User talk:Stifle/Archive 0410a

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, please spare a few minutes to read this thread and let me know what you think. Unomi (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no comments. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? I mean, if you think that I am being difficult, just let me know, but it seems to me that one of the participants in that discussion is not embodying the qualities we should desire in our editors. He hasn't even read the source. Unomi (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me to be a disagreement of interpretation of the source. I can't read it (due to internet filters) and ultimately it's not for me to adjudicate on whether a source is reliable or not. That is outwith the scope of the I/P arbitration. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize that, that is what I understand RS/N is for, and they had, with good arguments, discounted those particular pages as RS. But you can see from the thread, even though that I point out exactly what it was that I took issue with and even when given explicit edits (which I don't think should be necessary when the issue is a specific source) he continues to defend it, contradicting RS/N(where he never sought to participate). And it turns out that he hasn't even read the 2nd source which he imagines backs those numbers up. The ITIC pdf can be found here. You can also see that he just makes vague assertions of 'gives roughly the same amount, no?' but it doesn't, not by a long stretch. It can be incredibly frustrating to have to deal with editors who have not read the sources and are able to avoid taking any responsibility of edits they have made on the basis of the poor ones they have. Unomi (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see this recent timeline. Unomi (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein's assessment; the arbitration remedies were not designed to sanction editors with whom you don't agree. Filest (aktl) 08:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That is sidestepping the entire timeline though, at the time when I filed the request ~24 hours had passed with no additional input to RS/N and the consensus at that time was that it was not a good source for that information. At that point in time there was no content dispute. Do you agree with that assessment? Do you further agree that I have provided evidence that the user had not read the source that the used to reinstate information? Unomi (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not in the business of assessing sources. The only thing that I am looking at at AE is whether an arbitration restriction has been violated, and if so, what action should be taken. There has been no evidence that an arbitration restriction has been violated, so therefore the request must fail. Fletsi (aklt) 13:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely that AE is not in the business of assessing sources, I never asked that it should, which is precisely why I am confused by the assertion that it is a content dispute. I, very reasonably, took the consensus at RS/N to mean that it was not an RS. At that point it ceased being a content dispute. Please, please see this rendition and tell me how that is a content dispute, he ends up admitting that he has not read the source! Thats not a content dispute, that is a gross violation of

WP:TEND. I am sure that you are bored with all this, and frankly so am I, but I don't see the evidence for calling it a content dispute, and it has direct ramifications for me if it is left shrouded in such a characterization. Thank you for your time and patience, Unomi (talk

) 13:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am taking your concerns from my failed RFA to heart. In noticing your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiroshi Araki, I wished to ask if you felt my thoughts toward guideline were in any way flawed? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to come back to you on this, a bit busy now. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood. At your convenience. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. References to guidelines seemed fine, but pointing people towards

WP:NOEFFORT invariably gets their backs up as it's accusatory. Ultimately, RFA is a popularity contest and if you get people annoyed, they'll !vote against you, whatever else you've done. Filest (aktl

) 08:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Point understood. Remember this date and time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your message to Orange Mike about the

I can't discuss that due to the confidentiality rules of the OTRS. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, thanks.

Off2riorob (talk

) 16:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse if I am ignorant of procedure, but was the page closed because of a certain, fixed time limit for such discussions? I would like it opened again. --TK-CP (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I fixed the header for you. This was closed after 9 days and AFDs usually last 7 days so there was no reasons to prolong this discussion.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  02:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• What Spartaz said, basically, except that it was in fact closed after just 7 days. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • So is that a yes, there is a certain, fixed time limit or not? Some of us had thought to promote consensus by changing our votes, Stifle, so perhaps there should at least be a 24 hour warning before any Admin decides to close it, just to be fair and unbiased. I know this issue doesn't take on the importance of all that you must have to deal with daily on this huge wiki, but do ask your favorable consideration. --TK-CP (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, there is a fixed time limit of seven days; this is widely advertised at places such as
      WP:DPR. There is not, as such, any need to give a 24-hour warning, as everyone is given a seven-day warning at the outset. Fletsi (aklt
      ) 10:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your patient (and rapid) guidance, Stifle! --TK-CP (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I noted that you signed your name something else in a recent AFD [1]. Seems like an odd thing to do. Isn't there a rule against that though? Dream Focus 09:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Many users sign as something other than their username all the time. I'm not aware of any rule against it, as long as I provide a link to my userpage. Filest (aktl) 09:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If there was a barnstar that's the opposite of {{The Barnstar of Good Humor}}, I'd award it to you )-; Fletsi (aklt) 13:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? Did I misinterpret "feel free to revert"? —

David Levy

13:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I hear

Wal-Mart is doing 50% off senses of humour this week (-: Fletsi (aklt

) 13:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Emoticons notwithstanding, I don't know whether to interpret the above as further criticism of my reversions and subsequent response or as an indication that the original remark was not intended to be taken seriously.

