User talk:StuffOfInterest

Sorry, I can't take your call. Please leave me a message.

Senator Obama

I am NPOV because I want an accurate picture of the man. Some editors are taking out stuff that others may find negative. My philosophy is that if you print the negative and positive of the man, you will come out with a positive impression of him. For example, one union endorsed another man then endorsed Obama. That's the truth. If you hide the truth by saying only the union endorsed him, you're not telling the truth.

Same with terrorism. Obama's anti war but anti-Osama. If you write only his antiwar but hide his anti-osama strategy, that is dishonest. Osama must die.Local667forOb 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Little context in User:192.147.58.6

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User:192.147.58.6, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User:192.147.58.6 is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User:192.147.58.6, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 01:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

9/11

Hi! I belive you know something about the 9/11 incident that the goverment of USA is hiding from the public! Contact me A.S.A.P! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.132.131.19 (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I really doubt this has to do with improving the article so I think I'll pass on contacting you. --StuffOfInterest 11:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:209.174.182.150

Hi StuffOfInterest, the above IP's frequently vandalizing page . It has already got 2 final warnings. Hope, you'll take proper action. Thank you--NAHID 19:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It looks like NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) got there first and dropped a 3 months block on the address. That particular IP has a long history of blocks on it. --StuffOfInterest 11:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

SpaceX

Stuff this is ProSpace. I am trying to help SpaceX. I think the 3 of us share the same goal (success for SpaceX). Can't we work together to help SpaceX? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProSpace (talk • contribs) 03:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No Hillary won't read wikipedia. LOL. but some low level staffer might. The main point is SpaceX is trying to change the meaning of the acronym to Big Falcon Test Stand. Maybe Gwynn mentioned it to Elon or something. If this is the case as SpaceX fans should we not help them? What do you think of my suggestion that we watch SpaceX discussions of BFTS in the next few months which they are sure to have. If they spell it out several times as Big Falcon Test Stand does that not prove the case beyond any doubt?ProSpace 03:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to learn that there is a major difference between article pages and talk pages. The talk page is where discussion takes place regarding what we are going to do to improve the article. One major rule there is that we do not remove other people's comments from the talk page unless they are clearly trolling or attacking someone. Comments should not be removed because they may happen to contain the word "fuck". I saw the same text in the article which referred to BFR meaning "Big Falcon Rocket". Just because it say that now is no reason to remove all mention of previously considered definitions from the talk discussion. --StuffOfInterest 11:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Image (Image:HRClintonSignature.png)

Hello, I saw you recently reverted vandalism to Hillary Rodham Clinton. I was wondering about the image of her signature. A wikipedian has uploaded this image under pd-self, but this seems wrong, as the signature would certainly not be the work of his own hand, but rather that of Mrs. Clinton; either that or it is a fake, in which case it does not belong. Since you are an administrastor, and you were recently on the article, I thought I'd refer my question to you. Thanks, Jerry 00:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If the author received the signature say as an autograph, then pd-self may be appropriate. Still, I'm not as well versed on image copyright rules as many others around here. I'd suggest posting your question over on WP:ICT to get a better opinion. Good luck. --StuffOfInterest 12:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It may also be possible the sig could have been pulled off paperwork. She is a Senator and those are public documents. Anonym1ty 14:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I'd say the copyright is incorrectly stated. Should be easy enough to check some of the other political signatures to see what is more commonly used. --StuffOfInterest 14:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OSCAR satellites

The chart shows that the first United Kingdom OSCAR was actually the NINETH but the text says that it was the first.

Bil Mesa AZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.120.123 (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no protection on the article, so please correct any mistakes you see in the text. That's what makes Wikipedia great, anyone can edit the text. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Naturism/Nudism/Gymnosophy

Firstly abject apologies for missing you previous edits. Particular the 25 August 2007 edit when you removed an image from Nudism- at the same time that I removed the same image from Naturism.

I read your user page as no doubt you have mine, and in many ways we have similar backgrounds and approaches. While doing the major edit this autumn I worked up the changes in User:ClemRutter/Sandbox/Naturism while posting my intention on Talk:Naturism#Cleaning up the article et seq. You may find it interesting to follow the logic in the Revision History that I kept as an Audit Trail. As Nudism was a redirect, I hadn't watchlisted it, and didn't notice when it was forked so didn't contribute to that talk page

The concept of WP:OWN is very interesting- and there seems to be a conflict with the advice given on having a lead contributor to achieve GA or FA status- anyway, without someone having taken a lead we would still be wallowing in the mire. I expect criticism, just not from this direction.

