This is an archive. Please post new messages at User talk:Stifle.
You wrote "The site allows members to easily send spam SMS and email messages." That is an extremely bold claim which, if false, could subject you to legal action for libel. You may want to consider making a claim that you know 100% to be true and defensible in court. I would recommend something like "The site allows members to easily send SMS and email messages that some ciritics have characterized as 'spam'. (exact reference, exact reference, etc.)"-- Jimbo Wales 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
sorry, i didnt know what to do, i was told about the page, i read it, i relised it was about me, and i deleted the content —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.18.86.239 ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC).
Hello,
Many thanks for the help in getting me acquainted with Wikipedia!!! I did jump right in and made a few mistakes.
I did, however, intend the article on myself to be placed as a link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrologers
I am widely recognized throughout the astrological community as an authority in various areas, and I have over 30 years of noteworthy professional achievements, and am a friend and colleague of many of the other astrologers listed on this page. I think the biography that I wrote is appropriately written and professional, but correct me if I am wrong.
Thank you for moving this article to my user space as well because I need this too.
If the above is agreeable, you can leave the bio in my user space as well as a Wikipedia article.
If the article is still not acceptable, that's OK with me. I am not a person who seeks the limelight; I just feel that it is important to contribute to Wikipedia, a marvelous and impressive tool which I have used numerous times when researching a variety of topics.
DavidCochrane 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Why did you think this article did not warrant speedy deletion? (see [ [1]]) WP:CSD specifically states "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request.", and as explained there, "the page's only substantial content was added by its author". — Centrx→ talk • 07:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The result of User:Jason Gastrich's RfA was a 1 year block. You cannot unilaterally decide to indef block. You must go through the proper channels. Furthermore, you cannot honestly put a graphic/text on Gastrich's user page that says an indef block was the decision of "administrators, Jimbo Wales, and/or the Arbitration Committee," when in fact, the decision of the Arbitration Committee was a 1 year ban. -- Martian Man4 07:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your removal of sourced items to place your negative bias into the article is a violation of the NPOV policy.
The Article which was used as a source was retracted by the source and the language I used which indicated that the password was optional was included in the corrected source.
The wording you have put into the article is no longer validly sourced since the article it came from was retracted by the news source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.231.54.18 ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC).
Stifle,
This edit is one I would like you to study, and then discuss with me. I went to the source article to try to find direct textual support for the claim that "Phone users are often billed for supposedly 'free' services that they say they never ordered." I did not find that evidence, because the article nowhere makes that claim. I did find evidence that the edit by the SMS.ac ip number was accurate and fair, i.e., it was a direct quote of the core negative statement on that matter in the article.
This is exactly the sort of sloppiness that I think Wikipedians should avoid. (The edit in question is someone else reverting to your version, but if I read the history correctly, you are the one who wrote it in the first place.) -- Jimbo Wales 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Really like the though process placed into this article.
I am wondering how I and/or yourself would be able to move this into a forum which would likely be a guideline (as opposed to a policy). As an admin, I am hoping you would be able to point me to the source of such instructions. -- Gay Cdn 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.
PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. -- Chris S. 23:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stifle. Would you take a look here? I don't know if you remember this page but an anonymous user just added something to the main page and then to the talk page saying it was a hoax and I think he's right. You wrote something to that effect early on but your comment was deleted. Anyway thought you should know.-- Lo2u 00:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. However, Wikipedia prides itself on dealing with concepts that exist, and as a result there is no need to create articles for everything that does not exist to state that it does not exist. (For one thing, that would be impossible.) Please keep this in mind, as several of your recently created articles are being deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I would talk to the sysadmin, but I'm at a high school, and our internet is operated by an incompetent di'kut who doesn't care about Wikipedia, and would not do anything about it. This has happened before. Is there any chance that a system could be implemented in which logged-in users can edit, even from blocked IP's, unless their acccount has also been blocked? I've also had this problem at my public library as well as several other places. Thank you. Linkin Park Protector 14:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Tell me, dear Stifle, what shall I do: I deleted this article, HVATOS, per AfD, with prejudice as n.n. - and now I have this image, Image:Hvatos.jpg, a PD image with no possible encyclopedic use. What do people do in this case - zap it per AfD or submit it for separate IfD process? If it had been fair-use, I would have for sure deleted it per AfD, w/o having to tag is as an orphan and waiting 7 days. Advise me please. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry if I have seemed harsh.
