User talk:Stifle/Archive 0206

This archive page is preserved for historical reasons. Do not leave me messages here as they will not be received.

Template:Context

Hi. The change you requested on Template talk:Context changed the category from in which articles with this template are placed from Category:Wikipedia articles needing context to Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification. Did you intend to do this? If yes, I wonder why, and the description at the bottom of Template:Context needs to be adapted as well. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This was in error. Feel free to change it back. Stifle 16:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I changed it back. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Cohan

Hi, if you're going to say I can't vote speedy keep on it, please at least choose a reasoning that disputes my original comment. I clearly had stated that I believe the nomination to be in bad faith, hence the vote. - Bobet 17:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the nomination was in bad faith (I have no opinion either way on it, to be precise), but a speedy keep also requires that "nobody disputes this or votes to delete it anyway", and this does not apply here. Stifle 17:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Barbier de Meynard

I am working on the article about this quite-notable individual. In the future, when you see an article created by someone with thousands of contributions to WP over the years, it might be prudent, as a courtesy, to give a little leeway for editing time instead of slapping on a speedy note less than 60 seconds after the article is first saved. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Most articles qualifying for speedy under A7 are caught by "recent changes patrol". As things stand, the article qualifies for speedy deletion as there is no assertion of the importance or significance of the subject. While I do not assert his non-notability, I do assert that notability is not claimed. Stifle 19:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

FLY (artist)

I was cutting and pasting and adding the picture and not done editing when you added that! I hope once my edits are done it will reflect notability. THANKS! Madangry 19:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • THANKS FOR BEARING WITH ME!! I'm quite new to all of this. :)

Madangry 18:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion and Copyvios

No problem. As for blanking not being required, Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Instructions says it is. Should I just not blank it anyway, since it's going to be deleted in a few minutes? Thanks, Rory096 19:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that seems to be changed. I never blank the page since it's going to be gone soon anyway and it will help the admin verify that the page is in fact a copyright violation without digging into the history, but it seems that that's what the instructions say. Never mind me, then... :) Stifle 19:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of recent addition

Hi. New to Wikipedia. Just added my first page about the Derby band Plans and Apologies, but it is a candidate for deletion? What must I do to the article to make it suitable for Wikipedia? Thanks Gus Peterson 19:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad to see you created an article. There was nothing at all wrong with the article, in fact it is particularly good compared to most of the articles about bands that we get. However, I regret to advise you that Wikipedia does not accept articles about bands and other musical groups unless they are notable enough. We have a list of possible inclusion criteria at WP:MUSIC. If the band in fact meets one or more of these criteria, it would be a good idea to add details of that to the article and/or its talk page, citing reliable sources if you can. Stifle 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your help - the band satisfy the being featured prominently in a major music publication criteria (drowned in sound - an entry for which exists on Wikipedia), so will update the entry with this. Will check for any other criteria I can add too. Gus Peterson 20:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Drowned in Sound qualifies as a major music publication (it does not appear in Category:Music magazines), however the debate has now gone to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plans and apologies and will be seen out there. Stifle 11:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Souliko & Other Songs

Stifle, I noticed you asked for transwiki on the Souliko lyrics article. I have to admit it, but I'm new to wikipedia. Any help or explanations on what I should do per the transwiki for the Souliko and other Russian & Slavic songs I plan to add would be very much appreciated! --MaRoWi 19:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to write an article about a song, by all means do. However, an article about a song should not include most of, or very little other than, the song lyrics. These should be added to WikiSource, one of our sister projects. Please don't add articles that are merely a copy of lyrics or source text. But thank you for your contributions! Stifle 20:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Understood, so, Wikisource is for lyrics and translations of songs only, while Wikipedia is for articles concerning the songs themselves?

--MaRoWi 20:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. A Wikipedia article should be about the song, while a Wikisource text should be the song itself. Stifle 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibat

Hi, I've updated this AfD with some info, and am notifying everyone who has participated in the discussion so far. I'm doing this because I think some users have misunderstood what Ibat is. Please read my comments at the AfD, and if you wish, update your comments. Thanks! Mindmatrix 00:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is moot now as the AFD was closed (as no consensus, default to keep) before I got to it. Thanks for keeping me informed. Stifle 10:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wigan Athletic F.C.

