Jump to content

User talk:Stifle/Archive 0408g

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Deletion of "Boxer Welfare Scotland"

I noticed this page was deleted, the reason being: "Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance"

Boxer Welfare Scotland is in fact a charity - one of quite a few rescue charities featured on this site. I would appreciate it if the page could be restored. If there is a problem with it, could you please suggest what must be added to the page to make it more eligible?

Thanks

Paranoid Marvin (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:ORG for details on the requirements which an organization must meet to have a Wikipedia page. If you feel that Boxer Welfare Scotland meets those requirements, please let me know, and point me to some references in newspapers or other publications where it has been written about. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Are this articles appropriate?
Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
Thank you. Now please explain which criterion at WP:ORG that this organization meets. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

I'm just a little intrigued by this barnstar you've awarded JzG. I'm always happy to see people receive these and I was just curious to the 'why'. So eh, would you mind sharing?
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 12:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an accumulation of service and good contributions in the face of tendentious opposition. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Any samples? Maybe I can learn a thing or two. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in particular, but look at his contributions to the arbitration process or the admin noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies; Have a groovy week. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(offtopic) Help on recovering User_talk:Jaakobou#Copyright_problems_with_Image:Tunnels_uncovered_in_Rafah.jpg, would be appreciated. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have proof that the images are released under a free license? Stifle (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Images released by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs are released under fair use guidelines. Using the Tunnels uncovered in Rafah operation should be linked in the Operation's article. It's basic fair use and the image possibly had an incomplete fair use rationale, but other than that (best I'm aware) - it should not have been deleted.
Thanks for looking into it. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (comment copied from my own talk page) 02:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Can't be used under fair use due to failing to comply with WP:NFCC #1. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning. I'm not aware that there a "free equivalent is available", but maybe you know something I don't? JaakobouChalk Talk 11:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A free equivalent could be created. Sorry, should have been clearer. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this material copyrighted so that creating a copy and calling it free is in fact a copyright violation? I don't understand why the image is not allowed while a replacement is not available. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like some arrows on a map. Seems replaceable enough... Stifle (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not being rude, but the deletion of this image is somewhat frustrating to me. To clarify, anyone putting some arrows on a map would be copying the arrows made by the Israeli Foreign Ministry and I'm not aware of any copyright free replacements existing. So I have to ask if you would mind raising this image to discussion in front of a larger audience? JaakobouChalk Talk 11:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The place for that would be Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. 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. HokieRNB (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Two and a half hours? I was expecting a DRV within 20 minutes. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre. 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. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Vereniging Basisinkomen

Hi,

Could you remove the COI-tag from Vereniging Basisinkomen (user:WLU who wrote the present text has no COI there) since a one-purpose account is editwarring over this? Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Same one-purpose account is now stalking me and starting to make disruptive edits like [1]. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Stifle/wizard/dispute. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (4th nomination)

Your closure was against consensus, and reflected your personal opinion, which, as you know, is improper. Moreover, it achieved nothing, as the names were simply moved back into the bulging main article. -- Y not? 14:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has not participated in any interation of this discussion, I think the closure reflected consensus, once you filtered out the statements ("votes") which either had no basis in our standards, or overtly violated those standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I vehemently disagree with, and request the retraction of, your assertion that my closure was based on my personal opinion of the matter. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
In regards to the assertion of "against consensus", I see a DRV has already been opened and will defer to that. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I decline to retract my accusation! J'accuse! En garde! -- Y not be working? 15:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Pagecount bot

Please explain your block of this bot, which was operating well within its agreed limit of 10 edits per minute. It is frightfully inconvenient as it takes a great deal of manual editing of code (or time) to start it off where it was blocked. Verisimilus T 19:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't me, try User:MZMcBride. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Iantresman