Notice how very different the two lines are. "A handful of customers" complaining becomes "Phone users are often billed"... this makes at least two errors... one of numbers, and one of accepting the allegations of a few customers as fact. Another major error, which you have identified yourself, is that somehow "charged for services they never asked for" becomes an implication that the services were "supposedly free". It is this kind of reaching beyond what the source tells us, in order to reach a POV conclusion, that should never happen.-- Jimbo Wales 20:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
How do I edit the image information for uploaded photos. This in reference to the late Tara Whelan. I assume that the family photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tara_Whelan.jpg is public domain as it has appeared in countless newspapers around the country and on several television channels. The school photograph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tara_School.jpg was scanned from the front page of the Waterford Today local newspaper. It was taken in the Our Lady of Mercy secondary school, by a hired photographer who is unknown. I doubt that he would own the copyright on this, so I listed self created on that image, since I scanned it myself. Spaingy
Thank you for the helpful information. I removed the more subjective statements from bio and kept it to the facts. I think it is appropriately written now. Let me know if there are still problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Cochrane ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC).
To Wiki Staff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galactic_Conquest
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/8788/offensivewikizg8.jpg
screenshot image
Regards
Rachael (Known as) Pandy(A) Gamestotal.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.214.57 ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC).
Hiya! This edit you made to Template:Orphaned fairuse not replaced.. can you point me towards where the decision was taken to change this from seven days to two? Also, note that the categories such as Category:Orphaned fairuse images as of 12 July 2006 still say "once an image has been tagged as orphaned for more than seven days it should be deleted," not two days. — Stormie 07:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
If we follow you line of thinking then some of the following articles should also be deleted along with robot wars. the west wing, Law & Order, 24, The Simpsons, Futurama, BBC news 24, etc etc. So please can we have rational discussion on the merits of the pages and not sweeping statements.-- Lucy-marie 14:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to sound like a nuisance but can you do the images for me? I don't understand. Thank you. Spaingy 16:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking time to give your opinion on my RfA. I can work on all of the constructive criticism given before I consider RfA again. I hope to see you around Wikipedia. Thanks! Abcdefghijklm 21:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I marked it for deleting because nothing linked to it. -- Shane ( talk/ contrib) 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
can you help with this? Kyleberk 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive. Please post new messages at User talk:Stifle.
You wrote "The site allows members to easily send spam SMS and email messages." That is an extremely bold claim which, if false, could subject you to legal action for libel. You may want to consider making a claim that you know 100% to be true and defensible in court. I would recommend something like "The site allows members to easily send SMS and email messages that some ciritics have characterized as 'spam'. (exact reference, exact reference, etc.)"-- Jimbo Wales 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
sorry, i didnt know what to do, i was told about the page, i read it, i relised it was about me, and i deleted the content —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.18.86.239 ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC).
Hello,
Many thanks for the help in getting me acquainted with Wikipedia!!! I did jump right in and made a few mistakes.
I did, however, intend the article on myself to be placed as a link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrologers
I am widely recognized throughout the astrological community as an authority in various areas, and I have over 30 years of noteworthy professional achievements, and am a friend and colleague of many of the other astrologers listed on this page. I think the biography that I wrote is appropriately written and professional, but correct me if I am wrong.
Thank you for moving this article to my user space as well because I need this too.
If the above is agreeable, you can leave the bio in my user space as well as a Wikipedia article.
If the article is still not acceptable, that's OK with me. I am not a person who seeks the limelight; I just feel that it is important to contribute to Wikipedia, a marvelous and impressive tool which I have used numerous times when researching a variety of topics.
DavidCochrane 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Why did you think this article did not warrant speedy deletion? (see [ [1]]) WP:CSD specifically states "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request.", and as explained there, "the page's only substantial content was added by its author". — Centrx→ talk • 07:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The result of User:Jason Gastrich's RfA was a 1 year block. You cannot unilaterally decide to indef block. You must go through the proper channels. Furthermore, you cannot honestly put a graphic/text on Gastrich's user page that says an indef block was the decision of "administrators, Jimbo Wales, and/or the Arbitration Committee," when in fact, the decision of the Arbitration Committee was a 1 year ban. -- Martian Man4 07:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your removal of sourced items to place your negative bias into the article is a violation of the NPOV policy.
The Article which was used as a source was retracted by the source and the language I used which indicated that the password was optional was included in the corrected source.
The wording you have put into the article is no longer validly sourced since the article it came from was retracted by the news source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.231.54.18 ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC).