I reverted one of your changes to Wigan Athletic F.C., and its only fair to tell you why. You wrote This also effectively guarantees Wigan a place in the UEFA Cup in the 2006/07 season, as even if they lose to Manchester United, the latter team is almost certain to win a European place from a high Premiership finish, causing the League Cup slot to be passed down to Wigan. Unlike the FA Cup, finishing runner up in the League Cup does not grant qualification if the winner qualifies for Europe by other means; the place would then go to the next highest in the League. Oldelpaso 18:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and my edit summary is possibly a little harsh - I initially misread it as though you'd predicted European qualifiacation through league placing. Oldelpaso 18:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The vagaries of English football continue to astound me... Stifle 23:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Stifle, Are you an admin? I couldn't see you on the list. --kingboyk 08:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not. Stifle 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You'd get my vote. If you ever feel like running and you have another admin to nominate you, give me a shout! You are one of those users that I mistakenly thought was "an admin already" :) --kingboyk 22:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks for your message and support. Stifle 23:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at your user page :-) --kingboyk 23:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help :) Stifle 00:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Adams

I was confused by your comment here. Do you mean the article should be deleted because you haven't heard of her? Friday (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've clarified my vote on the page. Stifle 17:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I figured you meant something like that, I just didn't want someone to come by and jump all over it with "What?! You can't delete something just because you haven't heard of it!" Thanks. Friday (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catelu

Thanks for the recommendation you made from this AfD. I had noticed {{prod}} yesterday and have begun using it. James084 21:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! Hopefully it'll bring down the AFD workload a bit. Stifle 11:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep comment at AFD

No, I'm not changing my comment/vote. The nomination was vandalous; notability of the subject is clear, the nominator's claim of vanity was obviously false. Too many AfD nominations and comments, like no small number of those you make, have no real basis in the applicable Wikipedia policy, guideline, and criteria, and should be treated with the bad faith they show. Monicasdude 19:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Irrespective of good or bad faith, a speedy keep also requires there to be no delete votes. I recommend you read Wikipedia:Speedy keep.

If you feel that some of my AFD nominations or comments are in bad faith or have no basis in policy/guideline/criteria, I would hope that you could point me to some so that I can avoid this in future. If not, I will have no alternative but to report this comment as a personal attack. Stifle 20:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Spare me the hypocrisy. You misstated the speedy keep criteria, which my "vote" obviously met when it was made. Just because you disagreed with it, 24 hours later, doesn't require me to change it. You described an MfD nomination I made as "bad faith"; why wasn't that a personal attack? And your own vote in this discussion amply qualifies for my description. Monicasdude 20:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I have personally attacked you, as that was not my intention. However, you have not specified any AFD vote that I have made that was not in accordance with policies ("Delete until and unless verified." clearly refers to WP:V). As such, it seems to me that you are in violation of WP:NPA. I think, however, that the this gives you more than enough to deal with at the moment. Stifle 20:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Penis image

Regarding your request for speedy deletion of that picture, it is an image from Wikimedia Commons and any concerns should be addressed there, not here. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Stifle 11:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The Nation

The issue of what article should be at this title has been placed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. You can offer your vote and comment here: Talk:The Nation#Article title. JamesMLane t c 06:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Stifle 11:48, 8 February 2006

(UTC)

FYI Marco Benz

Marco Benz was recognized as a Poster acoss the nation of the United States to recruit soldiers is worthy of its own by Marco Benz to be chosen. The U.S. Navy has done so with Marta_Tuyet_Dodd and she is there is a notable her own here on wikipedia.Saigon76nyc 14:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide a citation from a reliable source to back that up, I am prepared to change my vote. Stifle 14:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warps

I replied to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warps. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Stifle 22:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Christian Jantzen

How is my Christian Jantzen article unverifiable?

Please explain this.

Thanks Ben.carbonaro 03:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Articles on Wikipedia are required to be verifiable (it says so just above the submit button). That page says a lot, but in short you need to cite a few sources that proves you haven't just randomly made up something to put on Wikipedia. (We get quite a bit of that, and we need WP:NFT for that reason alone.) If you were able to cite one or two reliable sources for your information then I suspect people would be much less hesitant to vote for deleting the article.

