User talk:Stifle/Archive 0708a

deleted page "Cathy Waterman"

hello, i'm going to be creating this page again but it would be useful if you can un-delete the article that you deleted. the reason was listed as blatant advertising which i don't think is a fair assessment. Cathy Waterman is a major and unique jewelry designer and i think she deserves an informational page included in the wiki-universe. i have been trying to compile information and articles and resources to include in the article (and there are many available)

if you can please give me an idea of what i need to do differently to have a page on Cathy included i would appreciate it before i extend more energy only to have it deleted again. i've read through the help sections and feel i was within the acceptable realm for a wikipedia entry.

thank you, Fab-ri-cate (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)michael (user name Fab-ri-cate)

That's fine, but the article described Ms. Waterman in glowing and hagiographic terms and that is completely at odds to the neutral point of view policy. I think the best thing for you to do is to use a user subpage to work on the article before moving it into place. To help you with that I've moved the deleted page to User:Fab-ri-cate/Cathy Waterman for you to work on. Please read Wikipedia:Your first article for more details on what to include (and, indeed, what to leave out). Stifle (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your quick and helpful reply! i understand what you mean.

thanks!Fab-ri-cate (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

hi there (re Srebrenica massacre)

hi there,

I'm actually not disagreeing with the warning you left me as such (I was inexcusably abusive, although in my defence it's very out of character for me)... however I just wanted to request that a warning might also be sent to the guy who is on the other side of this, given that he is completely ignoring my rather detailed (and comprehensive, IMHO) reasoning as to why what he's saying is rubbish. (For all I know, you already have, BUT I am just suggesting that deliberately inserting biased and clearly false -- or at least nowhere near encyclopaedia-standard-proven -- information into an article, and refusing to answer the charges I've made, should be against the rules in the same way losing your temper is).

Kind regards Jonathanmills (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not in a position to identify whether the information is biased, false, or a candy bar, but I have already left a message at User talk:Historičar warning him about the sanctions in the Balkans area. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stifle, I think it's time to stop insults by Jonathanmills. I am aware we both broke 3RR, and I am sorry because of that, but I don't understand so many insults by Jonathanmills in his communication. Historičar (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding [1]

Hello! If you do think it is a reasonable redirect, then I do strongly encourage you to also consider restoring the contribution history for at least the convenience of a possible merge as seemed to be suggested in part in Black Kite's close rationale. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the DRV is closed thusly, then I or the closing admin will be happy to do so. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan Cabal

I don't understand why you deleted Alan Cabal's article? The debate leaned towards keep by 7 to 6 and the arguments were strongly for. I know it is a discussion and not a vote but this is actually a pretty important writer. This isn't a journalist who doesn't become a part of his work and simply writes articles. Cabal is well known and his work is filled to the brim with his personality. I'm baffled. I get most people just don't know who he is and reject him, but that's the point of an encyclopedia. To learn about notable people. I would like to list this at deletion review, if you don't mind? Additionally, we put a lot of hard work into looking up references and vetting the article's facts. And I will finally finish off with: there is so much junk in this encyclopedia of non-notables, that I frankly can't fathom that a useful article about a flamboyant writer could be deleted. It's scandalous.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I explained it in my closing statement — the references just proved that he exists, worked for a newspaper, and was fired. No notability is established. As you say yourself, AFD is a discussion and a vote count is not relevant.

If you want to list a deletion review, feel free (and there's no need to nofiy me further, I'll drop by in due course). And equally, if you want to get rid of the "junk in [the] encyclopedia", please do nominate it for deletion. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. You didn't. His work was cited by a university professor as a favorite quote, and the same article was noted by Arts & Letters Daily which is a yearly record of important articles. What more, he caused a huge controversy about his defense of the freedom of speech of Ernst Zundel. That's just what's available on the web. He has a whole oeuvre that can be found at the NYPL's archives of the New York Press. On top of that we were setting the record straight by offering a NPOV view of the whole god damn Zundel controversy. That was something, this deletion is bad. I mean, Jesus Christ, why does one have to make these damn impassioned arguments when junk freely roams around here.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alan Cabal

