Michael Hardy (talk | contribs) |
BehnamFarid (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
<!-- Please type a message title in the box above and your message below. Don't remove this line. R2 --> |
<!-- Please type a message title in the box above and your message below. Don't remove this line. R2 --> |
||
My latest comments at [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion]] were in part inspired by your wrong-headed comment on a different thread on that page. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC) |
My latest comments at [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion]] were in part inspired by your wrong-headed comment on a different thread on that page. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
==On [[Unruled Paper (film)]]== |
|||
Dear Stifle, just wish to inform you that due to my serious conflict with [[User:AzureFury]], I have removed my text from the above-mentioned entry (for details please consult the corresponding talk page). As I have indicated on the above-mentioned page, I will take legal action against Wikipedia should AzareFury undertake to make use of any part of my original text on Wikipedia without my written explicit permission. For your information, in the meantime (i.e. already in the course of the last week) the editor of a professional film magazine in Canada has commissioned me to write an extensive article on the film ''Unruled Paper'' (this on the basis of my Wikipedia article); the commission explicitly asks me to write an article at least twice more extensive than my Wikipedia article and I have already written a considerable part of the commissioned article (the editor explicitly wrote to me that he liked ''all'' aspects of my Wikipedia article but wanted me to elaborate more on the details - as I write this message, I have a pile of historical details on my desk which connect some details of the film to at least two historical figures from the 9th century AD). Without any reservation, I consider the action of [[User:AzureFury]] an outright racist attack on me and my Iranian culture: Iranians must be so debased in the eyes of this person that their artistic products can be written by a total ignoramus. For completeness, by his own admission, this person has not seen the film, does not know the artists playing in it, has not consulted a single original text, etc. Of course, you may disagree with my judgement, but that is your best right; I have lived long enough to see a racist when I see one. Kind regards, [[User:BehnamFarid|--BF 01:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)]]. |
Revision as of 01:59, 25 August 2008
- Older archives
- Archive: April 2008 (1st) (2nd-8th) (9th-11th) (12th-18th) (19th-20th) (21st-22nd) (23rd-30th)
- Archive: May 2008 (1st-9th) (10th-13th) (14th-16th) (17th-20th) (21st-31st)
- Archive: June 2008
- Archive: July 2008 (1st-7th) (8th-11th) (12th-22nd) (23rd-31st)
- Archive: August 2008 (1st-17th)
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.
- If your message is just an FYI or similar, I'll reply here (only) to say "noted" or similar.
- 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.
disruptive afd AfD nomination
someone of your experience should know that a/ambassadors of major countries to the UN are notable b/that we do not delete for unreferenced and c/that making afd nomination without checking the most obvious sources is not productive. The combination of these three in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinichi Kitaoka is in my opinion disruptive. as an admin, you have the repsonsiblity to follow policies in an exemplary manner. DGG (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Don't agree with A or B. There are ~200 UN members, most/all of which have had multiple UN ambassadors/representatives. I don't think they are inherently notable, and if this were accepted, it's a short step to suggesting that anyone who has ever been an ambassador is notable. If all of those 200 countries have diplomatic relations with each other, that's already 19,900 current ambassadors, to say nothing of the many thousands more historic holders of the posts.
- In light of the sources and references which people have brought up in Japanese, which is a language I cannot speak or read, I have withdrawn the nomination, but since there are other delete opinions, a speedy keep is not an option.
- To my knowledge I have not failed to follow any policy in this nomination. As two other users agreed with me that the article should be deleted, my nomination was clearly not disruptive or as clear-cut as you may think it to be.
- I ask you not to be so belligerent in your posts here and to AFDs and DRVs where we disagree. I respect your opinion on these matters, even when I don't share it, and I request that you equally respect mine. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Um....for each pair of countries that exchange ambassadors, there are TWO ambassadors involved, so multiply 19,900 by 2 and then you've got it right. (OK, this is not earth-shakingly important unless you're working on your math.) Michael Hardy (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies, I should have said "careless" rather than disruptive, and I shouldnt have implied you're violating policies, just not showing the good judgment an admin would be expected to show/ Incidentally, many of the added refs were in English, not Japanese. And, although 200*199=39,800, many of the smaller countries combine posts,so I suspect he true number is about 10,000 at a time. But we could go back in history and deal with 5 or 10 times that number, if w had people to write even the stub articles, and I hope that we will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Many ambassador posts, especially throughout history, are awarded as compensation for political or monetary favors. I hope that such a practics as creating stub posts for every ambassador of every country throughout history would not be followed, as we would end up with a literal ton of stub posts about people who aren't notable on their own right, other than once having bought a particular political position. Banaticus (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete duplicate images
I'm sorry if I caught you at a bad time Stifle. I wonder if you or another Admin can delete these two duplicate Wikipedia images? I moved them both to WikiCommons and they have the exact same title there. I had speedied them more about 7 hours ago but I'm surprised they are still around. They are Image:MerenptahOfferingtoPtah.JPG and Image:Stela of Tuthmosis I.jpg With kind Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- The speedy deletion queue is backlogged and I'm sure some admin will delete them before very long. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Michael Cremo
Could you please elaborate on your comment here? The guy has an entry in a specialist encyclopedia, as well as Contemporary Authors. What more are you looking for? Zagalejo^^^ 18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
{{oldprodfull}}
Howdy. FYI, normally {{oldprodfull}} doesn't get substituted.--Rockfang (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Table of contents
Howdy again. Just curious why you don't use a table of contents on this page?--Rockfang (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Repost of speedy delete pages
Hi,
I haven't figured out how to do a straight reply, but I'll ask anyway - is there a speedy delete code for reposts of speedily deleted pages? I didn't see one that applied specifically to that. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- There isn't a speedy delete code for reposts of speedily deleted pages — if they still meet the original cause for deletion they should be tagged again under the same code; if they don't, then they don't qualify for speedy deletion.