Two final points: Once you submit an article to Wikipedia, it is no longer "your" article. Wikipedians do not own articles they submit. Please bear that in mind. Also, you should type ~~~~ at the end of comments you add to talk and discussion pages, this will add your name and the current date and time.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia, the world's largest free encyclopedia! Stifle 09:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How to draw Manga

Can you please explain how this is an advert (preferably on its talk page). Thanks, Gerard Foley 13:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have done so. Stifle 13:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything to stop me from removing the delete tag? I looked at the policy page but I see nothing to say I can't remove it myself. Gerard Foley 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag for this. It's a notable series of book, I see no reason to delete this, it should instead be cleaned up and expanded. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's acceptable for anybody to remove the proposed deletion tag, including the author. (An article creator may not, however, remove speedy deletion tags.) Since the deletion is disputed, it will now be taken up at articles for deletion. Thanks! Stifle 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point in bringing this to AfD, but that's your perogative, I suppose. What makes you think this is actually not notable? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The lack of sources and the fact that the only external links are to the book's own website, where it is sold. It may be construed, wrongly or otherwise, as a vanispamcruftisement. Stifle 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Except that two seconds of research would show otherwise. Why rely on AfD when it can be improved instead? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've closed the AFD as a speedy keep. I would note that I'm not the one arguing for the book to be kept, so I don't see why I should be looking for reasons to keep it. Thanks for your comments. Stifle 15:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My commentary was more that it shouldn't have ever been nominated to delete to begin with, but thanks for coming around. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is the responsibility of those arguing for deletion to look for reasons to keep it: so that they can refute them. AfD is not a vote, and it's certainly not a battleground where you pick a side then pit your numbers against your opponents. We're all on the same side here, which is to make the best encyclopaedia we possibly can. If an article really, truly merits deletion but not obviously enough for speedy or PROD, then it's no bother to go check Google, the page history, What links here, etc. If nothing else, then a good deletion argument, with all possible keep reasons considered and countered, is difficult to oppose. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If Stifle had questions about this page the it should have been brought to AfD where it would get the attenion of the community. The books are notable and that is why all the keep votes came, so no harm done. But if the books were not notable and nothing was done then this page would have stayed on Wikipedia making it seem like a joke site. Gerard Foley 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Gerard most of all. To fuddlemark: if you had to do that much research to nominate an AFD then there'd be about three articles nominated a day, and Wikipedia probably would be nowhere near as healthy. I'm aware that I'm a deletionist and have a POV about it, but finding every possible reason to keep an article including those that haven't been thought up yet seems a little implausible. Stifle 16:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's true I was going a bit over the top there, but I hadn't thought it was so bad that my point would be missed. My apologies. The point, more directly, was: AfD is the place to bring dodgy articles and explain why they should be deleted. It's not a good idea to just list articles without giving a good reason for deletion, on the assumption that if it needs keeping someone will crop up and explain why. The reason for this is obvious: sometimes people don't notice, and good articles get deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. I know that if an article does get deleted at AFD then it's liable to be redeleted as a G4 if it ever shows up again, but I've rarely seen what you describe. I do try to give good reasons for deleting articles, or long ones at least, and I hope to stop saying "non-notable" soon too :) Stifle 16:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Better good articles deleted then bad articles kept ;) Gerard Foley 17:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion options

Thanks for the advice. I have only recently got brave enough to suggest some things for deletion! I've thought I might give fifteen minutes or so each night to monitoring the new pages and getting rid of the crap which seems to be filling up Wiki. Cheers, Henry! Maustrauser 13:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, one of the main things Wikipedia needs is recent changes patrollers. You can add {{User wikipedia:RC Patrol}} to your user page. Stifle 13:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Irish Wiktionary

Just a quick question. Have you ever thought of doing some work on the Irish Wiktionary. It needs a lot of help as it is very small. Just a thought. Gerard Foley 15:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

At the moment I am too busy to do much about that but I will look into it on a long-term basis. Stifle 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Vikas Khanna

I am planning to move this from speedy to AfD in a few minutes, unless an admin delete it before then or if you have any objection. The original reason for deletion was copyvio which afaik isn't true with the current version. It is better to decide his notability through an AfD. Tintin (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine, I don't think notability is in question, merely copyright status. Stifle 16:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Gibbon Media

Hi Stifle,

Done, probably my oversight. My apologies for that. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 00:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Afd vote

Hi Stifle. Can you please reconsider your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. Kalyanasundaram in light of recently available references establishing notability? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The debate was closed (early) before I could get to this. Thanks for your message. Stifle 11:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that it's been decided to keep the article. Thanks for the message. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD for AbleNET