In reply to your note on my talk page: Probably. Could you explain what would be expected of me? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Having read the material at Iantresman's talk page: OK, yes, I'm willing to be a co-mentor. And, as I've said earlier, I support unblocking him. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Guys, I strongly urge you to reconsider unblocking this editor, especially in light of the fact that he is a member of a forum that has trashed ScienceApologist in the past. Why is he shown good faith when he has made a habit of attacking SA both on the project and off? Please reconsider this unblock. He has already shown he is not here to build anything, except his block log. Baegis (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope Stifle doesn't mind me posting a reply here. Just being a member of a forum wouldn't be reason not to unblock, I would think. I don't see any posts by Ian Tresman in the link you give. Do you have examples of Ian Tresman himself attacking SA? Debating of ideas should be allowed, both on and off project. I think Stifle's going to start a discussion at AN/I or someplace -- these things can be discussed there. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know of his account name so I cannot attest to any posts he made. But being a member of a forum that attacks WP editors? That is surely a sin. Debating of ideas reaches a point when Ian clearly was not capable of building an encyclopedia and only wanted to further his fringe theories. I think it would be insulting to the myriad of editors who had to put up with him previously to let him back on when he has already abused good faith to the point it no longer exists. Baegis (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
See, I can't find evidence that he has "already abused good faith to the point it no longer exists", and if this request is just a front to cause chaos at Wikipedia, then the conditions (1RR and probation) and reinstatement of the indefinite block will close it down. I'm all for giving people a second chance, especially when they got listed at editors for deletion and banned after five hours. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Fair Use of Image:S4Men.jpg and Image:S4Women.jpg

Hi Stifle, I'd like to object to your decision to mark these images for speedy deletion. At the very least I'd expect any decision to be delayed until this discussion is resolved. I am not going to argue with you over the specific terms involved in your said objection to these being fair use, however I'd like to point out that the omission of these images from an article about the specific individuals involved in the programme would "affect users' understanding of the article". Seaserpent85 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I really can't agree with that whatsoever. The images are completely irrelevant to users' understanding of the article — there is no need for people to know what the candidates look like in order to follow the article, and even if there were, it would fail NFCC#1 because all the candidates are still alive so a free photograph of them could be created. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have left a reply to your comments at this thread. --Sf (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Marking of WP:N/CA as rejected with no consensus

Discussion had been limited - partly because I was away and not around to provoke some. But fair enough. The question I have is, how did you establish no consensus? Did you look at the support/oppose !votes at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions? Or did you just base it on the wroking discussions on the talk page? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

More on the discussion (or the fact that the discussion seemed to have terminated), but I did take the opinions page into consideration. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's just a little unfortunate - I really got back onto WP today, and had just asked someone a question about this guideline proposal and getting the discussion going again when I noticed it had been marked. If I can re-generate interest, would you mind if I swap the tag back to the active proposal one? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much Fritzpoll (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Whence

You can go ahead and delete Whence if you must. I noticed on your user page that you're a Deletionist. I am most certainly an Inclusionist, so at least we've identified the source of our disagreement. Wikipedia has a fine article for Thou -- which can in part be used to justify the existence of an article for Whence. I will have to rewrite and resubmit Whence on a later date. -- Mattbrundage (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Permission

Could you show me the best "casual" message to use for asking for permission? Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ERP#Casual. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bosniaks

Please google haplogroup I1b, and see if it reflects Bosniaks texts related to genetics, such as highlights that Bosniaks are firstly of Slavic genetic heritage. Because the consesus is clearly dominated by one or more Serb editors with multiple nicknames. And you keep banning all Bosniak interests and everybody who this Serbian based vandal group dismiss. My advice, just read for a while about haplogroup I1b and you will see that Everybody says it is isolated in Bosniak based populous and drops amazingly when outside of their regions. Find some maps from gov based sources that do not generalise to nations, instead look at maps that offer higher resolutions and zooms. 77.78.198.147 (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you want me to do, but please see User talk:Stifle/wizard/dispute. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Way to Happiness

FYI, the second sentence of the WP:LEAD is also unsourced WP:OR... Cirt (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Monckton

My i ask why you are editing the users version[2] - instead of the original version[3]. Which (at least in the past) has been carefully vetted from BLP violations and other contentious stuff (because the user previously has done the same thing)? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I simply edited the version in front of me. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Its the simple answer ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Check the reference section on the first version you edited. The article was broken after the edit from Monckton. If indeed its him - we've had someone claiming to be his secretary, doing this in the past - as well as someone claiming to be Monckton also. In earlier cases it went to AN/I as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've protected the page. Irrespective of the COI or BLP issues, the edit warring alone is enough to justify that. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent attacks on me and on my biographical entry by Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen

Dear Stifle - I should be grateful for your assistance and protection against Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen, who has on numerous occasions undone edits by me of my biographical entry. These edits were intended to correct a number of libelous factual inaccuracies and unbalanced point-of-view comments which had an unfairly detrimental effect. If you are not able to assist, then I regret that the matter will have to be dealt with in the Scottish Courts, where I shall - if necessary - obtain an interdict preventing any mention of me from being broadcast on the internet by Wikipedia or by any internet carrier or service provider, pending full trial for libel. I stress that I have only involved my lawyers after making all reasonable attempts to go through other channels, and after having given several fair warningsProvided that a sensible solution can be negotiated, I shall of course stay the action. So I should be grateful if you would revert to me with an indication of whether or not you are able and willing to help out.

I should point out that, after I had completed a careful and fair and detailed revision of my entry, Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen reversed all the edits within two minutes. He could not possibly have had the time to investigate the merits of the changes I had made, or to verify any of the facts with me or with third parties. It does seem to me that he has not acted reasonably. Also, I am told that he is an enthusiast for the alarmist presentation of climate change, and that he has acted in a similarly unreasonable fashion in respect of several other biographical entries of people with whose opinions he personally disagrees. I shall be calling some of his other victims during the court case.

I should also say that in Scotland the judges regard the law as having a purpose: in this case, a due balance between freedom of expression on the one hand and the right of the citizen not to have his reputation unfairly besmirched by deliberate and persistent factual inaccuracies reinforced by one-sided expressions of opinion. I realize that Wikipedia does not like to be told that it faces legal proceedings, but, after you review this case, you will, I hope, come to the views that Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen has left me little option but to go to the courts. Your own intervention, therefore, is the last chance to put matters to rights. Otherwise, Wikipedia's lawyers will be hearing from mine imminently: the letter before petition is already in draft and is receiving their final attention at present. I have not rushed into this lightly: I have stayed my hand in the hope that something would be done about Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen's misconduct, but, alas, to no avail. - Monckton of Brenchley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofb (talk • contribs) 12:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The matter is under discussion at the admin noticeboard.
May I please remind you again of Wikipedia:No legal threats and that Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization domiciled in California, USA. As such, you may find that the courts of Scotland have no jurisdiction against it.
Can I please ask that you specify what you find wrong about the page Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, either here or at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley? Given the recent edit history of the page I have taken the precaution of protecting it from further edits for the time being.
If I cannot dissuade you from legal action, the Wikimedia Foundation's address at which process can be served can be found at foundation:Contact us. However, I must stress that editing from your account is liable to be disabled in this case to avoid prejudicing any legal action.
Thank you for your patience. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The other cafe

Hi Stifle,

The owner of theothercafe.com wanted me to publish a page about The Other Cafe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Caf%C3%A9) on wikipedia using the text from his website. I alerted him about possible copyright violations, so asked if I could license it as Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License and he was up for it (see the footer at www.theothercafe.com). Links to the blank page already existed though the SF Comedy Scene page.

Anyroad, this was my first wikipedia edit, and would really appreciate it if you could let me know, if there is any way to use text from his site to create an article. Or does it have to be completely new and unpublished elsewhere? Just so I can let my client know.

Many thanks,

Gwyn

Gwynf (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Text content on Wikipedia must be released under the GNU Free Documentation License. If you wrote it, it's fine. If not, then the original author must confirm, either by a note on the original website, or by sending an email to [email protected] to confirm this. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

preview page

dear stifle, I want to insert a lot of content to an article. but before everything is public, I want to show it to some of my colleagues. to verify and double check the descriptions, equations and formalisations. Therefore, I already created a copy of an article with a different name (preview) to add the content there as first. But this article was deleted by you and I read, that I could ask you some questions. And this is my question: how can I create a "preview article" where other colleagues within this research area can read and review it before the article is public for everybody?