In case of the former, I'll note that I realize that your changes were visible only to sysops; my concern was potential confusion among administrators not expecting such a joke (such as those from cultures in which April Fools' Day is not widely observed) and those for whom English is not a primary language. Additionally, I felt that the edit to MediaWiki:Blockip carried undesirable connotations (though I'm sure that none were intended). I don't seek to be a killjoy, and my reversion of this year's April foolery otherwise has been confined to the article namespace.

In case of the latter, cheers. —

David Levy

14:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It was the latter (-: Leftis (atkl) 18:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I realize that I tend to overanalyze these matters, but I prefer to err on the side of taking a joke seriously than to accidentally dismiss a genuine concern as a gag.  :-) —

David Levy

18:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your opposition to the promotion of Paul E. Patton to FA, one of the pictures you questioned has been deleted and removed. User:Bedford has clarified the source on the other. Would you now be willing to drop your oppose? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Leftis (atkl) 18:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why you added POV template without anything mentioned on talk page of the article. You can added it otherwise it should be removed. As it needs further discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnandVisho (talk • contribs) 19:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Stifle on Wheels! (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: AnandVisho has been blocked as a sock of IslaMuslim.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, i don't see how I can. What I put was the best I could find for a screenshot of a copyrighted Trojan Virus.— Supuhstar * § 00:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

All non-free images must have a detailed fair use rationale explaining how the image meets each of the points at

WP:NFURG; do not remove the deletion warning again. Stifle (talk

) 20:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it as a redirect. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! A few ACC templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. This notice is because you are an ACC admin. Thanks! ^Avicenna_sis @ 04:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You semi-protected

I've unprotected it. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your AfD closing of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_Scholz was premature. It should have entered a second round, as it does not conform to the wikipedia policy guidelines of notability. I would appreciate if you would reopen the AfD debate. Thanks, Nageh (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the deletion policy to support a relisting (see

WP:RELIST). The question of whether the article meets notability criteria is a question of fact to be established by consensus on the deletion discussion page. There was no such consensus. Stifle (talk

) 10:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No there is not, but proper reaction is something that might be expected from an admin deciding on how to proceed on an AfD debate. To me it was obvious that the article was in need of further discussion, and a proper reaction would be to relist the discussion in order to try coming to a consensus. You also ignored an ongoing discussion on her claimed notability according to

WP:PROF claim #1. I would again appreciate if would reconsider your actions. Thanks, Nageh (talk

) 10:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Admins are bound to operate in accordance with policies and guidelines, and are not entitled to make up new ones on the fly. I'm happy with my no-consensus closure and you're welcome to open a

deletion review if you feel it was not correct. Stifle (talk

) 10:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That does not change anything about the fact that you deliberately ignored an ongoing discussion. Nageh (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Susan Scholz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Scholz

To: Xxanthippe:Please don't reopen AFDs after they have been closed. Comments subsequent to the closure of an AFD should be directed to the AFD talk page, the closer, or to deletion review. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not do this. My last comment was at 9.52, you closed the AfD at 10.35. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

Actually I closed it at 9:49. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It says 10.35 on the version of the AfD available to me here. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

I closed it at 9:49, you reopened it at 9:52, and I closed it again at 10:35. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A 3 minute time difference! Probably an edit collision. You should not be so quick on the trigger when issuing reprimands. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

Stifle, on my talk page you allege that I reopened an AfD after it had been closed. I assert that I did not do that and that the three-minute discrepancy was in all likelihood due to an edit collision. I do my best to obey the rules of Wikipedia. Please will you withdraw your allegation from my talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC).

In order to avoid more encounters of this nature I shall not participate further in AfD debates about academics. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

When I went to “Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodicy and the Bible” to post the following, I found that page had been closed and that I should “attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page.” That person seems to be you. Therefore, I am sending you what I wrote for your consideration in regard to my article “Theodicy and the Bible” that you deleted.

To Ckatz, Turlo Lomon, Quartermaster, Vesal, GregJackP, Qrsdogg, DGG, Nageh From Vejlefjord

I signed on to Wikipedia and read “Hello, Vejlefjord, and welcome to Wikipedia!” only to find that Ckatz was welcoming me to stand before a verbal firing squad. At the same time, he said that “my opinions on the matter are welcome.” I am accepting his invitation.

