User talk:Stifle/Archive 0406a

Hi, regarding Image:Peter Warren.jpg. Yes, it's a copyvio and a mistaken upload. I removed the invalid license tag and tagged it for speedy deletion (with explanation) about 15 minutes after I uploaded it. [1] I'm not sure why you replaced the speedy deletion tag with the no license tag instead of just deleting the image! Please, someone just delete it. Heqs 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's gone. Stifle 20:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Heqs 03:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up my incorrect use of a speedy delete on Image:Park locmap warriorspath.jpg. As you suggested, I have tagged it with {{PUI}} and listed it at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images and explained my reasons for thinking it is not a suitable image. Sorry for the confusion and thanks again for your help. Ruhrfisch 02:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Em, I hav completed about 80% of the " betty chan" bio.. and I posted it both on the talk page and the deletion page......how does it work and is it possible that the bio will be reposted? Snob 08:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC) thx

In about four days' time, an administrator will check to see if there is consensus for the page to be restored. (There won't be, unless something very strange happens.) Stifle 20:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"(There won't be, unless something very strange happens.)" you mean there won't be a possibility that the "betty chan" post will be reposted? Snob 23:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct. The consensus so far is that six users think it should not be reposted, and one thinks it should. Stifle 23:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

kay:(Snob 23:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Dragonball (film) article shouldn't be deleted. Leave it up for a while. —This unsigned comment was added by Son of Kong (talk • contribs) 12:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, I haven't a clue what you're referring to. Can you please give me an exact link? Thanks. Stifle 20:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, not qualified for speedy delete. Marked Misclassification as "prod", instead. Maybe someone will expand it. Or at least provide some context.--John Nagle 22:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

<META NAME="GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW"> I strongly believe that the page for Christina Ritter shouldn't be deleted. Users have really seemed to "spam" her page and abuse it by deleting it, and making rude comments on it. The actress's validity has been questioned and I know that she is valid. I am posting all the information that has gone unnoticed by some users who have been quite rude. Christina Ritter was credited, which means she was NOT an extra, as being have been suggesting. Those names are used for credited people all the time. I read in film credits “Girl on Cell phone” that’s counts as credited, not an extra, no matter how unusual or detailed character ‘name’. Furthermore, out of 24 credits, she is small roles for only 7, while uncredited for only 4 and a voiceover for 3(which still counts as a perfectly normal credit. So I don’t know what you are getting at when you say she seems mostly like an extra. The Official site is NOT the only source (as they claim) as I have given eight sites that are sources as well as IMDb backing at least half of those. I have no idea what they are talking about when they say that all the others sites say their source is the Official site, because, on checking them, I have found no dictation whatsoever. So no, I cannot note her as uncredited or unnamed because that is entirely untrue.

Below is my response to their accusations of sockpuppeting, which I am completely innocent of and I am appalled at their attempts to make my argument of Christina Ritter's page by denoting my credibility.

What are you all talking about? Are you all so severe that you see it fit to make unprovable and outlandish accusations? I find some of you very immature and you seem merely doing this to express your power. You all are being very unreasonable, as I have no idea who that person is. At this point I really could careless of your opinion and though I wish I could resort to namecalling I shall refrain from that as I seem more...should I say 'enlightened' then you seem with your strange need of control and refusal to see the beneficial evidence that proves her, indeed valid. I have noted that some of you have cheered in the absence of a "spamer" as you have labeled them, how fairly I shall not jest. In witnessing this I now express the concern that you do not read any of my posts, and I am also stating here that I shall not leave rest until some decency is shown. User:Fame live4ever

A user stated:

Since this is getting a bit boring, here are the facts;

1) Answers.com isn't really a reference, as it is a mirror of Wikipedia. 2) Nearly all of the links refer to the "official site" as their main source. 3) She has two fansites, which are incredibly easy to make.