- P.S. "You're replying to a comment I left you" is the second item on the selection list. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- When I click on "You're replying to a comment I left you", I see this:
- "Thanks for coming back to reply. I rely on the yellow message box to inform me that I have new messages, and don't rely on watching others' talk pages as a rule. If you are following up to a conversation, please return to my talk page and add your message there in the section previously used."
- That implies that I need to return to the talk page, which of course points me back to that page. Am I missing something? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Intelligent AVATAR (deleted)
Hi,
Could please let me know why you deleted my article (title Intelligent AVATAR). The article is about AI solution without any company name etc. I found many examples as keywords SitePal - which is fully advertise. Please let me know WHY?
best regards: ai24081983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.19.129.170 (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
- While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
- I notice that you referred to an article as belonging to you. Please be aware that nobody owns any articles on Wikipedia.
- Intelligent AVATAR was deleted under criterion G11 of our criteria for speedy deletion because it appeared to be advertizing a product or service. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so this is not permitted content for an article.
- You can feel free to recreate the article, but please make sure you write from a neutral point of view, and include citations from reliable sources so that your article is verifiable. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Replied reminder, thanks. --虞海 (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Template:Asia topic three revert rule
I'm not complaining so much about the fact that I received a warning. But you did not distribute warnings to all involved parties. You seem to have missed Joowwww and Jhattara. Readin (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Jhattara wasn't recently edit warring; I missed out Joowwww, although he did make a request on WP:RFPP so is likely to be aware of edit warring rules. You are welcome to issue them and anyone else warnings yourself using {{uw-3rr}}. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Before you add protection, please consider the edits being made. It should be clear to a neutral party that one side is pushing a POV while the other is attempting to achieve some neutrality between the POVs. There is a huge disagreement about whether Taiwan is a part of China. See Template:Political Status of Taiwan. There are lots of arguments to be made on both sides. While I have a strong opinion about which arguments are better and which ones are full of horse hockey, I won't bore you with the details. To put is succinctly, one side wants the countries to be listed with "China(People's Republic of China (mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau), Republic of China(Taiwan))". The other side doesn't want to include "Republic of China (Taiwan)" under China because everyone knows "China" is the PRC and also Taiwan is not a part of "China" despite the confusing official name which is a colonial legacy. Instead, since common names rather than official names are primarily used in the template, "Taiwan" should be listed separately along with all the other countries.
- The compromise position is to do both. To list Taiwan in both ways. As the template is primarily for navigation and not for establishing an authoritative list of independent nations, this should not be a problem. People looking for the Taiwan link would be able to find it regardless of they expect to find it as part of China or as a separate entity.
DRV discussion
I didn't ask the closing admin to take a second look because his closing comment was basically "I'm closing this, if you don't like it take it to DRV." That indicates to me that he's unwilling to discuss it and that pestering him on his talk page would be seen as disruptive. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
speedy deletions
My latest comments at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion were in part inspired by your wrong-headed comment on a different thread on that page. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Stifle, just wish to inform you that due to my serious conflict with User:AzureFury, I have removed my text from the above-mentioned entry (for details please consult the corresponding talk page). As I have indicated on the above-mentioned page, I will take legal action against Wikipedia should AzareFury undertake to make use of any part of my original text on Wikipedia without my written explicit permission. For your information, in the meantime (i.e. already in the course of the last week) the editor of a professional film magazine in Canada has commissioned me to write an extensive article on the film Unruled Paper (this on the basis of my Wikipedia article); the commission explicitly asks me to write an article at least twice more extensive than my Wikipedia article and I have already written a considerable part of the commissioned article (the editor explicitly wrote to me that he liked all aspects of my Wikipedia article but wanted me to elaborate more on the details - as I write this message, I have a pile of historical details on my desk which connect some details of the film to at least two historical figures from the 9th century AD). Without any reservation, I consider the action of User:AzureFury an outright racist attack on me and my Iranian culture: Iranians must be so debased in the eyes of this person that their artistic products can be written by a total ignoramus. For completeness, by his own admission, this person has not seen the film, does not know the artists playing in it, has not consulted a single original text, etc. Of course, you may disagree with my judgement, but that is your best right; I have lived long enough to see a racist when I see one. Kind regards, --BF 01:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC).