25th in the failed state index [2] and relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency [3] ) have accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing[5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000[6], narco-terrorism[7], organised crime[8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates[9], other attacks.

should read --- The Sri Lankan government, independent analysts and other countries ---- since the accusations are cited from Canada, UN, US, Amnesty, Janes defence weekly etc:-

Whom does the edit libel? Stifle (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Sri Lankans are libelled by the totally unsubstantiated suggestion that Sri Lanka relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency . The citation discusses child sex tourism but does not refer to it as a foreign currency generator , any more than child pornography is a revenue generator for western countries Ruchiraw 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer or legal expert, but I believe that to be actionable, a libel must identify either by name or by likeness a specific person. Therefore I don't see a need to further edit the page.

Your best way to proceed is to place {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the article and include details of the edits you would like made. Another admin will investigate and may or may not make the requested edits. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way edit to

The Sri Lankan government (ranked 25th in the failed state index [2] and relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency [3] ) have accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing[5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000[6], narco-terrorism[7], organised crime[8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates[9], other attacks.

is wrong because none of the citations are from the Sri Lankan government.

It should read as

The Sri Lankan government (ranked 25th in the failed state index [2] and relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency [3] ) ,other countries and analysts have accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing[5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000[6], narco-terrorism[7], organised crime[8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates[9], other attacks.Ruchiraw 01:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the template {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the article to request changes. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stifle:

Glad you protected this page. But just before you protected the page, a lot of material that is unprofessional and biased towards LTTE have been added to the intro.

Please consider deleting the latest additions by the users "Elalan" and "Trincomanb" just before it was protected:

(cur) (last) 22:32, 5 August 2006 Elalan (Talk | contribs)
(cur) (last) 22:20, 5 August 2006 Elalan (Talk | contribs) (more facts)
(cur) (last) 22:18, 5 August 2006 Elalan (Talk | contribs)
(cur) (last) 22:10, 5 August 2006 Elalan (Talk | contribs) (some relevant facts about GOSL)
(cur) (last) 21:46, 5 August 2006 Trincomanb (Talk | contribs) (proscription facts.)
(cur) (last) 19:14, 5 August 2006 Trincomanb (Talk | contribs) (rewording)
(cur) (last) 19:13, 5 August 2006 Trincomanb (Talk | contribs) (other edits)
(cur) (last) 18:49, 5 August 2006 Trincomanb (Talk | contribs)
(cur) (last) 18:49, 5 August 2006 Trincomanb (Talk | contribs) (minor edit)
(cur) (last) 18:48, 5 August 2006 Trincomanb (Talk | contribs) (added more facts of accusations of genocide by SL state)

Thank you! Supermod 07:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please place the template {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the article along with a brief summary of the changes you would like made. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a brief summary and suggested content for the controversial "3rd paragraph" that was modified just before protecting the page. I will state it here as well:

This is an article about the LTTE and the ethnic conflict. Like Ruchiraw and Realstarslayer pointed out, it is useless to talk about child sex here. Where does it says Government of Sri Lanka encourages child sex? It is problem in the whole world. Furthermore, LTTE is a group that has been accused of child recruitment to the war. Citations: [1], [2], [3]. Supermod 07:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC) I suggest that the current 3rd paragraph of the article to be replaces with the following:[reply]

