User talk:Stephen Burnett/Archive1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Stephen Burnett/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 21:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened Stuart Millson AfD

In the light of an apparent serious externally-directed abuse of process regarding the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Millson discussion, I have reopened the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Millson 2 with the proviso that anon IPs/new accounts will be excluded as probably sock- or meatpuppets. You voted last time around, so you may wish to take a look at the new vote. -- ChrisO 23:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:Lorieposes

Hi, I saw that you recently reverted some edits by Lorieposes over at brassiere where she kept adding pictures of herself and advertising her website. Now she has moved on to adding pictures of herself at negligee, but as of now, I don't think she's added any links to her on site. I don't know if it's against policy for her to go around adding pictures of herself or not, but I just thought I would give you the heads up that someone might need to keep an eye on her. Later, Chicken Wing 08:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, she did advertise her page. Looking at the summary for adding the picture, it's little more than an advertisement for her page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Negligee.jpg

Chicken Wing 08:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Horror film

The paragraph had no place in the article. It was POV, badly edited, and was out of place.

(unsigned comment from 69.110.235.31)

link to history of brassieres

I hadn't meant to remove the link to that article; thanks for catching it. Cheers, JDoorj a m Talk 21:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Brassiere Article

Please stop removing elements ref. male bra from the Brassiere article, it could be deemed as vandalism. MPBorisJohnson 20:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The same edit is constantly being made by an anonymous user on various IP's who refuses to discuss the issue on the article's talk page - despite repeated requests and warnings on the edit summaries and respective talk pages. *That* is vandalism, and completely unacceptable, and I will continue to revert it. The appropriate behaviour, in case you're not aware of it, is to discuss the issue on the talk page first. They should do so, and I advise you to do the same. --Stephen Burnett 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that fact, I am here to try and balance this arguement between the nonIP posting person and yourself. From what I can see, you seem to be adament and want to hide the fact that men don't wear bras - when there is information available and sources stated to say they do, so there is no reason to constantly change what that person is adding because you don't seem to agree with it, Wikipedia is based on Fact and the information available shows it is fact. I can also see your view, that its a minority of men that do, and that should be put into consideration. From what I can see this has been discussed on the Talk Page and others have said to leave the male bra section alone.

I respect your opinions and have suggested merging the Male Bra Wikipedia Article with the main Brassiere page because the two are just the same.

Hope I have been of some help. MPBorisJohnson 11:02, 31st December 2006 UTC.

I have repeatedly asked would-be editors to discuss the content of the Brassiere article on the article's talk page, ie HERE. When I reverted your edit, I put "discuss on the talk page" in the edit summary. My last comment on your user page said "discuss the issue on the talk page". So perhaps you will appreciate that after finding your comment above on my personal talk page, I'm feeling more than a little upset to discover clear evidence that I have lost the ability to convey a very simple concept in the English language - something which up till now I've always thought I do rather well. Never mind. I am nothing if not persevering. Let me try again. PLEASE DISCUSS THE CONTENT OF THE BRASSIERE ON THE ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE .... HERE!!!!!. I do hope that's clarified things. I have copied our discussion so far to the article's talk page. --Stephen Burnett 12:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true you wear a bra yourself, Stephen? I can't see why else you'd be so obsessed with this subject. If you don't, how about you butt out and leave the Brassiere page to women who know what they're talking about?!?

It's a rash assumption to assume that men don't wear bras; if you'd been at all involved with the article, you'd know that. Actually though, most of my edits have consisted of reverting vandalism and cleaning up references and formatting; no special inside knowledge required. Oh - and reverting illiterate, unsubstantiated drivel like [this], of course. By the way, you really ought to learn to sign your talk page edits --Stephen Burnett 21:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ref Fashion design

what i am do in Fashion Design is not a vandalism, but it's the truth, cause i don't know the person who create that page is Japanese-American or not, Japan is still not on list of big six fashion country, which include: United Kingdom, United States of American, France, Italy, Germany and Hong Kong, but not Japanese, yes i am Fashion designer from Malasyia, but i think Indonesian and Thai design is most modern and trendy than Japanese, Japanese follow French model, that's it! But Japanese-American, perhaps he stay in California, try to make Japan as big country of fashion, i thought i can say "Malaysia is no 1 country in fashion", nothing wrong about it right? if i make it with Encyclopedia standard, it legal, right? But it still not the truth! please verify the fact of page before you make it legal, and people believe that as a fact, okay?

Unsigned comment by 61.247.42.101 at 06:54 7th January 2007

Sadly, my language skills are inadequate to extract all the subtle nuances of meaning from this text. I can, however, deduce that it expresses a strongly personal POV, and that the user thought this justified him/her in removing content which someone else had worked on, without any prior discussion. --Stephen Burnett 13:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Stravinsky

This article has been selected for Feature Article Review. Please see the talk page and discussion at FAR for improvements you can make to retain its FA status. Jeffpw 10:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test warning templates

Hello Stephen Burnett. I stumbled across this edit you made to an anonymous editor's talk page. It looks like it was the first message on the talk page, yet you evidently used the {{test2}} template. It appears you were warning the anon for this relatively harmless edit. Why didn't you use {{test}}? I ask because it seemed premature for me to use {{test3}} as the next warning. —EncMstr 20:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate to describe the edit as a test. In my experience, people who are testing tend to do it by inserting the odd few characters or carriage returns. The edit you refer to is quite different. In general I make the distinction by asking whether the edit undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedic source. This one clearly does.