Thank you for your answer and your advice Andreas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas.lang (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You should create it as a subpage in your userspace. See WP:SUBPAGE for information on how to do this. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Frantic

I hate to be rude but my article about a band thats been on the Warped Tour and South by Southwest seems to be pretty important for anybody who wanted to further understand and contact the band —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimlavalamp (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for people to "further understand and contact" a band. The band should use its own website for that. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
If you feel that The Frantic was deleted in error you can also file a deletion review request. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
you obviously have more experience then me, sorry to waste your timeJimlavalamp (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Kevin Weeks (author)

Kevin Weeks (author), which was speedied [4], and then prodded by you [5], is up for AfD [6], and you may wish to comment. Qworty (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_Eye_Honors

Hi, I'm curious about your deletion of the relatively new page related to the Cinema Eye Honors for Nonfiction Filmmaking. It was an A7 - speedy deletion - "that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". I don't remember the article in total specificity, but the Cinema Eyes have been a major development in the world of documentary filmmaking this year and represent a significant movement of filmmaking that is not journalistic or social consciousness-based. Here are just a few references:

http://www.indiewire.com/biz/2008/03/manda_bala_wins.html
http://www.indiewire.com/ipop/2008/03/cinema_eye_hono_1.html
http://www.pbs.org/pov/blog/2008/03/thoughts_on_the_cinema_eye_awa.html
http://www.ifc.com/film/indie-eye/2008/03/the-firstever-cinema-eye-award.php
http://www.thereeler.com/the_blog/cinema_eye_honors_open_wide_for_nyc.php
http://weblogs.variety.com/variety_on_the_town/2008/03/kudos-keep-eye.html
http://defamer.com/369688/
http://www.moviemaker.com/blog/item/cinema_eye_honors_nonfiction_moviemakers_20080314/
http://resources.renewmedia.org/2008/03/11/cinema-eye-honors-debut-in-new-york-city/

Full disclosure, I am one of the founders of the awards, but I do find it a strange "speedy deletion" - it wasn't like people got together in a living room and handed out prizes made of foil.

Thanks,
ajschnack (talk)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
Your creation of all those pages set off my conflict of interest and spam alarms. I don't think that your awards are notable enough to each have a separate page, and I'm not sure how many of the sources you mentioned are reliable — they look like blogs to me — but I think a single page for all the awards might work. If you want to work on the article over a period of time without risking it being deleted, consider creating a user subpage where it won't be deleted. However, you may wish to consider writing about your award scheme on your own website and not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm, blogs at PBS and IFC and Variety aren't reliable? indieWIRE is not a blog, it's an online news service that feeds to the AP. The person who created the awards pages was trying to build based on similar pages for other independent film awards. If you can re-instate the page, I will ask them to consolidate to a single page. Thanks. Ajschnack (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, blogs are not reliable sources. What one page would you like restored? (Just to be clear, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so the lists of nominees won't be included.) Stifle (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotecting Dean Martin

You know, the number of elephants has tripled in the last six months. Sceptre (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only guess that's an oblique reference to the episode of the Simpsons where it was mentioned. I'm not in North America so I have not seen the episode and can't comment. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Colbert, actually. Mentioning editing Wikipedia on such a popular show does open the floodgates... I think Snake Jailbird had to be protected a few months ago for the same reason. Sceptre (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Not denying that, but we usually go vandalism first, protect second. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject: Parliamentary Procedure

Thanks for signing on and I welcome your involvement. If you have a special interest or expertise please let us know. I noticed your admin work on 'cleaning' up Wikipedia -- I appreciate your efforts in raising the quality of Wikipedia! ~ Parlirules (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I wouldn't say I have a special interest or expertise so much as a lack of expertise in anything that isn't RONR. Parliamentary procedure hasn't caught on as much here in Ireland. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Hello,

Re your warning on my talk page, I'm just wondering if you know of several facts: one, that ScienceApologist is edit warring those changes in against the wishes of other editors. Two, that we discussed it on the talk page. Three, that his edit warring out of the word "phenomenon" is an extension of his edit war at WTA, which he does utterly against the consensus of other editors there. Four, that Parapsychology is a featured article, and edits -especially those which change the POV or which eliminate standard terminology (as with his edit)- should be discussed and agreed upon first.

I'm at a loss to see how removing such an edit of his is disruptive on my part. He is utterly outside wiki process, in which he should use the talk page if reverted, and abide by the communal decision process. Did you also warn him?