Many countries (see list) have proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist group. The Sri Lankan government and the international community have also accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing [5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000 [6], narco-terrorism [7], organised crime [8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates [9], and other notable terrorist attacks. The UN has accused the LTTE [10] and the Karuna group (which the LTTE alleges to be receiving some government support) [11] of continued recruitment of child soldiers. The LTTE itself rejects this characterisation, and in turn accuses the Sri Lankan government of genocide and state-sponsored terrorism against the Tamil minority. While the UN or any of its member countries have not accepted that the Sri Lankan government has committed genocide or state terrorism , pro-LTTE organizations and individuals have accused the government of comitting genocide ([12],[13],[14]), an article written by an individual and reproduced by an independent human rights organization has accused the government of committing crimes against humanity [15]. Accusations of attempted ethnic cleansing have also been traded by both parties in the past. However only Tamils live in areas under LTTE control, while over half of Sri Lanka's Tamils and all of its Muslims, Sinhalese and Burghers live under the control of the elected government of Sri Lanka. The LTTE contends proscription by certain international actors is a tactic used to pressurize the movement to seek an unfavourable negotiated settlement [16], while the Sri Lankan government and some international players contend the LTTE deserves to be labelled terrorist, while it still uses acts of terrorism in an attempt to create an authoritarian mono-ethnic state [17]. Supermod 07:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferick[edit]

You might want to take a closer look at the protection logs for Kosovo. Ferick claims that I protected the article to stop him from editing. In fact, I unprotected it on 24 June 2006 and again on 28 July 2006, following agreement among all the other editors on the talk page; on each occasion, Ferick started edit warring again within a matter of hours. In each case the protection was added at following a request for protection in the normal fashion. I did briefly semi-protect it on 4 August 2006 to block a spate of vandalism from a user abusing multiple anonymous proxy servers, but unprotected it a few hours later when the vandal had gone away. This did not, of course, affect Ferick's ability to edit the article. Please reconsider your statement on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ferick. -- ChrisO

Just noticed that the most recent entry states "protected" - not sure why that is, as the article is most definitely unprotected right now. Check the current protection status for yourself! -- ChrisO 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded my endorsement for clarity. The page is currently move-protected, for some reason, but not edit-protected. You move-protected it on August 4th, probably by accident. Stifle (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains it - thanks. I'll fix that. -- ChrisO 00:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr Report[edit]

Thank you for not blocking me. Regarding your statement that some parts were not copyrighted, please see the 3rr report page. Thanks again. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I could not find all the paragraphs on the website linked. Stifle (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ajlaf on the other hand are the Indian converts and are considered to be of common ancestry..." See the last two sentences of paragraph three of [18]. Then the remaining parts of the same paragraph posted on Wiki are in the fourth paragraph of [19]. Anything else? :) BhaiSaab ^talk 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I don't think so. Thanks for the reply. Stifle (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stifle. Could you point me to the info for this 3RR issue please? Bakasuprman and BhaiSaab have been sparring for a while now, the subcontinental religious stuff has flared up lately and I have a lot of notices on my talk page (from around 10 people) to intervene in a range of disputes and it gets hectic trawling through the edits of a dozen editors every day for possible misdemaenours. Its good to be careful since in this region of editing, there have been a lot of bogus reports like "vandalism" against "opposition" editors in an attempt to discredit them (one person even asked me to do a checkuser to see if another had been using socks to award themselves barnstars !?!?!). I'm just wondering because the two guys were arguing about their blocks for each other and they didn't seem to show that either of them were correct. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a reply on my talk page would be good, as there is also a lot of related, overlapping stuff being discussed there already. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be at WP:AN3#User:BhaiSaab_reported_by_User:Bakaman.25.25_.28Result:_No_block.29. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Bollocks[edit]

Maybe it's time Wikipedia created a total bollocks CSD tag, as such a lot of new articles fall under its description. Attacking the article isn't the same as attacking the individual who created it. --RMHED 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several tags that already exist, like {{nonsense}}, {{db-vand}}, and {{subst:prod|The page is complete bollocks}}. Stifle (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed but Total Bollocks has a nice all encompassing quality that the others lack. --RMHED 22:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bint Jbeil[edit]

Ah, the thing was, the name of the article had come under debate (it shouldn't, however, be moved) so I protected the movability of the page when I unlocked the ability to edit. However, I think things are calm enough now to unprotect it fully. Thanks for informing me of this, RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I was just trying to ascertain whether you had move protected it by accident or just forgotten to place the {{moveprotected}} tag. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your message, re:copyvios[edit]