Stifle,

With all due respect, you voted to deleted the entry for AbleNET accusing the votes of 'sock flood' . I partially agree with you. I believe the article is being flooded with socks. Look at the date of creation for some of the user votes. However, I disagree that it should be deleted. The 'socks' are generally the 'delete' votes as it seems to be some sort of Vendetta/trollish behavior that has motivated them to see deletion. If you look at the accounts for 3H and RBthat their only actions have been on Feb 13, 2006. You will find that 3H has about 40 different actions, ALL of them on Feb 13, 2006 for the sole purpose of deleting various articles, coincidentally starting with the AbleNET article and then moving on to others. RB also has only had actions on Feb 13, 2006 and it was ONLY to address a vote of Delete for the AbleNET article. This is only a sampling and notably in defense of the article, it has been supported on various levels by established Wikipedians, whom you may note by going down the list such as Adrian Lamo and 'magic' of mirc.net, who is well familiar with the history of this network, the related networks and others.

With this in mind, I ask you to reconsider your vote. I would hate to see the trollish behavior of those individuals, whom are personally unknown outside of this issue, to be rewarded for their venomous behavior.

Respectfully, Santavez 12:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've revised my vote with this in mind. Stifle 14:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD

the only "socks" are Santavez and his IRC buddies voting Keep. I am just one user. The others who voted delete are their own self. There is no WP:Point from my nomination. I have edited the Talk page for it several times to support my claims and to disprove those of others. If arguing your point is against Wikipedia, then Wikipedia needs to get rid of the entire talk page feature. My only contributions are from nominating pages to be deleted because that is one of my purposes here... to nominated useless articles that serve no purpose on Wikipedia. If using one of Wikipedia's features is against the rules, then they should not let anyone vote AfD. I have no clue who this Santavez is, nor do I care. His IRC network has no purpose on Wikipedia. Just because so many others have agreed, he is making outrageous claims that I am using multiple acocunts and IPs. Why would someone care that much to make 10 different IPs and accounts? Not to mention break Wikipedia's rules. Your suggesting of me being a "sock" or breaking ANY Wikipedia rules is false. 3H 15:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I unsuggested "socks", it was struck out on the AFD page. Stifle 16:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Kosaraju's algorithm

Hi. I removed {{prod}} from Kosaraju's algorithm as it is mentioned in the chapter notes of Introduction to Algorithms. It might need to be merged or renamed though, I will look into this. Cheers, —Ruud 19:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyright alert.

Thank you for your immedate alert to my Zapped CD-Art.gif image that I posted at electric arc. The full context is now complete.

Enjoy!

In The Mindway 2006

WP:RFA/Quarl

Hi Stifle, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-16 11:59Z

A Day No Pigs Would Die

How's this? A Day No Pigs Would Die Pkazazes 14:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Still a bit long, but thanks for your work and for taking my comments on board! Stifle 14:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but what do you think I can do to redue the size? It is like 42 kbs. Pkazazes 14:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It is good work, it doesn't need to be cut back. If you're writing reviews in future, though, try to keep them relatively short or to use another project like Wikibooks instead. Consider whether/how this work would appear in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example. Stifle 14:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Antonio_Di_Pietro.jpg

Hi, are you an admin? If it's so, please remove this image. Thank you. --F. Cosoleto 17:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin at this time. To request that an image be removed, please follow the process at WP:IFD. If you are not sure how to do this, just let me know and I'll nominate it for you. Please also tell me why you need it deleted. However, there is no guarantee that it will be deleted. Stifle 17:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain me reasons to remove {{Adminbacklog}}? Previous uploaded image was {{no source}} tagged. --F. Cosoleto 17:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Only pages with a backlog of several hundred problems should be tagged with {{Adminbacklog}}. This page has none. It previously had no source, but it has now been tagged with a source. I fail to see the problem. Stifle 17:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Images with possible violations of copyright ([1]) should not have to be visible. Regards, --F. Cosoleto 18:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see, you want the previous version to be removed. Can you specify where it is a copyright violation from? (i.e. what URL?) If you are an agent of the copyright holder, please post a request here. Stifle 09:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Canada-stub

Okay... I'm going to try to remain calm here, but forgive me if I get a little annoyed. I have just reverted your editing of {{Canada-stub}}. As it says in many places concerning stubs, it is vital that stub sorters can tell by looking at a stub template that it categorises correctly. As such, the category must be visible when the template is viewed, and noinclude is never used.