Below I address my case against those points:

Ok now I will address those; 1.) I already know that. The sites IMDb supports are not from Answers.com, only on is Wikipedia. 2.) I have never seen the links referring to the official site as the main source-not once. 3.) You are not to be the judge of the quality of the pages. Plenty of young people make sites for their favorite stars and the lack of amount or quality of page shouldn’t be an issue. (In reference to the article of vanity stating that a person is not considered vain or invalid because of lack of notability.)

Please regard my case with decency, as I have been illtreated on this site, all for a simple attempt to add an actress who I deemed worthy. More evidence is available if needed. User:Fame live4ever

Why have you involved me? I did not delete the page, or even edit it. Harro5 deleted and protected it, and JIP deleted it first due to consensus. You can post a request to have the deletion reviewed at WP:DRV. Stifle 22:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please respond at talk:List of English words of Ukrainian origin. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2006-04-02 00:49 Z

Is any problem to delete it now? ---xfi- 20:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how Image:BCFlag.png meets the criteria for speedy deletion. If you could clarify this, it would be great. Stifle 20:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I ask you: "Is any problem to delete it now?". There is no reason to have png, when on commons is SVG, png is duplicate. ---xfi- 20:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not a reason to speedily delete it. Please read WP:CSD, particularly item 1 under "Images", where it says that an image being on Commons is not grounds for speedy deletion. You need to check out WP:IFD instead. Stifle 20:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate is reason, isn't it? ---xfi- 20:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Only if both images are on Wikipedia, not Commons and they are in the same file format. Stifle 20:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"For speedy deletion candidates, use {{db|reason}}. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates, thumbnails, broken images, …" Here is not write: "Only if both images are on Wikipedia, not Commons and they are in the same file format." ---xfi- 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You still did not read this page. Stifle 21:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it ok now? ---xfi- 21:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please orphan it (remove it from every page that it is on) first. Stifle 21:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This image is only on User:Dschor'page, but his page is locked. ---xfi- 21:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also on:

1. British Columbia provincial highway 19
2. British Columbia provincial highway 19A
3. British Columbia provincial highway 4
4. British Columbia provincial highway 28
5. British Columbia provincial highway 10
6. British Columbia provincial highway 7
7. British Columbia provincial highway 91
8. British Columbia provincial highway 91A
9. British Columbia provincial highway 15
10. British Columbia provincial highway 1A
11. British Columbia provincial highway 7A
12. British Columbia provincial highway 13
13. British Columbia provincial highway 7B
14. British Columbia provincial highway 9
15. British Columbia provincial highway 12
16. British Columbia provincial highway 97
17. British Columbia provincial highway 97A
18. British Columbia provincial highway 5A
19. British Columbia provincial highway 3A
20. British Columbia provincial highway 3B
21. British Columbia provincial highway 95
22. British Columbia provincial highway 93
23. British Columbia provincial highway 8
24. British Columbia provincial highway 33
25. British Columbia provincial highway 22
26. British Columbia provincial highway 22A
27. British Columbia provincial highway 41
28. British Columbia provincial highway 395
29. British Columbia provincial highway 21
30. British Columbia provincial highway 6
31. British Columbia provincial highway 23
32. British Columbia provincial highway 43
33. British Columbia provincial highway 24
34. British Columbia provincial highway 26
35. British Columbia provincial highway 35
36. British Columbia provincial highway 27
37. British Columbia provincial highway 39
38. British Columbia provincial highway 29
39. British Columbia provincial highway 52
40. British Columbia provincial highway 77
41. British Columbia provincial highway 49

I will remove it from User:Dschor's page if you remove it from the others. Stifle 21:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok remove it from User:Dschor's page. ---xfi- 21:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have removed it and the image is now deleted under CSD:G7. Stifle 22:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. ---xfi- 22:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Would you please tell me the basis for why you endorsed Nlu on this page. Nlu has been unable to cite a policy violation. Did you find one? Would you please show me where it is? Thank for your time. NinetyNinePercentGood 04:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This user has also been blocked as an abusive sockpuppet. Stifle 22:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The basis for a user putting in an unblock request is for another Admin to take a look at the merits of the block. From what you replied it appears you just read the block tag. The unblock was posted because the blocking Admin has never established the basis for the block in the first place and is abusing their administrative authority. Please review again, or cite where the policy violation occurred. The blocking Admin has been unable to do this, and that is the reason for the unblock request. Thank you. Your help is greatly appreciated. ThePuddingHasTheProof 03:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

