User talk:Stammer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Nikhil Parekh

I have just placed this notice on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikhil Parekh page, and am bringing every voter's attention to it as promised.

Comment. Sigh. Despite the inevitable tirade that this will unleash, I am sorry to have to bring new information to the table. I have this morning received an email from Vijaya Ghose, editor of the Limca Book of Records. "Dear Mr (----), We have enlisted a couple of claims of Nikhil Parekh. Longest Poem is not one of them. He has formidable competition in John Milton's Paradise Lost and our own Mahabharata. However, he has written to many heads of state and has received replies but not from the head of state but the secretary or executive assistant. He is is the first from India to feature on Eppie. We checked with them. Regards Vijaya Ghose. So Parekh, though probably not notable as a poet, is indeed an Indian world record holder. I suspect that this changes the balance on his notability, though the article would still require a great deal of clear-up. I will notify everyone who took part in this vote and ask admins to extend debate a little. Sorry.

I don't know whether this changes your vote, but thought you should know. Vizjim 06:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

Hi. I have a few tips. One is that it is good to use and edit summary when you contribute, and second that one should use the preview button a bit more often. Both of these make it easier for us to understand what you changed. These are small things, but I thought I would let you know. Thanks, and enjoy the wiki. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abakwi Language

Thanks for the kind comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abakwi language. Fixing it up was the first thing I ever did on Wikipedia, and I'll shed a sentimental tear when—as currently looks inevitable—it goes into the dustbin of history. I'm not voting myself. Ngio 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review of an AfD decision you commented on

This AfD you commented on is currently on deletion review. ~ trialsanderrors 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] war victims

Thanks for the appreciation at the Pin Khotchathin AfD. DGG 04:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

and a very useful comment on the AfD for Socialist Party debates "Certain people here have a knack for nominating scholarly relevant articles, although it takes some effort to find them in the sea of crap." but following up some edits I also found University of Edinburgh School of Informatics#Professors which may be a useful precedent sometime. DGG 02:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. We see eye to eye on certain issues. That list of debates is something that even a professional historian may find useful and stimulating, since it provides information indicating significant historical patterns. I may post this too on the AfD too. Sometimes it is worthwhile to reiterate obvious arguments.Stammer 11:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Ermintrude of Nard

Hey there. Please be careful; your recent edits to the Saint Ermintrude of Nard article, especially while it is under scrutiny in AfD would be widely viewed as vandalism. The article is almost certainly a hoax, but damaging it further prevents the other administrators from forming a reasonable judgment. Coren 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, vandalism is a strong word. I added information that is accurate. That Saint has never been as popular as she is now. I could have sourced my statement, linking to the AfD.Stammer 05:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your question

Hello. Thanks for taking the time to post a question at my RFA, which I have answered there. If you would like to discuss this further, or I did not fully answer your question, please feel free to reply either in the RFA thread or here on your talk page. Regards. --After Midnight 0001 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked because falsedef's hypothetical "contentious edit" is already hypothetically "backed up by multiple reliable sources", so I thought you might mean something different. Indeed WP:REDFLAG states that "exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources". Anyways, thanks for your clarification. Stammer 18:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, anytime. (Just one of the many reasons why hypotheticals can be difficult to discuss, easy for both the answerer and the reader to get misdirected...) --After Midnight 0001 18:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal

Your answer to my question about the term 'liberal' is much appreciated. I'm glad you didn't see it as a pointed query. Sometimes it is hard to convey an idea through ASCII characters. I suppose I could have used an emoticon! ;) the_undertow talk 06:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it didn't even occur to me that your question might be less than constructive. I will be more suspicious next time. ;-) Stammer 06:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Wow, what a corker. I enjoyed responding to it. --Dweller 12:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad you liked. Good luck. Stammer 12:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your AfD question

To begin with, from reading the discussion, I can't find any clear consensus to delete the article. Such a situation always defaults to keeping. This aside, it quite frankly appears an attempt to use AfD as a battleground over nationalistic struggles, which Wikipedia is not. The article cites tons of sources, and not once does anyone bother to actually attack those sources as unreliable. They state they're wrong, but saying "I know better, they're wrong" without any assertion as to how you know or how they're unreliable is really meaningless. (And if you do have other good sources that show they're wrong, add those sources to the article!) The nomination also falsely claims that we can't have an article on an event which was planned but never actually occurred (so long as it's well-sourced and not simply someone's conjecture, we absolutely can, and that's not at all original research.) And even if the article is currently original research, in order to request an article's deletion, you must show at AfD how that problem is unfixable, how there's simply not enough source material out there to have an article on the subject without OR. Otherwise, the solution is not WP:AFD, but rather WP:SOFIXIT. And of course, if there is a major issue there with clashes of nationality or personality, there are mediators available to help out. (Trust me, it beats having to have the arbitrators sort it out!) Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] repeated afds

(re Connolley) I've tried to raise this numerous times as a policy change, but the answer is that it's been repeatedly rejected. I'll be glad to support anywhere you care to raise it again. (possible mod: not within 6 m, except if there is new info and then through deletion review.)DGG 23:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Stammer, thank you for the "The Original Barnstar", after period of hard work I appreciate that there is recognized a value in the work on that subject matter. many regards, --Kt66 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA question

There are at least two concerns with the use of Tor.

  • Ordinarily, a user's IP address, available to checkusers, matches their geographic location. So two users with IPs in different regions are less likely to be sockpuppets of each other. Open proxies in general make this method of detecting sockpuppets more difficult.
  • The use of proxies, including tor, requires sending your data through other computers before it reaches the WP servers. Unless special measures are taken, the final proxy before WP can pretend to be WP and steal your password.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 03:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on the arbitration page

Hi. I saw your comments on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision, as well as the fact that your userpage had gone to a redlink.

In the extensive discussion of whether and why badlydrawnjeff might be leaving Wikipedia as a result of his disagreement with the interpretation of the BLP policy (and the remedies proposed again him, but those are in the process of being scaled back to something much more reasonable), much less attention seems to have been paid to the fact that you have said you were leaving as well.

For what it is worth, I would like to urge that you not leave Wikipedia because of this decision (or for any other reason). Although there are philosophical disagreements over the application of this policy, I hope that they can continue to be addressed in a reasonable matter with the assumption of good faith on both sides, and that they will affect only a very small percentage of our content.

Your contributions to Wikipedia have been of high quality and are valued. Beyond that, I find that the type of editor who would feel compelled to leave over a matter of principle, is sometimes the very kind that we can least afford to lose.

So I say, please reconsider, and if you want to discuss any of this, please let me know.

(In the meantime, I've taken the speedy notice off your talkpage. Talkpages, unlike userpages, aren't generally deleted simply upon user request, because they may contain significant comments from other users. However, they sometimes can be removed after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed. Hopefully this will be a moot point in your case.)

Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Substantial edits at the Dorje Shugden article

Dear editor I like to draw your attention to that specific article, Dorje Shugden, which was substantially changed by a group of three new editors, without any discussion on the talk page. Rather one of the new editor revealed: "Many of these changes were discussed between at least three of the editors." which must have happened outside of WP, because there is no discussion on the talk page or their WP-accounts. One of the new editors claimed: "You seem to be the only person who accepted this article as it was. If you check you will see that the changes made make this article more neutral and unbiased then it was before previous edits." If I check I see the article omitted different POV's, deleted verified passages, included passages from anonymous websites and turned the article to a more bias Pro-Shugden POV. I'd like to ask you to check that and to give your opinion or to collaborate if there is a need for improving the article, so that we can have an unbiased, neutral, well-informed article which fairly presents all POV's. Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)