User talk:ChrisStefan

Welcome!

Hello, ChrisStefan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Rob (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bruce Copley for deletion

The article Bruce Copley is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Copley until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rob (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People have been removing Bruce Copley from Sharlto Copley's article. However, some administrators are telling me not to re-add it because of the lack of a source. Do you have a source specifically saying that Bruce Copley is Sharlto Copley's father? --Boycool (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Two of those sources probably wouldn't be allowed because they aren't in English, but the others look fine. I don't think we would need the birth certificate. Probably the best way to prevent people from removing it would just be to protect the article. --Boycool (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we could consider reporting an instance of persistent vandalism to the administrators?ChrisStefan (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it continues, we probably should. --Boycool (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicable and sudden deletion of Bruce Copley

How is it possible for this page to be suddenly deleted without warning and before community consensus was reached to allow the deletion process to continue? The discussion was still very active and I myself was busy replying to criticisms but next thing I knew, the page was deleted without warning or explanation? How many poeple were involved in deciding if the arguments had merits and where do they explain their reasoning? (new article creator) ChrisStefan 14:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing sudden, inexplicable, or without warning about it. Deletion discussions are normally only a week long (see WP:AFD), and this one had gone on for ten days. You were the only user seeking to retain the page (random new users who pop up to support a point and then vanish aren't generally counted for anything), and therefore the article was deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read your own source you would see that deletion discussions are NOT NORMALLY a week long - they are AT LEAST a week long - THEN consensus has to reached before the process can continue. This did not happen. You don't think you could have at least given warning and adequate reasoning for your decision? As far as I know, the process consists of unbiasedly considering the arguments and proofs offered before you can decide to delete the page. Where can we see a report of the arguments and reasoning you used or agreed with, to decide that the page should be deleted? Please list those arguments that you feel empowered you to do this. Thank you. ChrisStefan (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement — nor is it normally done — for an administrator to give notice before closing a debate. There is a clear consensus on the discussion that the page should be deleted — you are the only user besides single-purpose accounts to say that the article should be kept. Debates don't work on a "last man standing wins" basis, nor does the person who writes most win.

We do not provide "reports of the arguments" for deletion discussions except occasionally when the debate is finely balanced.

Please tone down your rhetoric if you would like to continue to discuss this matter with me. You have as an alternative the option of filing a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review if you feel I have not followed deletion process correctly. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such clear consensus and as is also clearly stated this process is not a vote but an unbiased consideration of arguments. The notice at the top of the deletion page clearly invites anyone to contribute, yet you say their arguments should not be counted because they are single purpose accounts? From your statements you are clearly under the impression that this is a voting process and I suspect you did not even trouble yourself to consider the arguments involved, also given your reluctance to provide a short report on the matter. Yes I have now filed such a deletion request. ChrisStefan (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion it is also noted that there is a request for mediation active which had not been responded to yet, and surely this has to be considered before the discussion is closed?
WP:DGFA was the guidance I used to give less weight to single-purpose accounts. Consensus does not mean "all these other votes don't count because I'm right" (see User:MZMcBride/Memes#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy for a humourous discussion of this). Requests for mediation are not a bar to deletion. We'll see how the deletion review turns out. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thanks for these links, and yes let's see what happens. ChrisStefan 16:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for informal mediation of Bruce Copley

Hi. I see that you have requested informal mediation for a dispute over Bruce Copley. I have taken this on and am eager to help out, however I am a little stuck as to what I can do. As I understand it, the mediation you require is around whether the article should be deleted. As it now has been deleted, this seems somewhat of a moot point, since no amount of mediation can undo this decision, especially if it accurately reflects community consensus. If you feel that the deletion decision does not accurately reflect the consensus, then you could try taking the case to WP:DRV. However, you need to think hard before you do this, as WP:DRV is not the place to go simply to carry on the arguments from WP:AFD but is only appropriate if you genuinely believe that the decision to delete did not reflect the consensus of the deletion discussion.
Let me know what you think, and what help I can give you.--Korruski^Talk 10:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you very much. Yes unfortunately someone decided to go ahead and delete the page before anybody could mediate. After 10 days the discussion was still very much active and no warning was given of deletion, or consideration of the fact that I requested mediation to resolve serious questions pertaining to bias and bad-faith. Also, during deletion review I have shown that it is doubtful that the closing admin even read the AFD arguments properly and probably wasn't even aware that mediation had been requested. This admin says there was clear consensus but the fact is that it was claerly shown during AFD that the advocates for deletion could not motivate their own statements, instead chosing to default anyway with "Delete" endorsements. I am told that the onus of proof lies on me yet I have addressed every single criticism repeatedly whereas they could not and did not submit proof for their own statements. Also there were many supporters who presented arguments for 'keep' (probably outweighing the number who wanted 'delete') but these arguments were never addressed and the guys at deletion review are telling me that these contributions have zero weight because the people who want to 'keep' are all first-time users. Deletion review is also proving unhelpful and in my opinion also biased with nobody seriously considering the arguments that have been raised, or really prepared to read through the AFD discussion properly. I have no idea of what to do next and in fact if anything can be done. I am extremely disillusioned with this process as it is obvious that prejudgements and lots of Wiki-speak are employed to 'prove' unsuitability, rather than arguments being actually objectively considered. Anyway, thank you for your willingness to help even though it appears to be too late now. ChrisStefan (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. AfD can be confusing and difficult. The nature of consensus is not always clear, and is even the subject of disagreement within Wikipedia. In reality, most closing admins tend to go more or less with a count of the votes, giving a little more weight to those votes that succinctly and correctly apply wikipedia policies (such as WP:RS or WP:Notability) and a little less weight to arguments grounded in personal opinion, or those by users who may seem to have registered solely to comment on that one subject. It's not perfect, but in all honestly it is the best we've got, and it usually works. I haven't seen the original Bruce Copley article (now that it's deleted, I cannot look at it) so it's impossible for me to comment on whether it should have been deleted. I can, however, see the AfD discussion and if I'm honest, I do think the closing admin made the right call. Consensus was unfortunately against you, and the only people arguing to keep the article seemed to be very new users with few other edits. Their votes are given relatively little weight because they usually have less of an understanding of Wikipedia, and may just have joined up because they have strong feelings about one subject.