User:ThePuddingHasTheProof has also been blocked as an abusive sockpuppet. Stifle 15:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Just checking to see if you have been able to find the basis for the block. Nlu does block sockpuppets, however there needs to be a policy violation. What policy violation did you find that Nlu was using as the basis of the block? Looking forward to your answer of this question. CallingAllCars 04:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User:CallingAllCars has also been indefinitely blocked. I could/should revert this as contributions of a banned user; I'm not dignifying him with an answer. Further questions of this type will be deleted. Stifle (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned about....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burshtin_%28Hasidic_dynasty%29

This is a site that I am familiar with and I added some information to. For some reason this was flagged for deletion. I do not understand this. I replied to all the concerns that were stated. I am willing to supply additional information and I can use your help in clearly identifying what info should be supplied. Please DO NOT Delete. Thanking you in advance, USER: Sunny123 April 3, 2006

In future please use ~~~~ to sign your posts.

Wikipedia content is required to be verifiable. If you add citations from reliable sources, then it is likely your article will be kept. Stifle 22:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stifle. I just wanted to point out to you that you appear to have voted twice on my RfA, with one support vote and one oppose vote. If you are undecided on which vote to keep, I will be happy to offer a suggestion ;) Cheers TigerShark 21:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, fixed it! Stifle 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If it is not the policy, then OK. I just thought that it is better not to vaste space more then enough. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 06:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of just changing the tag you should consider deleting images at Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons. There are only 7425 of these left. This was the reason I used the {{db}} tag, because nothing ever seems to get done and the category just keeps getting bigger. Someone really should take care of this. Sorry if I'm bothering you. --Voyager 12:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The best solution is to list them on WP:IFD with reason OR/OB (orphaned and obsolete). Please read Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons for more on why they can't be speedied. Stifle 15:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5] —This unsigned comment was added by 85.250.100.4 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC).

Please sign your posts using ~~~~ in future.

Please post 3RR violations to WP:AN3 in future.

This is not a 3RR violation. Stifle 15:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why this is not a 3RR vio? By the way can you unblock me? (usally blocking is fo 24H and the dispute is over). --85.250.168.182 15:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not a 3RR violation because those are not all reverts. Please see Wikipedia:Revert for what constitutes a revert. User:85.250.168.182 is not blocked, and therefore I can't unblock it. Stifle 15:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant unblock User:Haham hanuka —This unsigned comment was added by 85.250.168.182 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 April 2006.

User:Haham hanuka was blocked by me for four days from April 2nd for repeated disruption and violating the 3RR. This block has now been reset per Wikipedia:Blocking policy for evasion, and the two IPs used are blocked as well for good measure. Stifle 15:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stifle, thanks for your note on my talk page. I haven't done much with images up until now so I appreciate your assistance. I'm a little puzzled. Before tagging these with the speedy tag, I read WP:IFD which states:

"For speedy deletion candidates, use "db|reason". See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates, thumbnails, broken images, non-existent images, non-commercial, permission, no source, unknown copyright, and unused fairuse images." (emphasis added in italics.)

But, as you noted, I now see this is not addressed as a criteria in WP:CSD. There seems to be some inconsistency between these two pages, at least the way I am reading it. Do you think this is the case?