Thanks for the reminder! One question -- do you blank pages tagged with db-copyvio? The instructions aren't clear. Thank you! -- Merope 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is generally no need to. Copyvios can't be speedied after 48 hours from creation, during which time the mirrors are unlikely to pick them up. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moondance Alexander[edit]

I know that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. But don't just go tagging articles 'cause you want to. All and I do mean All information on that page is on imdb and/or Yahoo! Movies. --haha169 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted page ![edit]

You have notified me that you have speedily deleted the Dan MacPherson page, I would like to point out that I am trying to build this page as a historical record for others to view - There are many guitar players and collectors who could use this information as a point of reference and for their own interest.

This page is about the work I have done and who I have done it for. I beleive it is important to document this as it will be an aid to interested parties.

Regards,

Dan 19:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)~

Thanks for the message. In future, please sign your messages by using the code ~~~~ at the end.

You should be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a free webhost. Articles about real people who are not notable are generally deleted. Think about it - if all of the world's 6,000,000,000 and more people had a Wikipedia article about them, how much storage space would be needed, and how few of those pages would be looked up?

You can, however, use your user page to store information about yourself, although taking this to too much of an extreme could get you into trouble. Stifle (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not real good[edit]

at wending my way through all the wikipedia mazes, but . . . . . ...... it appears to me that you deleted an article called Connor Barrett on July 31, 2006. I was wondering if that was the case and if so, do you mind discussing it with me? Carptrash 22:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dbachmann has undeleted it out of process. I have listed it on AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Stifle (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to the original message, the article was deleted as it appeared (and continues to appear) to be an article about a real person which does not assert the notability or importance of the subject. WP:BIO has guidelines about when an individual is considered notable enough for inclusion, WP:CSD has information on when articles can be deleted without discussion, and WP:DRV is the normal place to go if wish to dispute a deletion. (Asking the admin who deleted it is also valid.)

If you wish the article to continue to be included on Wikipedia, a good way to do so would be to detail, in the article, how the subject meets WP:BIO guidelines, and cite your sources, which should be reliable. This way, the article will be verifiable. Stifle (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wikipedia links as to what should be included, i shall check them out, but here is my References section as it appears in the article and it appears to me to include some very solid sources.

Barrett, Connor (1980), Myself Emerging; A Book of Sculpture and Poetry
Who Was Who in American Art. Edited by Falk, Peter Hastings (1985). Madison Connecticut: Sound View Press.
Noszlopy, George T., Jeremy Beach, editor, Public Sculpture in Birmingham: including Sutton Coldfield, Liverpool, University Press, Liverpool. 1998
Mantle Fielding’s Dictionary of American Painters, Sculptors & Engravers. Edited by Opitz, Glenn B (1986). Poughkeepsie NY: Apollo Book.

Carptrash 23:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. My wife thinks that I take wikipedia too seriously and i wonder it i am not proving her right? In any case, I went to the first link that you provided and found this.

This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious) and Many Wikipedians oppose the use of this guideline. Then I discover The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion.

And so it goes. I'll look over the other links that you have provided because you were good enough to include them, but please keep in mind that with one jab of your DELETE finger you undo hours of my efforts. Carptrash 23:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.

Firstly, please be aware that just because a page is marked as a guideline does not mean that it can be unilaterally ignored, and most guidelines have broad consensus.

Secondly, there is a difference between an article that does not meet WP:BIO and an article that can be speedily deleted. Please keep in mind that thousands of articles are created each day on Wikipedia, and since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is not possible to include biographical articles on all of the billions of people who live or have ever lived on Earth. As a result, articles that have no assertion of notability (as in, do not make any case whatsoever for inclusion) are liable to be deleted on sight. We do not mean to undo your efforts (and in any case, archives of all deleted material are preserved and can be restored by admins), but please understand that without this speedy deletion policy Wikipedia would be hopelessly bogged down in articles about random teenagers who get bored in class.