Anyway, you ask 'what next'. Let me make my suggestions, and see what you think. Firstly, you need to be unblocked. I have enquired into the reasons for your being blocked, and am waiting for a response, but either you need to wait for a week or you can request an unblock. For this to happen, it will help if you show that you understand your reasons for being blocked, and will genuinely change your behaviour. Looking at your posts, I would suggest that you care a bit too much about this article and it makes you combatative with other editors. Unfortunately, this is a recipe for getting blocked. I think the only way to be succesful on Wikipedia is to have a very thick skin, and when things start to go against you, to be able to say "meh, I lost this time, but it's only the internet"! If you do that, you'll be able to retreat and make your case another time. In this instance, you can request that the page is 'userfied' which means that it will be undeleted and made a personal user page of yours, so you can work on improving it without it being deleted again. Then, when it is ready, you can move it back to mainspace. I would be happy to help with looking at the article and giving you an honest opinion on whether it is suitable for wikipedia and, if so, how it can be improved. If it can be improved, I will gladly help with that as well. All I would ask of you is that you try not to argue with other editors. I hope this is useful. Please do ask me for any specific advice I can give.--Korruski^Talk 14:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is by far the best attitude and the most helpful suggestions I have been offered here since joining, and I want to thank you for this. I am probably not blameless in my attitude and my frustration during the review process did cause me to make some statements there (which I thought humorous at the time) which are now being held against me. I did try to mostly address the argument and not the person especially during AFD. I do feel though that I offered definite proof of bias during both AFD and review, and the act of doing this is now used to accuse me of personal attack. You can read and decide for yourself exactly what happened during review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_February_8#Bruce_Copley I think your suggestion of "userfying" the article is really helpful and I should go that way. If you want to see the article, there is a Google cache at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PV1AoAdknbwJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Copley+Bruce+Copley&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=za&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.za. Any questions and criticisms you have after reading the article are most probably already addressed during AFD or review, and I was busy responding to the last person's criticisms at AFD but did not have the chance to post before the page suddenly got deleted (so if you want I can send you this response as well). At the moment though I am happy to take a break, so I have no problem with waiting 7 days! I want to thank you again for your constructive offer of help and I really wished you had joined the discussion earlier. Best, ChrisStefan (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I cannot respond to this over at deletion review, but I think this comment speaks for itself and shows the kind of mindset I am dealing with:

"But the Silver medal, which is the award in this case, is "a person under the age of 40 who is actively engaged in research and has, by way of international participation and publications, shown outstanding capability and achievement." I do not think that confers notability -- I see the key phrase "outstanding capability" which often means Not Yet Notable. It's possible that an article directed to the scientific achievements might meet the standard, but it would need to be written by someone else".
To say that "outstanding capability and achievement" is not notable is, frankly, mind-boggling to say the least. I am just glad to be out of this mental asylum for now. ChrisStefan (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right that taking a break until the block expires is a good idea. Once you're able to edit freely again, I suggest you contact the admin who deleted the page and politely ask them to userfy it for you. Then we'll have a look and see if it can be got up to wikipedia standards. I had a look at the cached one briefly, and I think it might be possible to get it to pass WP:notability, but I'll have to do a bit more looking around for sources first.--Korruski^Talk 08:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Korruski. ChrisStefan (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days for Multiple violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, casting aspersions, treating wikipedia like a battleground. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —slakr^\ talk / 22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before accusing me of edit-warring please make sure of your facts. If you look at the article in question's history view you would see that nowhere did I make more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. You would also see on the talk page that there is a thorough discussion and explanation of the changes made. It is strange that the user who continually reverts my edits has not been given a similar warning and I wonder if you could perhaps explain the reason for this? ChrisStefan (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made 5 reverts in a 24 hour period:

15:30, 20 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 414957718 by 41.121.72.36 (talk)")
18:26, 20 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 414982138 by Thivierr (talk) - sources are adequate to proof parentage")
05:14, 21 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 415015498 by Thivierr (talk) parentage not in doubt with these sources")
05:59, 21 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 415080581 by Thivierr (talk) no possible doubt about parentage")
13:57, 21 February 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 415125152 by Jonathanwallace (talk) Removed contentious source, and added another source")

The warning is simply a courtesy for those who are presumably unaware of the rule. In this instance, you were given a warning instead of a block. Please help prove me right—show me that I made the right call—by simply heeding the warning. --slakr^\ talk / 23:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologize - with 24 hours I assumed edits made in the course of one day, so I only looked at the day of the month. I will be more careful in the future. It would help if there were some warning notification by Wikipedia whenever someone reverts something for the 4th time inside 24 hours. I would think this would be a very simple check to implement programatically and would prevent mistakes like this from happening. ChrisStefan (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]