The way forward I think is to work up one page well, and invite the other page to transfer in any sections that are not covered- that page should then become a #-Redirect. This should be done in a Sandbox-so we have a proof of concept, before proceeding live.

When I did the autumn changes- I commented out text that I thought was low standard/inappropriate/derogatory so all the former pre-September Naturism is still there in hiding so as to speak. I have littered the edit with inline comments ( yes I think like a C programmer ). In effect 'all of the Nudist article is already merged. The new structure has the necessary hooks and handles for properly referenced sections to be added.

It took me many years to understand that the North Americans find the term Naturism almost as offensive as the Europeans find the term Nudism. James Woycke's book was very useful in this and explaining the sensitivities between east/west coast FCN/FQN, ASA/Freebeaches which are now not a European issue. Though technically a member of the CCBN- my thinking is FFN. I use both terms, taking care that I use Naturist when the subject is within the Agde definition, and Nudism when it refers to the act being naked. That's incredibly difficult in itself. In cases where this becomes impossible, then mention should be made of differing usage.

The mantrap is though we have an internationally agreed definition of naturism- there is no concensus on the meaning of nudism, and attempting to construct one becomes original research or POV, and the argument continues and nothing gets written. ClemRutter (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting in that I can see a lot in your writing above which supports my desire for a merge. I have no dispute with your rewrites and improvements to Naturism. I honestly feel it is a better written article now. My problem is with the still large amount of redundant material between Naturism and Nudism. These articles started out as one and likely 90% of the topic is the same for both. It should be possible within a single article to cover the broader topic as well as discuss any differences in definition between the two.

As for what name to call the aritlce, that is the bigger problem in my eyes right now. There were name wars last year which caused the title to swing back and forth. You can see evidence of it in the incoming redirects for both articles. It was during that conflict when Dandelion (talk · contribs) tried to bring forward Social nudity as a compromise. Obviously, that didn't stick. Please do not take my suggestion of a merge as any sort of attack on your editing. I just do not see the need for two articles where one can cover the broader topic perfectly fine.

Conversations tend to move slowly on this type of topic. The community of interested people is small enough that you don't have a large number of people checking talk pages every day. A couple of others have already commented, and with a few more days it is likely some more will contribute. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally support a merge, in theory: its just I can't see how to it. I had to have a starting point when doing my edit, so I could build a structure. The only internationally agreed definition we have to work with is one for Naturism, and some groups in the states who are unhappy with their national organisation, won't accept that. Further as the definition and the codicil were written in diplomatic French, there is more than one translation into English. (or Englishes).

• Looking at the options- Naturism and redirect Nudism (virtually what I would do) caused the last nomenclature war.
• Social Nudism- no. Nudism is a no no in Europe.
• Social Nudity- with redirects from Nudism and Naturism The Dandelion (talk · contribs) Solution- has mileage, and didn't work last time because it was introduced at the wrong time. The problem is how to write an article on a subject that doesn't exist. My last edit could happily be renamed, if only someone could write a strong lead paragraph and then- the term social nudity is never used in the article as it is not a synonym for nudism or naturism. (it is a container class). This could be sandboxed to get concensus.
• Nudism- no no
• Naturism- always get forked objections in the States
• Naturism and Nudism invites a fork, and introduces yet another page
• Naturism (US Nudism) hasn't been tested

Marc Alain Descamps does a good description of the differences but in French. Other references are given in the Naturist text.

The damage of this discussion is that it stifles work on the page, while experienced editors rehearse set arguments. I have put a TODO list on the naturism page that I feel that other editors should tackle, for {WP:OWN} reasons, and they have experiences that I lack, and indeed are influential experts in their own localities. I wait their suggestions. In the meantime, my edit is merger ready, and reading the source code will reveal further ideas.

ClemRutter (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move back to Tower 42

To try and avoid an edit war, I've listed a requested move back to Tower 42. Please feel free to add your views to Talk:25 Old Broad Street. Paulbrock (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done the same for Shard London Bridge (32 London Bridge). I have a bad feeling this is going to get ugly in the next few days. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Padan Plain

I would appreciate your opinion on the question of the best name for this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC

I've added a question for now trying to figure out what most English language audiences would know the region as. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice?

Hey, StuffOfInterest!
I am hoping you can give me some advice...
I recently made an image, Image:VG inflation chart.png, uploaded it to Wikipedia, and added it to History of video games#Establishment of the home market.
What I am asking is, if I added this image to the pages about each respective console generation, (e.g. History of video game consoles (sixth generation)) do you think that that be perceived as me trumpeting myself because I added my own image to like seven pages?
Could you reply on my talk page? Otherwise, I know I will forget to check back for your answer.
Thanks for your time.
J.delanoy (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)