You're right. I've updated WP:IFD accordingly. Stifle 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I noted that for "Mananddog.jpg", you placed an "orphaned fair use" tag. Would not this also apply to "Grant.jpg" and "Grant2.jpg"? If not, can you explain why? Thanks again. Accurizer 15:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The latter two images are tagged as GFDL, so they are free use, not fair use. You can still recommend them for deletion by listing them on WP:IFD. Stifle 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stifle. Um ... I'm wondering what you have to do to become an Admin. Do you have to have a certain number of edit counts or something? --Robot569 18:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

To become an admin, you need to post a request for adminship or have someone else recommend you. Then over the coming seven days, Wikipedians will form a consensus on whether or not you should be made an administrator.

I can tell you that right now, you would have no chance of becoming an administrator, because while you have been around for four months, you have only made 121 edits. Most Wikipedians will look for an edit history of 2000-3000 over a few months, including edits in many namespaces. Read more, including the standards of other users, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards.

Finally, you need to use edit summaries more often.

I hope this hasn't been too disconcerting for you and that you continue to edit and enjoy being a Wikipedian! Stifle 13:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. How did you know I'd only been around for four months? Robot569 18:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Robot569 :) Stifle 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw it, but there's some disagreement at Talk:Bow Gamelan Ensemble. I saw this too and wondered about a speedy, but I wonder if it'd be good to restore and allow more time for article improvement? I tend to prefer prod these days execpt in cases of obvious junk, since sometimes the article can be improved to the point where it's worth keeping. Friday (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page. I'm not inclined to restore it as of yet, but if you want to do so I don't object. I'll watch the talkpage too. Stifle 13:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure about it, but I figure more time can't hurt, so I restored and prodded. Friday (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: So i herd u like mudkips. I agree that WP:NEO is not a criterion for speedy deletion. I'd considered {{nonsense}} , but that seemed overkill. Your {{prod}} will work, although more slowly. Thanks.--John Nagle 20:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Stifle,

Thank you for notifying me of my error. I had tried to replace the Image:AAC_logo.jpg on its page, but I accidentally replaced the wrong image. I fixed that problem and relisted the image for deletion.

When you referred me to the WP:IFD page, I thought that maybe I did some other things incorrectly. I tried doing it a little differently this time. Is this the correct way to do it? {{db|OB}} {{isd|Assoc_Acad_Coimbra_logo.png}}

I also notified the uploader that his/her image is being considered for deletion. Is it nessisary to inform the uploader in cases of requests for speedy deletion? I was under the belief that notifying the uploader was only required for the regular 7-day deletion process.

Thank you for your help and nice to meet you,

Jecowa 21:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You've done some of the right things. All you needed to do was remove the image from another article and add {{isd|Assoc_Acad_Coimbra_logo.png}}. {{db}} shouldn't be used. The image has now been deleted. Stifle 21:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Here you go, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Williams_%28pastor%29_%282nd_nomination%29 you voted delete last time, we got more people voting now hopefully this time we can make it stick. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.171.16.151 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC).

Haham hanuka seems to evade his block again, this time from IP 62.0.118.79. There is some page I can raise this with the system people. Do you know what it is? Thanks, gidonb 13:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

He certainly seems to be evading the block again. The best place to post this kind of report is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, where more admins will see it. I think that this should be taken to WP:RFC - will you help me put it together? Stifle 13:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You just unblocked User:Jason Gasrich (who doesn't exist), not User:Jason Gastrich (who does exist), so the block didn't reset. --Rory096 16:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I officially suck. Thanks. Stifle 16:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

:-) --Rory096 16:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

After extensive edit warring, article protection, and the statement of the extended version supporting side regarding both the name of the article, and the intro paragraph, a poll has been placed. The brief version supporting side is to keep the name of the article AND the intro paragraph free of the UN name (FYROM). Keep in mind that you can select more than one of the options (8! to the moment) that may suit you. Please participate in the vote and ask other editors you know to do so too. Increased participation can make the outcome of the vote as NPOV as possible.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Stifle 16:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Kiitos kun avasit selvityspyynnön Monicasdudesta. Koska olen joutunut jonkinlaiseen väittelyyn hänen kanssaan, tekeekö tämä minusta osallisen tässä pyynnössä? JIP | Talk 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

