User talk:Stifle/Archive 0409

If your issue requires a response from me and cannot be handled by anyone else, please post it here, otherwise please use the admin noticeboard or some other location in order that it can be dealt with in a timely fashion. Thank you.

Please read the section entitled "RFA messages" BEFORE you post yours.

• Older archives
• Archive: September-October 2006
• Archive: November-December 2006
• Archive: January-September 2007 (you'll notice my Wikipedia editing dropped off fairly significantly this year)
• Archive: October 2007
• Archive: November 2007
• Archive: December 2007 (part 1) (part 2)
• Archive: January 2008
• Archive: February 2008 (part 1)
• Archive: February 2008 (part 2)

Talk

If you'd like to add a comment, feel free. Just click the + button next to "Edit this page" above (may vary if you're using a custom skin). But please type ~~~~ at the end to add your name and the date and time.

Note that problems which any administrator could resolve are best posted on one of the various administrators' noticeboards.

Protection and unprotection

If you have the capability to unprotect something, I trust you to determine whether a page I protected should be unprotected or not. No need to ask.

RFA messages

• If you've been promoted, congratulations, now go and patrol Special:Newpages or something. No need to leave me a message here, I participate in many RFAs so it would probably only clog the place up.
• If your nomination failed, or I opposed you, then I hope you've taken on board what you've learned. If you want clarification or advice from me, please feel free to leave a message, but otherwise there is no need.
• That is to say, please do not leave me RFA messages, unless you need a response. They will be removed. Thank you.

Email

I would much prefer you leave me a message here rather than emailing me. If you are blocked, then obviously you can't. If I blocked you, then email me (see the toolbox), but if some other admin blocked you, email that admin instead. (See Special:Log/block for more.) If the block was for violating the three-revert rule, and you are going to claim you were reverting vandalism, then first read what vandalism is not and an admin's view of the 3RR.

Linking

If your message is about an article, an AFD, or the like, please link to it. To do this, copy the main heading at the top of the page (like User talk:Stifle for this page) and paste it between [[ and ]].

Replies

• Please reply to me here if possible.
• If your message is about an AFD or other discussion that you want me to (re)contribute to, I will generally not reply other than by checking the page and adding a comment.
• Unless your message or your talk page advises otherwise, I will reply here and copy my reply to your talk page.
• Please don't leave your email address as I cannot reply to messages by email.

Archiving

>;I

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, Húsönd 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-mt 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!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

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)

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)

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)