1. Needs Attention from Expert

The “Being Considered for Deletion” block said, “This article needs attention from an expert on the subject.” Before retiring as a professor emeritus of a theological school, I taught a course for some fifteen years that included a study of biblical material that was relevant to theodicean issues in the light of the many different interpretations of the Bible and of the various and differing theodicies that have been developed. So I brought some expertise to the article.

2. How I Came to Write for Wikipedia

While teaching, I never heard of Wikipedia being used as a source by my colleagues or students. After retirement, with time to browse the internet, I became acquainted with Wikipedia and the fact that most of its writing and editing are done by volunteers. I also checked out a few articles including “Theodicy.” When I searched for “Theodicy and the Bible,” a message said that I could “create the page.”

It seemed to me that Wikipedia needed an article covering the intersections of various theodicies and the Bible because, if for no other reason, the Bible (as one scholar has written) “has been, both in theory and in fact, the dominant influence upon ideas about God and evil in the Western world.” This perception, coupled with the admonitions that seniors should do volunteer work and exercise their brains, motivated me to spend many hours gathering the resources I already had in hand, doing more reading, and writing the article.

3. Why Not Placed in “Theodicy” Article

Several of you say that my article should have been placed in the “Theodicy” article. Have you read that article with adequate care and knowledge of the subject?

At the head of the “Theodicy” article, these problems are listed:

“It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Problem of evil.”

“This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (May 2009)”

“This article or section needs consensus.”

“This page was nominated for deletion on 5 May 2009. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.”

However, the talk seems not to have led to anyone doing anything to address the problems that are still listed.

3.1 As one example of the problems listed, Sec 2.1, “Free will,” came in for severe criticism. You read the section. If that is the level of discourse that is appropriate for Wikipedia, the level of discourse in my article is not appropriate, so go ahead and delete it. A complex and controversial topic like “free will” is dealt with (a) by a few paraphrases (no direct quotations) from Greg Boyd who represents a small minority of biblical theologians who hold to “open theism” and “libertarian free will,” (b) two weak sentences about “natural disasters,” and (c) a quotation from C. S. Lewis with no recognition that he wrote very differently after his wife died in his A Grief Observed.

Sec 2.1 pitches the free will defense/theodicy (there are disagreements about which term to use). The section provides no definition of “free will” or the meaning of “freedom” in free will (again, there are disagreements here). It makes no distinction between freedom from and freedom for. It ignores the more prevalent position of classical theism which opposes open theism and its libertarian free will.

Sec 2.1 avoids being lengthy and messy (Quartermaster) by being a one-sided presentation with no recognition that the topic has been debated at least since the Augustinian versus Pelagian controversy emerged in the 5th century. Neither does Sec 2.1 mention that its position repeats the argument of Gottfried Leibniz which is briefly noted in Sec 6.2.

If this Sec 2.1 represents what Wikipedia wants and if my Section 5, “Free will defense (theodicy),” is merely a “lengthy and rambling mess” (Quartermaster), my article should be deleted.

3.2 Sec 5.2, “The Bible,” exhibits similar problems. (a) It quotes one verse from Isaiah in relation to “natural disasters.” (b) It makes several general statements about the Book of Job with no direct quotations, with no references to interpretations, and without showing its relevance to theodicy. (c) There are a few statements about what Bart D. Ehrman says about the Bible. Not noted is the fact that Ehrman is so dissatisfied with all theodicies that he writes that he has left Christianity altogether. I included his views in my article, but not as if he is representative of biblical scholarship on the subject.

If you come to a consensus that this section is adequate for Wikipedia, then an article on “Theodicy and the Bible” is not needed.

I wrote a stand alone article because I thought that the topic deserves one and that it would be out of place in the present “Theodicy” article.

4. Criticisms You Fired at the Article

Here are some of the criticisms you fired at the article per se.

4.1 “It reads like a personal reflection or essay” (Ckatz). “Personal essay” is linked to this definition: “Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts).” The charge that it “appears to be WP:OR [original research]” (Quartermaster) seems to parallel the “personal essay” charge.

Writing a “personal essay” or presenting my “original research” would have been easy, but I knew that such writing was a Wiki no-no. To the contrary, I did what Wikipedia requires: “Gather references both to use as source(s) of your information and also to demonstrate notability of your article's subject matter” and then state “the consensus of experts.”

