User talk:StuffOfInterest/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Jew haters.

After recieving many complaints about Antisemitism, we began monitoring the ABRAMOFF page and are more than ONE person watching the JEW-HATRED here.

This is our main concern. And interestingly enough a big concern of Jimmy Wales who concured with our view on the matter along with the WIK BOARD.

If YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH US, I SUGGEST THAT YOU TAKE IT UP WITH THEM.

We are compiling a fact list for them of the various writers, editors and contributors who seem to be using this page and the WIK as a forum to convey their hate toward Jews and Israel.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.170.46 (talk • contribs) .

Cry for daddy...

I am indeed fowarding this comment to him and the board. I'm sure that he will be interested in it as he told us that he is VERY interested in seeing that a project as wonderful as WIKOPEDIA doesn't become a cheap rag for every racsist who wishes to spew forth his hatred.

He indeed wants us to "CRY TO DADDY" as you put it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.170.46 (talk • contribs) .

Are you a bot? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M4bwav (talk • contribs) .

How difficult is it to get a short(couple days) non-user lock out, put into effect, because I don't think he will quit otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M4bwav (talk • contribs) .

I tried to get the article semi-protected a few days ago but didn't have any luck. A lot of the admins are hesitant to put a lock on an article for what they see as a minor edit war. It is annoying as it takes a fair bit of effort to get each independent IP blocked. --StuffOfInterest 20:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think independent IP blocking is going to do it on this one, is there anyway to help move the semi-protect forward. Also is it illegal for me to fix his 'vandalism' more than 3 times in a day?--M4bwav 20:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Hall Monitor finally took care of the problem for us. :)) By strict interpretation of the rules, undoing vandalism does not count toward 3RR. "Brad"'s edits walk a fine line between vandalism and edit warring. With edit warring the rule is not so clear. 3RR will usually block a person involved with edit warring and could pick up both parties. In this case, there was broad enough consensus on what to have that 3RR probably would not apply. Still, I don't really want to push it and then have to go begging to an admin. So, basicly, I'm telling you nothing. :) --StuffOfInterest 20:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw somebody put a sprot on it, but then it got removed. Can anyone put one one and/or remove it? (oh, and thanks for the compliment to my Bob Ney edits -- I also re-did a chuck of David Safavian today, btw). Sholom 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Only an admin can protect or semi-protect an article. Unfortunately, different admins have different theories on when semi-protect should be used. You can end up with a sort of mini-revert war between them on protecting and unprotecting. --StuffOfInterest 19:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff, DeLay, Rudy -- And GNU/Copyleft?

Speaking of Abramoff, I checked our the page to DeLay, and see that both might use a link to Tony Rudy, which doesn't exist yet. I found a good article at http://www.disinfopedia.org/index.php?title=Tony_Rudy . Is it possible to just copy it to WP and then modify, since they have the same GNU/Copyleft license as WP? Sholom 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you would be OK. I'd go ahead and try. Just note on the talk page where the original material came from. --StuffOfInterest 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image

Hello! I noticed that you had Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg shown on your user page. The image is uploaded under a fair use provision, and Wikipedia policy states that fair use images should not be displayed on any pages outside the main (article) namespace, including user pages. Would you mind removing the image or simply linking to it? (Add a ":" in from of the image, like this: [[:Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg]]) Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the heads up. --StuffOfInterest 00:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

CARTOONS OF MOHAMMED

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk about it on the article's talk page. I don't really care and using words like "raping" are pretty rabid. Guess I shouldn't be surprised when people are running around Gaza threatening to kidnap any Europeans over this. --StuffOfInterest 01:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jack Abramoff

Don't worry, I knew that from WP:AN/I. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

On our friend Jack

I removed your thanks to the "cavalry" at the Jack Abramoff talk page not because I think it was unwarranted but because I think not talking about the problem & just quietly reverting is the best medicine for this. Calling our anonymous Israeli friend a vandal, however accurate, is clearly just going to encourage him. --The Cunctator 23:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. --StuffOfInterest 01:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Your very own RFA!

Although I truly appreciate the nomination and the vote of confidence it implies, I must regretfully decline at this time. Personal and professional obligations in the near future will likely limit my Wiki-time and prevent me from giving the attention I would feel is deserved towards improving and defending the Wiki. Perhaps in a few months I will be ready but for now the existing cast of fine administrators will need to be the prime mop-and-bucket brigade. Thank you deeply. --StuffOfInterest 14:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of your edits are marked "minor", you may want to fix this habit before you consider an RfA, only marking minor changes like spelling and reverting vandalism as minor edits :-). NoSeptember ^talk 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. I defaulted my edit setting to minor as I don't like to overstate my importance. Unfortunately, even when making larger edits I often forget to turn the flag off. --StuffOfInterest 14:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

More Jack Abramoff correspondence

" BTW, I didn't have a problem with most of your edits earlier today. Still, you might get along better if you discuss the changes on the talk page first as many are likely to have a knee-jerk reaction to edits coming from your netblock due to past incidents. --StuffOfInterest 18:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC " Ok, we'll see. I'll post the changes first. 62.0.108.236 18:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 18:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehe

Actually, when I loaded the page a few minutes before you made them, the links were still red. Imagine my shock when I clicked one to create the page and the article was already there. ;) --Golbez 23:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

png flags

Hello there,

I'm running a bot from commons to replace a lot of png images with svg images so that the png images may be deleted. Once the png images are deleted, they will, of course, no longer be visible on your user page and, since your user page is locked, I can't help you there. If you would like, you can unblock your user page temporarily so that the bot can get in there, you can change them yourself, or you can do nothing, it's your userpage ;)--Orgullomoore 02:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a request for unprotection on the page. My pet vandal appears to have gone inactive, so it should be safe now. If the svg images had a consistent naming structure I'd go ahead and make the changes myself, but I've had no luck finding the proper image for the UK flag. Probably best to let your bot handle it. One question, what is the difference between png and svg format images? Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 12:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Follow up. I found all of the international flags I'm using and changed over to SVG. I'm working on state flags now but having a real problem finding Georgia so far. Easy to find the country, not so easy to find the state. --StuffOfInterest 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Model Template

Hi. I only thought this was sexist as it appeared that this infobox was going to be used for any attractive female celebrity (it only links to Zöe Salmon at the moment who is not best known for being a model). Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_21#Template:Infobox_Female_Model_Bio

Regards Arniep 20:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see my followup to your remark on the deletion page. I think you are going about it wrong. You can accomplish the same thing without calling it "sexist". --StuffOfInterest 20:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I agree, I'll just remove it from the article. Arniep 20:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Way to go, thanks. Oh, and you are welcome to the leave a message box, but please use your own ID in it as I don't want the messages intended for you. :)) --StuffOfInterest 20:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Something I left on Jimbo Wales talk page

Ref this edit...

Jimbo, I wonder if you would object to me starting a page titled either Wikipedia:Jimbo is not God or Wikipedia:Jimbo is not a deity? The reasoning behind it would be to explain that people should not try to divine policy out of statements you make in interviews, talk pages, and discussion lists . As has been seen in the recent userbox wars, some people have tried to take a collection of statements you made in various places and piece together a dictate of policy(example).

My own feelings on this, and I believe of at least a few other Wikipedians, is that if you want to dictate a policy you will do so in no uncertain terms. Those who are trying to divine policy are acting like high-priests interpreting their deity's commands to the masses. The masses can't understand for themselves so the priests keep their jobs by doing it for them. I feel it would help to have a page stating in no uncertain terms that comments are part of a discussion and not a dictate unless you specifically say "this is a rule", "this is policy", or something to the same effect.

Thanks for your time. --StuffOfInterest 20:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

can you please explain something to me?

Hi, I don't think I thanked you previously for your very fair comments in the discussion about deletion of the Nikki Craft page and wanted to do so. Also, I was wondering if you could please explain to me why the delete notice is still on the page. I was just reading about that and it said on the page that lists the pages that are up for deletion, that after five days the name of the page will turn red then someone will come around and apparently remove the notice, yet the NC page is not even listed there. I'm interested in understanding how this system works. Am I missing something about the process? If so can you tell me what to go read now about it? --Nikkicraft 23:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I just found on the administrators policy page where it says after ten days, so that would explain it. --Nikkicraft 23:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I always thought it was a week. Anyway, a red link means that the article already has been deleted or just plain doesn't exist. When an article is listed for deletion it gets a comment period to establish concensus. If no clear concensus is reached (as happend on your bio article) then the admins will keep the article. The main exception ot this is speedy deletion which can make an article go away instantly if it meets (or doesn't meet) certain requirements. Regardless of all of that, you article did get to stick around.

Your welcome on the vote to keep. Someone people are more difficult to convince than others and some you won't convince even if you drop a library on their head. I think one of the people arguing delete on your bio was just being a pain. Regardless of all of that, you should still probably read the WP:AUTO article. Although there is no issue with someone who has an article also being an editor, it is considered bad form for them to edit their own bio. Your best bet would be to concentrate on articles about people and causes you are familiar with. Still, please, always remember WP:NPOV. Good luck and welcome again to Wikipedia! --StuffOfInterest 20:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Cartoons current again

M-Cartoon news today again, at least here in sweden. Perhaps the current event should go back up today? DanielDemaret 11:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Unfortunatley, this story may never go away. Put the tag back on if you feel it is appropriate. Just please note why in your edit summary. --StuffOfInterest 11:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The jyllands posten MUHAMMAD {صلى الله عليه وسلم} cartoons controversy

We have applied the NPOV "flags" without explanation or discussion because we thought the folks who surfe the wikipedia were enough cultured to figure that you are doing again the same mistake by republishing those insulting cartoons; apparently you were not. —This unsigned comment was added by Md7t (talk • contribs) .