I don't know what process you went through to decide whether to warn me or not. If there is anything on the wiki, could you point me to it? I do see that you did not warn ScienceApologist for his disruption. I was only defending the status quo, and asking that edits be made by consensus. He was edit warring his changes in.

What I do know about you leads me to hope you are fair- I'm reading your posts to ScienceApologist's talk page here. So I hope fairness will prevail (: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the background to your dispute and I had fully intended to suggest that ScienceApologist not edit war either, but I must have closed that tab without saving. His editing restriction doesn't apply to edit warring, but I've suggested that he should discuss rather than edit warring. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, great. See, ScienceApologist is in a unique position, because he can do anything, and blocks just wont stick. Raul unblocked him over the objections of other admins and an ArbCom member, FT2. He sometimes refuses mediation even. So what am I supposed to do? Just abandon the featured article when he edit wars nonconsensus changes in? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that one. Stifle (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your comment as well to Martin and wanted to support the equal treatment of both editors in your warning. . In the last while, I find myself in a few places Martin edits and note that he has a tendency to tread where most ediotrs won't or don't have the courage too. I note that for the most part he maintains equanimity and civility despite the circumsatnces he find himself in, situations that would send other editors "screaming for the exits", and applies policy as closely possible as he can under the circumstances he find himself in. So, if its possible to give him a little slack, to take into consideration the circumstances, I for one, would feel things were fair. Thanks anyway for listening(olive (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

Stifle, if you really want to do something for Wikipedia, do something about SA violating his ArbCom sanctions on civility, as here [7] and here [8] [9] [10][11]. But then, he's the pet of great admins, so what could you do? Note that although his sanction is different than mine, he's really the one who is disruptive of the project. Just look at his edit history. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I will look into this but don't have enough time to do so right now. Stifle (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Someone else already took him to Arbitration enforcement, and due to the usual lack of being able to see the forest for the trees, he'll get off completely again. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mofb

The reason I blocked e-mail was because the user had been posting threats to other users' talk pages, and it seemed probable that e-mail would be an alternative method to continuing to make threats. Blocking e-mail is actually implicitly required by WP:NLT - note the bit about blocking "so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels", of which e-mail is one. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This [12] was a bit rude, don't you think? Try taking a look at the editing history of Monckton, and you'd notice that i haven't in fact inserted or edited anything on that page for a loong time. I've been involved in the discussions on talk though. And i can assure you that i'm not one to break either of those rules and guidelines. Monckton was in fact completely wrong about my involvement on that article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you were offended as I did not mean any offence. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The two of you might wish to have a look at WP:AN/I#Request for community review. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dance of the Dead (2007 film)

My Artcle on Dance of teh Dead was not Friggin nonsense. It's a real film, I even put the IMDB link. I saw it at the Atlanta Film Festival! Can you please undo that edit, and put that page back up.

User: whm2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whm2 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to some online news coverage or another way (besides imdb, which anyone can edit) to verify this movie. Stifle (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Sunrise 4A Region article

I would please ask why you keep on deleting my work on the Sunrise 4A Region high school conference in Nevada? I have given information on why it should be a part of wikipedia, including the fact that the conference is home to the oldest high school football rivalry in Nevada and has citations to reference this and that it is one of only three conferences for the largest schools of Nevada. If you delete this article then why do you not delete every single high school sports conference article on wikipedia? If this were the case there wouldn't be a separate category for High school sports conferences and leagues. Please state why this article is inappropriate for inclusion on wikipedia? Rik (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sunrise 4A Region was deleted under criterion 7 under Articles of the criteria for speedy deletion as it does not appear to be important or significant. The article also lacks any references or sources - "sunrise 4A" is not mentioned in the one news article that is linked from the page. If you feel that I deleted it in error it's possible to file a deletion review request. Stifle (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Burrard bridge at night.jpg

Hey, that image had been uploaded since 2006, why was it suddenly deleted with out any warning to myself as the uploaded? Usually I get a message from a bot or something asking me update the information. I had personal permission from Ivan Lam, the original photographer of that image via our facebook group? Mkdwtalk 04:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The image was deleted because the source page says "all rights reserved". If Mr. Lam wishes to release the image for use on Wikipedia he needs to choose a free license and state on the vancoolver.com website that the image is so released. Alternatively he can send an email from an address ending in vancoolver.com to [email protected] giving the URL of the image, its name on Wikipedia, and stating which free license it is available under. Just having permission to use it on Wikipedia is not considered sufficient. If you have further questions about image copyright please use Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Stifle (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your prior actions

This user that you previously warned, Gabef8008 (talk · contribs), did it again Diff. I thought you would be the best one to notify about this. Previous info is archived here. Cirt (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And again Diff. Cirt (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Reverted and final warning given. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning

Thank you, Stifle, for pointing out areas where you thought I was being uncivil. I have subsequently refactored these areas and I hope that you will review them to see whether you think that the refactoring improves the comments in this regard. I have also posted my thoughts on why I do not believe either of those comments to be particularly "uncivil" and would like to hear from you as to what you think about my thoughts. Again, the fact that you discussed with me and told me your grievance is very gratifying. I wish there were more administrators like you.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible SA, that thinking that Martin should be kicked off of Wikipedia and that some editors are braindead are opinions and like noses, most of us have them. Is it possible that from the point where these are opinions, and then are spoken that some hurt is given to these editors. Although, there are those who may like you feel an editor should be kicked off of Wikipedia there are those who think he shouldn't. All is opinion. Incivility is perhaps that point at which we beleive our opinions to be fact and speak them as such perhaps without the sense of how they injure the other editors, and in injuring another one of us, all editors, our community as a whole must by extension be injured as well. Should opinions be unspoken with the sense that they are indeed opinion and not universally accepted. Perhaps, I would like to suggest, with respect, these may be ways of looking at incivility.(olive (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
Replied over at SA's talk page. Stifle (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be talk of trolling and baiting here and on SA's talk page. I apologize if I seem to have brought any of that here on your page . My intention was to present another view to SA in a less than "let's hit you over the head with a two by four" style, but that may have been miscontstrued.(olive (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
Stifle, since I am currently ignoring the baiting of editors who are wholly opposed to reality-based encyclopedias, I would like to say that I would prefer in the future for you to speak for yourself. I do not now and will not ever read anything posted on my talkpage by people who act as uncivilly to me at WP:AE as Levine2112. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

MetaCarta

Why don't "top 100" awards for a company count toward notability in your assessment? Clearly, there are no more than 10-15 noted magazines that hand these out, so there will be maximum 1500 winners per year. This is from a pool of 150,000 small to medium enterprises, in other words less than 1% of the total pool, if that's not notable, what is? MetaCartaEmployee (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CORP for details of what makes a company notable. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for pointing me to this. Clearly the company passes the criteria, I added material to the deletion discussion page to show this. MetaCartaEmployee (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Protecting Zagreb

Since you declined the request for semi-protection of Zagreb, could you please offer me some other option because I'm not really familiar with an issue like an edit war with IP. Is there something I can do to settle it? Admiral Norton (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The page can be fully protected (but not semi-protected). Please see WP:PROT for further details. If you wish to request this, please list it at WP:RFPP (and not here). Stifle (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish National Teachers' Organisation

I've closed the DRV for Irish National Teachers' Organisation, undeleted as you can see. You asked for it to be userfied, but I don't see that that's necessary. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Costa Rica

Despite semi-protection being granted on the Costa Rica, yesterday some redirect the article to some dumb name. Is it possible to sanction this user? Mariordo (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please use WP:ANI or WP:AIV to report vandalism. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why Calligraphyuserbox was up for speedy deletion

It's a direct copy of User:Ehm1883/Userboxes/Calligraphy, that I already moved to user space, and of Template:Ehm1883/Userboxes/Calligraphy, which I have marked for speedy. I didn't see the point of having two identical boxes in the same user space. -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Deleted. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penryn college

I have improved and referenced the article, perhaps you could take another look. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree the schools notability question hasn't ever gained consensus, but this one does seem to be one of the top few in Cornwall. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection of Sri Lankan Civil War and the Battle of the forward defence lines

You said you coudln't find a discussion agreeing on the resolution of the edit war in those two articles. Because we reached a consensus on our personal talk pages. Check here and here. Hope it is enough, so we can continue with our edits. (Top Gun)

 Done Stifle (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle/Archive_0408g&oldid=1146034060"