This is a logical approach, but what if there is no overall “consensus of experts,” namely, the authors of relevant books and articles? What if the relevant literature comprises a “lengthy and rambling mess,” as it does? How can an article like “Theodicy and the Bible” live up to its broad title and present an overview of the whole field with its many contradictory “experts” (a) within a tolerable length, (b) with reasonable order and coherence, (c) without ignoring the disagreements regarding virtually every topic?

As I looked over the references I had gathered as per Wikipedia instructions, it seemed that they could be divided into two contesting groups of “experts” who have written about theodicean issues (such as, free will) in relation to the Bible with a degree of consensus. The two groups could have been called Augustinians versus Pelagians or Calvinists versus Arminians or the current Classical Theists versus Open Theists. I decided on the latter names because most recent literature (references) has used them, and I decided to use recent literature for the most part because these disagreements and debates are alive and current.

Given the article’s title, the Bible had to be a major reference along with contrasting interpretations by classical theists and open theists regarding various theodicean issues relating to the Bible. This material comprises much of the article with considerable space devoted to the free will issue because it is occupies so much space in the literature under consideration.

Two other issues were raised in the references gathered, namely, (a) a dissatisfaction with theodicy as an argument to exonerate God coupled with a desire for a biblically-based theodicy that enables a relationship with God and (b) what kind of language is biblical language about God. Because there is considerable literature regarding these issues, I did not think they could be ignored without distorting the overall picture.

So the ground of my article was the lengthy and messy body of literature (references) regarding theodicy in relation to the Bible. In writing, I tried to include enough diverse references over the whole field to give readers a factual overview of the literature while, at the same time, giving the article as much structure and coherence as I could.

4.2 Academic or Encyclopedic?

I have taken seriously the questions raised about (a) whether the article is “reasonably encyclopedic” (DGG) or not “encyclopedic” (Nageh and Ckatz) and (b) whether it is “too much in the style of an academic paper” (DGG) or “essay” (Nageh and Ckatz). Looking up definitions of “encyclopedic” and “academic” did not help me discern what concrete factors make an article qualify as one or the other. If by “academic paper” you mean something written by a student to earn a grade from rather than inform the professor, an “encyclopedic” article should be written to inform the reader (Nageh).

My purpose in writing my article was precisely to inform the reader about the ‘territory’ of books and articles where “theodicy” and the “Bible” intersect: to inform readers about the various issues in this ‘territory’ that current “experts” are writing and debating about, to inform readers about what these “experts” are saying by referencing their writings in their own words, and to inform readers about the interconnections between the various issues by cross-referencing the “experts.”

I have looked at four articles in peer-reviewed internet encyclopedias that cover some of the same territory as my article does: http://www.iep.utm.edu has articles on “Free Will” and “The Evidential Problem of Evil” and http://plato.stanford.edu/ has articles on “Free Will” and “The Problem of Evil.” It seems to me that these articles do not meet Wikipedia guidelines as well as mine does. What do you think?

5. What You Could Do; What I Would Do

If any of you could give me specifics where I failed to include enough or included too many references, or if any of you could make specific suggestions for simplifying the article without ignoring the messy complexity of the relevant literature, or if you find points where my own position compromised my objectivity, or places where the writing is not clear, or any other specifics, I would be willing to invest more hours in the article.

Finally, if Wikipedia wants volunteers like me to invest long hours and hard work in writing articles trying to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines, there should be a rule that the Talk (Discussion) pages about the article should reflect as much thought and knowledge and as much care in what is said as the author invested in writing the article. Remember it is easy to say what you think should be done: the question is who will do it, will you?

Finally, in your anonymity, speak the way you would if you were talking to the author face-to-face. The image and integrity of Wikipedia lie in the hands of volunteers like you. Vejlefjord (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry,

WP:TLDR. Can you please summarize your issue? Stifle (talk

) 20:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I spent many years studying and teaching the subjects of my article; I spent maybe 100 hours writing the article; I spent several hours writing my replies to the comments posted on the “Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodicy and the Bible” page. I would hope that the administrator who pushed the key to delete my article might spend a little time in reading the replies that I wrote and telling me what you think since the deletion nominator is now out of the loop. If that is asking too much, so long. Vejlefjord (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not Stifle, but happened to see this discussion when stopping by Stifle's page. Stifle did not delete your article, but in keeping with the recommendations at that AfD moved it to your userspace. It is currently located at User:Vejlefjord/Theodicy and the Bible. Your work is not lost, but still available for you to work with further here (as per any future consensus of this community) or elsewhere. Your note above would have been appropriate at the deletion debate, but I'm afraid that it is not the job of an administrator to second-guess the community once a deletion debate has closed. Our job here is to read the debate, without becoming personally involved, and decide what the community decision has been. What happens with the content from here is for others to decide.