That in itself would be bad enough, but you've created someone a huge amount of work by botching the piping on the template. Have a look at Category:Canada stubs. Notice anything odd about the order of the stubs? Yes, they're all listed in random order under C, since they're all piped as "Canada stubs". it is currently impossible to get past the first page of stubs, or work out how many stubs there are. In order to fix this, every single stub in the category will need to be null-edited. Thankfully there is one bot in use by the Stub-sorting WikiProject, but it's in high demand, so it may be days before this category is usable again.

Please, if you intend to edit stub templates, check with WP:WSS about what is the best way to do it first! Grutness...wha? 07:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, it appears that I suck at editing stub templates. My bad. I'll also try to forgive you for your edit summary here. Stifle 11:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...erm... sorry about that. Well, I did warn you I was pissed off :) Grutness...wha? 11:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Kendall Hotel

Hey Stifle,

Do I come to you to dispute the deletion of a page for Kendall Hotel? Someone flagged it as ad, but it has been rewritten to be informative. Thanks.

aplusjimages

Thanks for your message! Please sign your name on talk pages and AFD discussions by adding four tildes (~~~~).

If you want to discuss the deletion, you can do so, and indeed you already have, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendall Hotel. The page has not been changed since it was proposed for deletion or added to the AFD page, i.e. it has not been rewritten. If it is so rewritten within the next four hours (as the discussion closes today), then my opinion may change. As it stands, an administrator may close the discussion as a delete or keep result, or may extend it for a further five days. Stifle 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks re: Gastrich

Thanks for adding Gastrich's little love note to me to his official arbitration evidence – the arbitration process is a bit confusing for someone who's been active here for only a week or two. --Plover 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Although I think it was already there under a different heading, it's better to have it twice than not at all.

As for the arbitration process, it's not too hard to follow. If you want to contribute evidence, just open a new heading at the bottom of the page (e.g. ==Evidence presented by Plover==) and add in your comments. To back them up, you need page differences, i.e. click History on the page you want to quote from, and choose the radio buttons before and after the comment you're presenting. But if it's too hard, you can just leave comments on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. Have fun :) Stifle 11:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD vote

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples) since you voted on the deletion of the same text under a different article name. Septentrionalis 18:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Stifle 18:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Wirkus

Thanks for trying to help, but the nominator's vote normally goes at the end of their nomination. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't tell who was the nominator, because all the votes were on one line. Stifle 22:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Send the Pain Below

I was looking at the Send the pain below article yesterday after I had created it two days ago and I "saw" that you edited it because the lyrics were accurate. Just to let you know the lyrics were accurate (I'm pretty sure they were when I created it). You may ave gotten them from another source. (I used christianrocklyrics.com [2], which is now no longer part of the site. Just a comment. Robot569 14:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to say here. The only edits I made were to put it into a more specific stub category and to mark it for a possible move to Wikisource, as it is currently little more than the song lyrics. Stifle 16:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is when I wrote the article in the first place is that the lyrics were accurate. That's all.

Robot569 19:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I haven't disputed that. Stifle 11:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Everyonesacritic.net

Since your vote, the article has been cleaned up by a Seasoned Wikipedia Editor and I've cited additional sources to show notability. Please visit the article. You may reconsider your Delete vote. Thanks. --Dave 15:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussion and article, and I do not feel inclined to revise my vote. Stifle 16:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Stifle, you're right. I posted the offending comment while frustrated over this situation. As a newbie, I didn't realize refactoring on an AfD is acceptable. I don't expect you to change your vote, but I do apologize if I offended you. I have stricken the offending comment.--Dave 17:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I've struck out my delete vote also; I've kinda lost interest in it. Stifle 17:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship tourism

It's only polite to note in your edit summary when you propose an article for deletion...it's kind of a major edit. It also decreases the chances of it getting reprodded if the prod is removed, as a person can look at the page history to see that it's already been prodded. Of course, you might have simply not noted it by accident.

Also, I'd like to suggest that you notify the creator of articles when you propose articles for deletion. Prod is specifically for "uncontroversial" deletions, and it seems difficult to assume that the person who went to the trouble of creating the article in the first place agrees with the deletion merely because they're a newbie who doesn't use their watchlist. NickelShoe 17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary thing was an accident, and I apologize. However, notifying the creator of an article that is prodded seems like overkill. It's not included in the process at WP:PROD. For one thing, is it expected to notify every contributor?