For the first part, ei kestä. For the second, I'm afraid I gave up studying Finnish due to having too many other commitments, so you're going to have to restate in English. Stifle 17:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It means: Because I have ended up in a sort of argument with him, does this make me an interested party in the request? JIP | Talk 17:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I would say you are an involved party, yes. Feel free to ask one of the Arbitrators for a second opinion. Stifle 18:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know for the {{db-repost}} tag to apply it had to have been AFD'd before. Thanks for letting me know. I'll put it up for AFD now. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you already went ahead and did that. Thanks. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry about that -- my mistake. Thanks for putting the commons template on for me. atanamir 20:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that you removed the speedy tag. I'll probably leave it as {{prod}} unless the prod notice gets deleted. I spent some time looking for external references to JKop and/or the listed albums, and I couldn't find anything up. You are right though, the {{db-band}} tag was incorrect. I appreciate you taking the time to let me know. Best, Gwernol 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that you closed the AfD for Ultraviolet map with a decision of no consensus; could you please post your vote count/reasoning in closing it thus. Thanks! —Leflyman^Talk 01:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that shortly. Stifle 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Stifle 12:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. For aid of counting, I recreated the AfD in my user-space at User_talk:Leflyman/Articles_for_deletion/Ultraviolet_map, and struck-through the ones you've discounted. The numbers I get are close to yours: 11 keep, 10 delete, 10 merge. (You may have forgotten to count the nom's vote). However, I believe, if you re-examine the comments, you'll find that there was actually a consensus to Merge. In this case keep and merge should not be counted as equivalent: an article can not be both "kept" and "merged". "Keep" can only mean explicitly retaining a separate article, while "merge" means deleting the separate article in favour of having the content moved elsewhere--which nearly everyone agreed a portion of would be appropriate. A number of the Merge comments made clear that they did not believe it should have a separate article:

• "There is a lot of very good info here and that part shouldn't be (if you'll excuse the pun) lost. But I don't think it merits it's own entry"
• "Merge Information that can't be thrown away, but it doesn't deserve its own article"

While the Delete comments likewise stated that the material should be merged. For example:

• "No need to keep proliferating Lost articles on every minor detail. Merge factual content, where appropriate, into DHARMA Initiative."
• "Delete as long as all of the facts are transfered to the DHARMA Initiative page..."
• "Delete However, some info can be merged into the DHARMA article."
• "Delete or merge, I love Lost, but this has no place being it's own article."

Even I, while voting to delete, said that there the section about the "map" in "DHARMA Initiative" could be expanded. Thus, I'd urge you to revisit the AfD and consider revising the decision from "no consensus" to "merge". —Leflyman^Talk 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. AFD is where the deletion of articles is discussed. I don't think it is helpful (or, for that matter, valid) to determine that there is a consensus, or not, to merge - it's not a delete, and I don't think that two-thirds or more of the people from the AFD think that it should be merged. The talk pages are the correct place for this discussion. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously damaged your brain.

TAX HONESTY MOVEMENT Deleted?

Obviously you don't understand the difference between the terms:

"HONESTY" vs. "PROTESTER".

Oh, and the article on "TAX PROTESTERS" is MASSIVELY OPINIONATED.

The release of the movie "America - From Freedom to Fascism" later in 06 will set the issue straight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Konsidter (talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC).

Hi there, please see our policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and please sign your posts using ~~~~.

The page Tax Honesty Movement was deleted by me according to a consensus of established Wikipedians at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax Honesty Movement. You should be aware that the opinions of anonymous or new editors is regularly discounted in AFD debates.