My first inclination was to just delete this comment as typical unsigned trolling. On reflection, it seems better to let the comment stand as a testament to the types of people editors have to deal with here. For anyone who doesn't know what the above poster is talking about, he is referring to this edit where he applied NPOV tags to an article with no edit summary or any other type of explanation. What he doesn't seem to understand is that NPOV is not necessarily his POV. I'd do the same reversion again without hesitation. --StuffOfInterest 11:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned message from SRK

DO NOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO AGAIN FUCKER.

BASTARDS LIKE YOU SHOULD LEARN TO STOP TELLING OTHERS WHAT IS RIGHT.

FUCKERS LIKE YOU SHOULD LEARN TO FIND THE CORRECT TRUTH AND LEAVE IT.

FROM: ONE WHO IS NOT A FUCKER —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SRK (talk • contribs) .

I'm sure Mr. SRK is referring to this edit where he added some new "facts" to the September 11, 2001 attacks article. I've left a response on his talk page. --StuffOfInterest 21:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Mr. SRK's response to my message was this message which I've removed from my talk page as there was enough cursing present already. It is amazing that parents don't watch their kids better when they are playing on the computer. Out of curiosity, can anyone tell me what a "juckerfucker" is? --StuffOfInterest 22:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Raphael1

Thanks for the tip about Raphael1. I couldn't respond to it earlier, because he fiddled with the image in the middle of the night European time. But it seems that Cyde was ahead of me and blocked him for a week. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

DeLay

Is this enough? DS 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Just list it as such with a set of "<ref>" tags and maybe using a "cite news" or "cite web" template. Let me know if you need any help with the formatting. --StuffOfInterest 19:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ack, I hate using the cite templates. Can you do it for me? (also include this one, for instance, and this one?) DS 19:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Just put the links in as external links in the text you add and I'll do the reference conversion. --StuffOfInterest 19:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the help; I really felt that this material should be made more prominent in DeLay's article. DS 20:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine. I'll get the links converted over to references shortly. The material probably won't stay in the intro (won't be me, someone will likely move it), but it certainly belongs in the article. Thanks for being understanding on sources. --StuffOfInterest 20:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Illegal immigration

Sorry, I wanted to experiment but in a moment of blind fury I became confused and added nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.20.183.40 (talk • contribs) .

No problem. No permanent damage done. --StuffOfInterest 16:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Typo alert

I was reading your User_talk:StuffOfInterest/Archive_1#Userbox_debacle (a very interesting story, and matching pretty well with my views of how Wiki "process" works) and happened to notice that you intend(ed?) to "pole" people. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be "polled" than "poled" any day! ;-)

Feel free to remove this comment from your talk page.

Atlant 18:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, that wouldn't be nice. Although it might be the right thing to do to some of the people involved. Thanks for the heads-up! --StuffOfInterest 18:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes: A New Proposal

Hey, I've noticed that you've been active on the Userbox deletion page, either strongly FOR or AGAINST the use of the new T2 for deleting userboxes. I have noticed that most of the community is strong in their opinions on this issue; for that reason, I created my own proposal which attempts to create a middle ground for the two groups, and finally get this debate settled once and for all. I welcome your input into the proposal, as well as your (non-binding) vote on the straw poll. Thanks! // ^The True _Sora 01:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

TfD

Since you participated in the Templates for deletion discussion apropos of Template:Legal disclaimer, I think I ought to let you know that in my hasty cutting-and-pasting, I inadvertently removed part of my nomination, such that it didn’t fully enumerate the reasons for deletion and was syntactically troublesome in any event. The nomination, which read the template is used only twice (once in mainspace), its existence but absence from nearly every page to which it could be appended surely invites one salient objection from NDT, viz., that "The lack of the disclaimer on a page might open Wikipedia to lawsuits", ought to have begun with This template is self-referential and in any event in contravention of Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates; inasmuch as; I've now appended the omitted portion. Since, notwithstanding the malformed nom, you supported delete, this change likely won’t affect your views, but I didn’t feel comfortable revising the nom without alerting those who had participated in the discussion. My apologies for my oversight. Cordially, Joe 16:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I love your userpage hosted userboxes.

Thanks so much for User:StuffOfInterest/Userboxes. This was the first I learned why my atheist and moral realist userboxes were milquetoasted into the mushy declarations of being "interested in" the topics. I had some strong feelings to vent on the topic, which I did at User:Reaverdrop/Userboxes and Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes#Preventing_personal_POV_in_userboxes_is_neither_feasible_nor_conducive_to_community, as well as creating my own custom user-hosted userboxes. I had already manually rewritten the old atheist userbox at User:Reaverdrop, but it was annoying taking up all that space. Thanks for sharing! - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 04:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just hope this latest effort end up solving the userbox war once and for all. It has been painful to see this going on for the last five months. --StuffOfInterest 15:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for fixing my links on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality. I wasn't sure how to get them to turn out right, and now I know. :) —Mira 01:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. A few people will need to watch Wikipedia:Userboxes subpages for the next several weeks to help cleanup adds and changes like this. My next fear will be edit wars or who hosts the authoratative version of certain boxes. --StuffOfInterest 11:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. Maybe we could use Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes to coordinate the userbox diaspora. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)