Thanks for listening. As the vote currently stands 3-2 in favour of retaining your article, it looks likely that it will be retained. Stifle (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me and I am sorry that I became irritable so soon. I deal in sculpture history and many of the artists that I am interested in are not well known and in fact i see wikipedia as a way to get them better aknowledged. I am not a dealer or someone who stands to gain from this, it is just the niche that I inhabit for a good part of every day. Life is good. Carptrash 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC) . . . . ... P.S. - so . . .... where is the vote taking place?[reply]

It is linked from the article itself, just click the link to the discussion. Stifle (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Experts in niches are especially needed on wikipedia. Due to the rather aggressive nature of people who want to make articles on their girlfriends and garage bands, the new page patrol is also somewhat aggressive in marking innappropriate content for deletion. To avoid this in the future, you can work on articles in your User space, and then copy it to the main article space when it is ready. Articles that assert the importance of their subject are not candidates for speedy deletion. (The assertion may be questioned at AfD, but that is a deliberative process that gives you a chance for input.) Good luck. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GHe's RfA[edit]

Hi Stifle!

Thank you for taking part in my RfA! Unfortunately, it ended with a final result of (62/23/7), and with only 73% support, no consensus was achieved. Nevertheless, I'd like to thank you again for your support and better luck to me next time! :)

G.H e 02:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted page[edit]

Thank you for you message, I appreciate and understand your comments but although I am new to this I am aware that this is not a free web host - with respect, in my area of expertise I am a notable person with extensive first hand knowledge of my industry (which is verifiable). I am simply trying to give a record of the links in the interwoven network of companies that produce many of the UK's well known brands of guitars which will also allow me to link to many other pages connected with scientific research , musical instrument history, musicology, links to many famous musicians (and thier instruments) and many other subjects. My aim was not to write about myself, but to write about the industry. This is after all an encylopedia and i'm sure many readers could satisfy their curiosity by reading what I have to write and add thier own edits to give further detail to the history of British Guitar making.

MacPherson 07:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't want to put you off, writing about yourself is generally considered a bad idea.

If you want to create an article about yourself, you need to satisfy readers that you meet the guidelines for inclusion. If, on the other hand, you want to write about your industry, by all means do, but give it a descriptive title (like UK guitar history) rather than writing about it under your own name. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the sculptor[edit]

I did not mean to slight you: I saw a request that appeard to be a no-brainer to me, and I had no idea whether you would be online (your action in question was a week old). I realize that when cleaning out all the trash added to WP, you might become a little trigger-happy, and my action was not at all intended as implying bad faith on your part; I just thought you had made a little mistake, and I quickly corrected it. The Afd result so far, I might add, makes pretty clear that other people share my impression. Personally, I hope that this will not open the door to millions of 'minor artists' articles, but it seems obvious that it is the function of Afd to settle this. I see no reason to drag this to DRV: That would be unreasonably bureaucratic; Afd has the advantage that an artice may be viewed and improved during discussion. Finally, I admit it would have been courteous to drop you a note regarding my action, but as it happened, Zoe escalated the discussion within the minute. I was going to drop you a note reminding you that in all cases short of blatant nonsense, it is minimal courtesy to inform article creators of your speedy deletion, and your reasons. Remember that they cannot look at deletion history to see what happened, to them the article will simply have disappeared without a trace. If you had contacted Carptrash in this way rather than leaving him to fend for himself, I would not have felt I should get involved. regards, dab (ᛏ) 08:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that the issue lacked urgency - in an urgent case of some sort, it is reasonable to go ahead and avoid asking another admin.

As for notifying people about why their article was speedied, with CAT:CSD running a backlog of up to half a day, leaving a message for everyone is simply not viable. If someone goes to their ex-article and it is not there, there is a clear link to the deletion log for the page, where they will (usually, I admit I sometimes fall down on this) find a description of why the page was deleted written in plain English.

Anyway, I think we may as well let this rest, as it is becoming dangerously trivial :) Stifle (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]