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alan Cabal. 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. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Cabal

Hi Stifle. There were arguments for keeping and arguments for deleting Alan Cabal. The actual !votes for delete were 7, and the !votes for keep were 7. Your summing up doesn't show an awareness of this, nor of the convention that if there is no clear consensus to delete that the closing is normally "no consensus" and to retain the status quo. Your argument is that despite following policy that the topic is verifiable ("the articles provided as references prove that he exists"), that the references "do not confer notability", so you are closing on your interpretation of the guideline - you are, in a sense, getting involved in the !voting. There is no clear consensus in the discussion from which to make that decision. If anything, the arguments put forward for notability are the ones working as VS changes from Delete to Keep per the argument, I change from Delete to Keep, and The ed17 !votes for Keep based on the notability arguments. Would you look again at the discussion to see if a "no consensus" might be the fairer close? Regards SilkTork *^YES! 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a review has already opened. SilkTork *^YES! 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR#Taekwondo_edit_war-_and_expansion

Did you read the top line? I said this wasn't a simple 3RR case but that it was a case of edit warring.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

However, you only accuse one person disruptive and to be banned, which I totally disagree with. They did not technically violate 3RR or even 2RR these days and things are getting resolved by several meditators including you. The editor whom you concern is getting better in his manner after my advices to him in Korean. The false 3RR report to block him is bad faith. Nate. Besides, why did you carelessly redact Stifle's comment?[2] That is not an acceptable behavior.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you actually read what I've put I have stated that both JJL & Manacpowers are responsible and that I am becoming to involed to stay neutral. I have explicitly not filed a false 3RR report. Try reading it rather than making assumptions. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You said the both editors's edit wars are disruptive, but the statement from the top to bottom is getting tilt to Manacpowers. Before he appeared to edit the article, JJL has caused big disputes with other editors for several months. I think they're both not helping the article improved. However, things are getting better with the meditations. You did good job on that, and why are you suddenly losing your patience? --Caspian blue (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied at WP:AN3. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Do Your Research

I wasn't fired, I quit. That's been noted on various websites. This comment of yours is completely in error and defamatory in nature:

"The result was Delete on the balance of it all. The articles provided as references prove that he exists, has written some articles, and was fired. There is nothing other than tangential mentions, and as has been pointed out, they do not confer notability. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)"

Doubtless your shoddy research is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is such a notoriously unreliable source of information.

Sincerely,

Alan Cabal

al_cabal@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.5.173 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I will correct the closure of the deletion debate. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate speedy-deletion of 3RR

Good evening, Stifle. Would you please reconsider your speedy-deletion of 3RR? While it was deleted in an RfD back in Aug 2006, there was a subsequent RfD discussion in Oct 2007] which concluded that the prior decision was to be overturned and the page kept. I know of no discussion since then nor of any DRV decision reversing the latter RfD. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. There was quite a sequence of deletions and DRVs on this one and I didn't manage to spot the most recent one. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain/Albania

There is no reason to ban any editor when he or she is trying to reach a compromise. I have been edit this page for more that a year. I do respect all the policies in Wiki. All I asked was that a consensus to be reached before we edit or revert anything. I am Albanian and I know the history of my country. Besides Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, which have left their cultural mark in Albania, no Serb have left neither cultural mark nor any ruins. They did not build anything in Albania. Greeks, Romans, Byzantines (Bulgarians=???, Serbians=???) It’s a bogus sentence.

• Anyway,I know that admin do not change their minds,but I think you should had spend a little time before you use your tools(left side on ur screen).Have a great day.--Taulant23 (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I banned you from Albania because you, among other users, were causing disruption to the page. You can appeal it to the arbitration committee if you wish. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

On the photograph of Charles Wheeler (journalist)

Dear Stifle, I have just uploaded a photograph of Charles Wheeler [3]. I hope the copy-right statement that I have attached to it is fine; I have derived it from the statement of the photograph of Vernon Scannell that you have approved of sometimes ago. Kind regards, --BF 16:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC).

The same as above for the photograph of Mehrdad Bahar. --BF 23:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

They both seem to be in order. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --BF 12:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)