Stifle,
This edit is one I would like you to study, and then discuss with me. I went to the source article to try to find direct textual support for the claim that "Phone users are often billed for supposedly 'free' services that they say they never ordered." I did not find that evidence, because the article nowhere makes that claim. I did find evidence that the edit by the SMS.ac ip number was accurate and fair, i.e., it was a direct quote of the core negative statement on that matter in the article.
This is exactly the sort of sloppiness that I think Wikipedians should avoid. (The edit in question is someone else reverting to your version, but if I read the history correctly, you are the one who wrote it in the first place.) -- Jimbo Wales 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Really like the though process placed into this article.
I am wondering how I and/or yourself would be able to move this into a forum which would likely be a guideline (as opposed to a policy). As an admin, I am hoping you would be able to point me to the source of such instructions. -- Gay Cdn 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.
PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. -- Chris S. 23:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stifle. Would you take a look here? I don't know if you remember this page but an anonymous user just added something to the main page and then to the talk page saying it was a hoax and I think he's right. You wrote something to that effect early on but your comment was deleted. Anyway thought you should know.-- Lo2u 00:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. However, Wikipedia prides itself on dealing with concepts that exist, and as a result there is no need to create articles for everything that does not exist to state that it does not exist. (For one thing, that would be impossible.) Please keep this in mind, as several of your recently created articles are being deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I would talk to the sysadmin, but I'm at a high school, and our internet is operated by an incompetent di'kut who doesn't care about Wikipedia, and would not do anything about it. This has happened before. Is there any chance that a system could be implemented in which logged-in users can edit, even from blocked IP's, unless their acccount has also been blocked? I've also had this problem at my public library as well as several other places. Thank you. Linkin Park Protector 14:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Tell me, dear Stifle, what shall I do: I deleted this article, HVATOS, per AfD, with prejudice as n.n. - and now I have this image, Image:Hvatos.jpg, a PD image with no possible encyclopedic use. What do people do in this case - zap it per AfD or submit it for separate IfD process? If it had been fair-use, I would have for sure deleted it per AfD, w/o having to tag is as an orphan and waiting 7 days. Advise me please. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry if I have seemed harsh.
Notice how very different the two lines are. "A handful of customers" complaining becomes "Phone users are often billed"... this makes at least two errors... one of numbers, and one of accepting the allegations of a few customers as fact. Another major error, which you have identified yourself, is that somehow "charged for services they never asked for" becomes an implication that the services were "supposedly free". It is this kind of reaching beyond what the source tells us, in order to reach a POV conclusion, that should never happen.-- Jimbo Wales 20:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
How do I edit the image information for uploaded photos. This in reference to the late Tara Whelan. I assume that the family photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tara_Whelan.jpg is public domain as it has appeared in countless newspapers around the country and on several television channels. The school photograph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tara_School.jpg was scanned from the front page of the Waterford Today local newspaper. It was taken in the Our Lady of Mercy secondary school, by a hired photographer who is unknown. I doubt that he would own the copyright on this, so I listed self created on that image, since I scanned it myself. Spaingy
Thank you for the helpful information. I removed the more subjective statements from bio and kept it to the facts. I think it is appropriately written now. Let me know if there are still problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Cochrane ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC).
To Wiki Staff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galactic_Conquest
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/8788/offensivewikizg8.jpg
screenshot image
Regards
Rachael (Known as) Pandy(A) Gamestotal.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.214.57 ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC).
Hiya! This edit you made to Template:Orphaned fairuse not replaced.. can you point me towards where the decision was taken to change this from seven days to two? Also, note that the categories such as Category:Orphaned fairuse images as of 12 July 2006 still say "once an image has been tagged as orphaned for more than seven days it should be deleted," not two days. — Stormie 07:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
If we follow you line of thinking then some of the following articles should also be deleted along with robot wars. the west wing, Law & Order, 24, The Simpsons, Futurama, BBC news 24, etc etc. So please can we have rational discussion on the merits of the pages and not sweeping statements.-- Lucy-marie 14:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to sound like a nuisance but can you do the images for me? I don't understand. Thank you. Spaingy 16:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking time to give your opinion on my RfA. I can work on all of the constructive criticism given before I consider RfA again. I hope to see you around Wikipedia. Thanks! Abcdefghijklm 21:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I marked it for deleting because nothing linked to it. -- Shane ( talk/ contrib) 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
can you help with this? Kyleberk 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)