If you feel that I miscounted the votes, or have somehow erred in process to delete this page, please make a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Civility first. Thanks! Stifle 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

MY ARTICLE ON PAULS GROVE FC WAS DELETED IT HAD INFO ON THE CLUB AND ONE OF IT STARS. IN CONTRAST A ARTICLE ON DUBBERY CHEESE STAYS ON IS IT BECAUSE ITS BETTER THEN MINE

ANTONIOSANCHEZ PAULSGROVE HAMPSHIRE

HEY THIS IS ANTONIOSANCHEZ MY ARTICLE N PAULSGROVE FC GOT DELETED HOWEVER A ATRICLE ON DUBERRY CHEESE STAYS ON IM NOT A GRASS BUT NEED TO KNOW WHY THAT ARTICLE GOES UNNOTICED BUT NOT MINE

ANTONIOSANCHEZ PAULSGROVE HAMPSHIRE

Hi there, in future please use ~~~~ at the end of your posts to sign them, and please don't type in all caps.

The article Paulsgrove F.C. does not appear to have been deleted. Please clarify what article you're referring to, using an exact title. Put [[ and ]] around the title. Thanks. Stifle 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Examining the deletion page I counted 9 votes for deletion, 12 for keeping the page, and 5 other votes to redirect or rewrite. Am I missing something? I am relatively new to this sort of thing on the Wiki...

I disagree with removing the article. The Tax Honesty Movement is real and growing. To remove a page dedicated to explaining the fact of the movement as a "tax-protester" POV fork misses the point of the article entirely. This movement is not centered on this scheme or that scheme to avoid or evade the federal income tax, but rather on obtaining honest answers from the government concerning the tax code, federal regulations, and their relation to Supreme Court decisions, given that there are many conflicting answers coming from various levels of government. That's all. People involved in this wish to distinguish themselves from the "let's try this an see if it will win" crowd concerning federal taxes.

There is no doubt that many involved in the tax honesty movement do suscribe to one or more of the theories mentioned on the tax-protester page but it is nonetheless illogical to transpose those theories onto a movement designed to promote discussion between the people and government. The tax honesty movement is NOT concerned with merely avoiding taxes, it is concerned with government accountability and political discourse in a free society. If you listen to Mr. Champion's radio show you would learn that he is repeatedly asking government officials and tax experts to come on his show in order to promote discussion. If you understood the objectives of the We The People Foundation you would see that Bob Schulz's rallying cry revolves around the government answering questions as provided for in the 1st Amendment right to petition clause. The focal point of the Tax Honesty Movement is government response; the central theme of tax-protesting is not paying taxes.

I admit that, unfortunately, many people who identify themselves as part of the tax honesty movement are unable to see this distinction themselves and can cause a knee-jerk response from people unfamiliar with all of this. However, that distinction is there and the original article is a good start for reaching an unbiased exposition of its objectives. I noticed that it was in the process of being edited to remove any hint of POV when it was suddenly deleted.

I urge you to reoconsider your decison to delete the page. BenLS 14:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a new discussion on whether the tax honesty movement, whatever it is, is notable or non-notable, real or unreal, important or irrelevant. I will, however, explain my counting of the votes.

Please see the fifth point at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#AfD_etiquette, which says, in part, "Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted". A large number of the recommendations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax Honesty Movement were from such users, and I have discretion as administrator to not count their recommendation. This is because AfD depends on a consensus of Wikipedians, rather than a contest as to who can get the most forum buddies to show up and post "keep".

I will not be undeleting this page, or discussing the matter further. Feel free to request that my decision be reviewed on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup for {{db-author}} to mark my own items needing deletion, I will remember that. I also like your collection of userboxes on the first page, I think I'll steal borrow a few. Paul Robinson 15:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure :) Stifle (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

On your user page, you have 39 user boxes. So I added a "count" box that indicates you have 40 userboxes. (I have to count the one I added.) It's the last one at the bottom. I thought it added just a nice touch, but if you don't like having it please delete ie. (I have over 70 ubxs on my page.) Paul Robinson 16:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment removed due to containing personal information. This had been duly resolved.

Hi there, and thanks for your message about your website. Please sign your posts on talk pages using ~~~~.