At this point, your best option may be to open a discussion at the talk page of Theodicy or the talk page of one of the related WikiProjects (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion or Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy), seeking community input and consensus on how best to implement this material. Alternatively, you may wish to consider whether one of Wikipedia's sister projects, such as Wikibooks or Wikiversity, would make a better home for it. The coverage of theodicy on Wikibooks is certainly quite slim. This seems to be it, a slim mention in the "Introduction of Philosophy" book. At Wikiversity it has slim mention in Wikiversity:The Sociology of Religion. as well as some coverage in Wikiversity:Historical Introduction to Philosophy/The Problem of Evil. I have myself only just begun to grow familiar with these particular sister projects of ours, but I have of late been poking at coverage of algebra in Wikiversity, and I believe that the project could use the input of scholarly contributors such as yourself. I'm sure Wikibooks would also benefit from knowledgeable input. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Vejlefjord, the issues with your article are not that it is of insufficient quality per se (in fact it is of high quality, as suggested by my prior statement that it is an interesting reading) nor the number of citations (for which more is often better than less), but the way in which it is presented. It requires the reader to follow the article from the beginning to the end, starting thoughts which are concluded later, poses questions to the reader, assumes already a basic understanding of the subject, and therefore does not reference a lot of the more basic statements, leaves the non-familiar reader clueless as to why this specific sectioning of the article was undertaken, and in that sense also misses an overview of the issues presented, statements in the form of "this can be said like this [ref X]" (which would imply that it is universally true) instead of "according to X, this can be said like this" (which clarifies a view point), in the form of "before continuing we must define this" instead of "these are the definitions" or "there are various definitions" and then go on, in the form of "it has been observed that..." instead of stating as a fact with providing a reference, like "this is necessary for clarity" (if it is then this should not be mentioned since an encyclopedia shall aim at presenting in clarity), like "it might be possible" (we shall only describe facts, not pose rethoric questions to the reader), introduces definitions without explaining the source (e.g., "freedom and free will are treated together" - does this apply generally, usually, or only in the article, in the latter which would constitute original research), ... Ok, I'll stop here. I may try to come up some more clarifying arguments in the next days. Irrespectively, if you consider further contributing to wikipedia, I suggest you to follow Moonriddengirl's advice on asking for help and comments on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy wikiprojects, and proceed the discussion on your user article's Theodicy and the Bible talk page. Additionally, the article as it stands may be a welcome addition to Wikibooks and Wikiversity. One last comment: It is clear that a concise presentation expected from an encyclopedia cannot substitute a good book or essay on the subject, which leads the reader through the complexity of the subject, encouraging (or even requiring) him to think about the issues dealt later with. Instead, the purpose of an encyclopedia is rather to provide the reader with an oversight, a first insight, and otherwise the "pure" facts, without requiring him to think about issues presented later on, and then direct him to further external literature or other internal articles.

All the best, and thanks for an interesting reading I will continue later on. Nageh (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I sent a message to your email yesterday; I didn't notice the instructions atop your userpage until just now, so this is notice to tell you to go check your inbox.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, got it. There's no particular reply other than "that's fine" (: Stifle (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Stuck (Lindsay Lohan song) had not halted before you deleted the article. Only three votes were taken... please do not delete articles like this until conversation is halted and consensus is to be had. 68.40.174.101 (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debates last one week (see

WP:DPR), not until some arbitrary number of "votes" are received. Stifle (talk

) 08:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So you just delete a page even when there is no consensus? That doesn't seem fair. You weren't even involved in the nomination or discussion of the article so why did you take it upon yourself to delete it? 68.40.174.101 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There was, in my opinion, a consensus to delete the page. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Lovely! Perhaps if you had been contributing to the discussion, or read the dialogue, your opinion might have been different. I am unaware of any reason to do this other than to make yourself look like a better editor. And now there will forever be misinformation about the topic at hand. 68.40.174.101 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As it was your post in the "San Andreas Multiplayer" that prompted me to start the above thread I thought it only best to notify you of it's existence, in case anyone else makes the connection. I'm discussing the issue more generally and only use "San Andreas Multiplayer" as an example (without mentioning you or it by name) but thought you might still want to know. Not asking, or expecting, you to reply on that thread I've merely posted here out of courtesy. Dpmuk (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)