For another, when on new pages patrol I prod, AFD, and tag as speedy dozens of articles. I think it would work against the idea to notify the creator of every article, every time. If an editor appears to have put a lot of work into an article I am more likely to drop them a line on their talk page, but for a two- or three-line substub it's rather less likely to happen. Stifle 17:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you ought to. I think the inconvenience is worth the politeness and proper use of prod. Wikipedia editors frequently place far too much emphasis on what is efficient. That's why I'm currently spending all of my time on Wikipedia going thru the prod log and informing creators of articles. There's a template available at {{PRODWarning}}. Certainly I can't force you to do this, but I have suggested on the talk page that it ought to be required. NickelShoe 17:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I strongly disagree that the idea of new pages patrol is to get as many articles into the deletion process as possible. Emphasis should be on improving articles and on not biting newbies. If you have less time to review new pages and some don't get tagged for deletion for a few days, I don't think it's as big a deal as intimidating newcomers with prod banners or having them come back after a week and not be able to find the article they created without knowing why. NickelShoe 17:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your opinion! Stifle 17:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Help with Vandalism

Hey, you seem like a fairly experienced user, so I thought I'd ask you for help. User:CasanovaAlive keeps blanking Talk:Simon Strelchick. I've reverted it like three times already, and he keeps blanking it - what should I do? Thanks, pm_shef 16:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've left him a warning message on his talk page. You could list the incident on WP:AN/I or, if he reverts more than three times in 24 hours, on WP:AN3. Stifle 09:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

CSD's on AFD

Thanks for the note about closing these, I was working on clearing the CSD backlog, and wanted to make sure the AFD discussion didn't waste much more time, but didn't get around to rereading the afd closeout proceedure and didn't want to break it, will add the headers and footers next time. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 20:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Carrot and stick

Your article Carrot and stick has appeared in the Dead End Pages list because it is not wikified. Please consult the Wikipedia Guide to Layout for more information on how to write a good, wikified article. I would encourage you to revisit your submissions and {{wikify}} them. Thanks and happy editing! James084 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have wikified this page (and reverted some parts of it). Stifle 09:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Your awesome! Your my hero!! Well anyway, thanks.  :)

I should mention that when doing my cursory scan of the list of articles on the DEP I don't really read them too close or look very close at their histories. Eventually, I come back to them and if somebody else doesn't wikify them then I will start digging deeper into them. James084 12:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Math of Quran

I don't disagree with your vote of delete on the article (I'd voted smerge to the group that advances these numerological claims regarding the quran), but I'm trying to understand the reason "Wikipedia is a tertiary source." Do you mean the article's contributors should have been citing secondary sources, rather than Khalifa, who originally advanced the claims? I know that WP:RS states what you wrote, but it also seems to me that WP is at times a secondary source, sometimes "summariz[ing] one or more primary or secondary sources." In particular, a lot of the pages about books and movies would seem better described as secondary rather than tertiary. Thanks, Schizombie 01:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That is basically what I meant. After some more consideration, I have weakened my delete vote and mentioned that I'm not opposed to (s)merging either. Stifle 14:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Stifle, I would like to nominate you to become an administrator, if you are ready. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-27 09:57Z

Thank you for your confidence. You may proceed. Stifle 14:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stifle. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate for instructions on completing the nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-28 06:01Z

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wacky Wafers

I did some work on the notability and the accuracy of the article. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

SpinnWebe

Why did you add a speedy deletion template back to SpinnWebe? There is currently a huge discussion of the notability of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpinnWebe, that also explains why {{db-repost}} is not applicable. It's only got one more day before that AfD is closed, so unless you're anxious, maybe you can let consensus run its course. KWH 00:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles that have been previously deleted by consensus may be eligible for speedy deletion under CSD:G4. Since this is disputed, I have no problem leaving it to AFD. Stifle 00:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I would point out that the article was not substantially the same per CSD:G4, since sources were added which show notability per WP:WEB. KWH 02:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately as I'm not an admin (although that may be changing shortly), I could not determine that. Stifle 09:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sweet onion

This article still needs a lot of work, I'll admit, and I'm improving it at my own pace. I was just wondering if I've advanced it far enough to remove all of the tags you added to it? I've removed a couple of them already, but I'm not sure about the last one. Just reply to me here, I'll add this page to my watchlist, thanks! --Measure 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems good to me, nice work! Stifle 09:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)