To put it another way, WP:TUSER makes the point that a level one warning is appropriate where good faith is assumed - in other words where the editor is assumed to have made a well-intentioned error. This edit fails that test. The {{test2}} template identifies the edit as nonsense, which it clearly is by any reasonable definition of the word. --Stephen Burnett 11:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Picture Of The Year

I confirm my vote for no 7. --Stephen Burnett 17:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not enough. Please refer to the IP address under which you voted - Alvesgaspar 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat it is not enough to refer to the number of the picture. Please refer to the IP address under which you voted - Alvesgaspar 18:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to refer to that adress ... here. That is the way to assure that everyone is who pretends to be. Alvesgaspar 18:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh - sorry, I'm being a bit dense. OK: I confirm my vote for no 7. Vote cast using IP 81.179.66.146 --Stephen Burnett 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Silverton

sorry pal, i looked at you comments and investigated further.. what seems to have happened is that an old version of kate silverton appears to have been saved in my temp internet files and thus this is what i saw when i attempted to view the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kate_Silverton&oldid=110533788

my intention was to remove this foul insult however a quick refresh revealed that this vandalism had been long removed.

applogies,

Jamesmh2006

William Faulkner

Message re [[1]]

sorry from 68.190.34.228

Reply

You're right: [2]. Mea culpa. You have the honour of being the first to point out a solecism to me. I should have known better, but it's 02:39AM and I can't sleep! Really, I know the difference between nouns and adjectives. If I don't, find out my address and shoot me.

I still think the article is too fluffy, but not in the parts that serve "the interests of literacy". Meep 15:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, 2AM editing syndrome - major cause of "Wikistress". Some cures [here] Stephen Burnett 16:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More vandal lint on Ernest Hemingway - can you confirm this one...

Wow that article really does get vandals ! (beats Tennis ball. I re-read it to get a new baseline in my head as to what the article is about and noticed this edit which makes no sense to me... [3] that is still in the article. I'm guessing it's junk. OK to remove ?. Ttiotsw 20:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's junk, take it out - thanks for picking it up. --Stephen Burnett 20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Sebastian Bach

I recieved a message from you about changing a page on Bach, which I haven't done. I don't know if the message was sent erroneously or not, but I haven't even visited the page.

That would be for [this] edit. If you don't register with a user name, the talk page for your IP is going to pick up vandal warnings and their associated actions, whether you made them or not. That's why it's a good idea to register.

By the way, if you leave a message on a talk or discussion page it helps if you put four tildes (like this: ~~~~) at the end to sign and date your message --Stephen Burnett 18:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldi

Hello: I was not intending to "vandalize" the Vivaldi page, I was trying to fix it from someone who wrote something in all caps on the page. My intent was a good one, just trying to help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.229.60 (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I do apologise; my mistake, I must have clicked on the wrong IP. I have removed the warning from your talk page. --Stephen Burnett 22:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It should go without saying, though here's my thanks for your support with the 'Fashion'-IP anyway. Femto 12:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - a lot of edits to restore that link seem to be from various other IP's, so apart from reverting there is not much else that can be done, I'm afraid. --Stephen Burnett 14:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User 204.60.75.98

Hi, You sent a level-3 warning to this user at 2007-03-30T17:50:32 about Charles Dickens. I think you got the wrong one - I can't see that s/he vandalised that page today, or at all recently. FJPB 18:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - thanks for catching it. It was probably for 1990s, but you already did that. Thank you --Stephen Burnett 18:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look! I have templates too!

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Latex and PVC fetishism‎. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. NeoFreak 20:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a procedure for getting pages removed if you don't think they should be there; you're supposed to follow it, even if in your opinion the page is nonsense. Please follow it - otherwise, how exactly are you any different from a vandal? --Stephen Burnett 20:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content, as you did to Latex and PVC fetishism‎, is considered vandalism and may result in a block. NeoFreak 20:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your pet Fetish article

We have a couple policies like WP:OR, WP:ATT, even WP:V. I know this may come as a shock to you but igf you want ot assert that something is a fact on wikipedia then you need a "source". Crazy, no? If there are not enough reliable sources in an article to verify it then I can redirect it to a umbrella article. If you add something without attributing it to a reliable source then I can remove it. Don't call me vadal, I'm not the one violating policy and I don't appreciate it. NeoFreak 20:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you'll notice that I'd didn't blank the page. It's called a redirect. Is this all happening al little too fast? Should I slow down? NeoFreak 20:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. If you think it lacks quality, improve it. Nowhere does it say in Wikipedia policy that you're entitled to blank an article on the grounds which you've stated - or on any grounds at all. You know that as well as I do, so please stop it. --Stephen Burnett 20:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is no different with a redirect. Things are supposed to happen by discussion, not by you pre-empting them. As for slowing down - not really, just try behaving a bit more like a sensible grown-up. --Stephen Burnett 20:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected the article to an umbrella article that mentions the fetishes existance and gives a brief summary. The old article was a total violation being all original research and unsourced material. You have 24 hours to find a relaible source for the article and then it gets merged again. In the interm read the policies that make this place work and that you seem to have nothing but contempt for. NeoFreak 21:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's because I respect those policies that we're having this discussion. And advice on "making this place work" doesn't sound too convincing when it comes from someone who seems to think that pre-emptive action, bullying and issuing threats are acceptable behaviour. --Stephen Burnett 21:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may care to look at Uniform fetish, Schoolgirl uniform fetish and Gimp suit.--Taxwoman 21:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven

Sorry about that im sooo stupid i changed it back I Thought it was da Vinci I was corecting because he was born on April 15, 1452 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustin89 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry me again Emma Watson Was Not born in France she was born in oxford England. where she lives now.