I deleted the page Mylifeoftravel.com because the community formed a consensus to delete it at this discussion page. Please see WP:WEB for possible reasons for this.

Because Wikipedia discussions represent forming a consensus of the Wikipedia community, those who are not members of the community (i.e. users without accounts and very new users) generally have their recommendations discounted.

A further problem is that your claims (of membership details and patents, for example) are not verifiable. The article was well-written, but if I wrote an article about my sister, it would not matter how well I wrote it — she is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and it appears that your site is currently not either.

While I have the technical power to restore the page, I would not have the community's support to do so. If your site becomes more notable (good examples would be having an Alexa rank of 10000 or better, being written about in notable print publications, or having a verifiable audience of over 5000 people) then you should feel free to resubmit the article. Alternatively, if you feel I have erred in process (for example, by miscounting the votes or incorrectly ignoring one or more votes), you can place a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review to have my decision rechecked.

Thanks for your contributions and I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I will not close this article again, but the criterion you linked to says:

In practice, the various deletion discussions tend to be badly backlogged. Editors in good-standing who have not yet been made administrators may close deletion discussions under the following conditions:

• Non-administrators may only close decisions which are unambiguous "keep" decisions. They should be near unanimous before a non-administrator should close the discussion. Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator.

I was under the assumption that I am an editor-in-good-standing, as I have well over a thousand edits and have never been subject to any sort of sanctions. Also, though the "5 day period" had not elapsed, there being seven Keeps (three strong keeps) to one delete on a two-year-old article is an unambiguous "keep" decision, given that articles are only deleted when there is at least a supermajority for delete. I do not think that I was out of line in closing this vote. AfD is perpetually backlogged, and leaving it open merely serves to draw resources from AfD entries that need more attention. NTK 23:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thanks. This isn't worth getting into a pillow fight over!   NTK 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi mate, If you're relisting an AFD please remove it from the old day's listing, if for no reason other than so as not to confuse MathBot (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old). No reply needed. Cheers. --kingboyk 01:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, make that a double pretty please, cos most of the outstanding old "unclosed" debates are actually your relistings :) --kingboyk 02:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't actually know that that had to be done. I'll get to it, and check if there are any left. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, why did you delete it when the arguments were clearly put forward that showed it wasn't valid for deletion? There was a lot of work that went into that page and it's now gone. You didn't even REPLY to the arguements showing why it wasn't valid. This completly undermines what wikipedia stands for. giginger 05:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. It somewhat negates the point of a "debate" if the detractors of the page will not (or, perhaps, as I suspect cannot) give reasonable response to the arguments put forwards by those in favour of keeping the page. There was not one reason for deletion put forward that was not reasonably and rationlly countered. Likewise, not once did the people who posted a reason for deletion respond to the rebuttals. There were also a great many more supporters of keeping the page, than there were those wanting to delete it. Biyc 09:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bam In Your Cunt Records was deleted pursuant to a community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BIYC. Contributors to AFDs are not obliged to revisit after their vote - you can leave a message on their talk pages. At the end of the day, it's consensus that counts - you can make as many arguments as you wish for a page to be kept, but if others don't agree with you, then the page goes.

If you feel that I erred in counting the votes or otherwise ignored Wikipedia procedures, you can post a listing on Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Additionally, Giginger removed the AFD notice improperly - this could be considered as vandalism. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

My argument is that you are listing many other sites with lesser userbases and certainly no notability. The comments made against keeping our page were done so by people who did not take the time to review the site and I would suggest you did not do so yourself as it is not difficult to see that the site easily exceeds the outlined membership stats.

If qualifying criteria is membership, then here is a verifiable list of member blog homepages as at 3 weeks after our test launch, this proves we have a current membership which far exceeds the requirements you outline: [removed massive list of links, see [6] for the list if you wish] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calanh (talk • contribs) 08:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC).

Please never ever post that many links on my talk page again. Please sign your posts on talk pages using ~~~~.

As I said before, the community consensus has spoken. If you wish to dispute that, please post a listing on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)