User talk:Rstafursky
|
Proposed deletion of NLATS[edit]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article NLATS, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- Made-up (no web mentions) - only contributor is Richard Stafursky, only reference is to his blog.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. pablohablo. 14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of NLATS[edit]
I have nominated NLATS, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NLATS. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. pablohablo. 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Natural Landscape Abutter Threat Scale[edit]
I have nominated Natural Landscape Abutter Threat Scale, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Landscape Abutter Threat Scale. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jll (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The Species List Forest (World Species List Forest) Is an important Wiki contribution[edit]
There are those who do not understand that the Species List Forest of Conway, MA USA is a real place. It has now existed as a land trust in Massachusetts now for ten years. It is owned by a nonprofit, charitable, nature conservation organization. Why anyone would want to deprive readers of knowledge of its existence is beyond the pale. Why could anyone say that a uniquely created nature preserve is irrelevant is beyond comprehension. We question why anyone would consider it such. It is clear that those critical of its description and history are unfamiliar with the natural landscape and individual and group efforts to acres aside to be returned to the control of natural forces and processes. The natural landscape has few spokes persons to be sure and there are even fewer people and organizations willing to put their money (and land) where their mouth is. Wikipedia needs more articles about successful conservation efforts. There are those that would stifle these specific conservation efforts and now it appears that these individuals would remove real stories and real conservation success efforts. The species list forest is not fiction. It is and has been a real place for a long time. It gets many visitors and, by its existence, serves to educate the community about the natural landscape.
- As it happens, no one is denying that it is a real place, and no one has raised any cricitisms of its description or history. Wikipedia, however, is a private encyclopedia with policies and guidelines governing what subjects merit articles. The foremost requirement is that of WP:V, which holds that all articles must be verified by at least two reliable sources, independent of the subject and which discuss the subject in "significant detail." In practice, "reliable sources" are published mass-market books, newspapers and broadcast media. Websites seldom qualify, and blogs almost never do. I myself could find no evidence of any such sources for this forest. I strongly recommend you review the links already posted to your discussion page so you can gain an understanding of our standards. Good luck. Ravenswing 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The link to Franklin County Deeds shows that this is a real conservation holdings and has been for 10 years. Because it has no trails it is never included in trail maps, but that does not mean that it is not a model, conservation success. We were written up at the time of donation in the Greenfield Recorder newspaper and I'm hoping that their archives go back that far. Also we appear on the State conservation/open space digital maps that can be found in our Species List Blog. We will try to extract these links in the next several days. We are also noted on other Massachusetts state maps. Please give us time to get a link that works in this regard. We are known in the conservation community, but because we do not fund the same way and do not give other land trusts an interest in our acres (conservation restrictions) they never site us. Land trusts don't site other efforts outside of their own minions.
I assure you there are references to our forest it will just take time to document them. Please do not make invisible a conservation area that has been in existence in northern Conway, MA for nearly 10 years and we have paid town taxes all that time. Most people don't know that. although land trusts are 501(c)(3) charities all conservation areas paid taxes to the local towns. Only churches and veterans groups pap no local taxes on their land.
Please don't delete us.
Stafursky24.62.93.233 (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- The deletion discussion will take seven days, and you are encouraged to participate in it - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Species List Forest. If, during this time, you add appropriate independent reliable sources, to satisfy the notability guidelines, that will be taken into account.
- If the article is deleted, you can request a copy and perhaps work on it in your user-space.
- There is no deadline. I suggest that you edit some other articles - ones where you have no conflict of interest - which will help you to learn more about how Wikipedia works. Best, Chzz ► 11:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- That being said, I still urge you to review the policy links posted to your talk page. Whether this article passes policy muster is the only relevant issue, and whether there is a deed at the Franklin County Registry, whether or not the trust pays taxes and whether names are listed on state land-use maps are all irrelevant. As far as the Recorder goes, its archive goes back to 1990, but no articles on the forest turn up there. Ravenswing 16:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, sorry for duplicating this, but I'm not sure if administrators read both Talk and Discussion. I'm not sure if I understand the difference ... so here is my final statement (again). We have now added a second real press citation as requested. These references were both written by a third party in the publishing business. Thank you for your encouragement. We now understand the requirements of Wikipedia articles. I believe that I am a reasonable intelligent person, but somehow your guidelines slipped by me. Stafursky
P.S. The Recorder article exists. I told you the Recorder archives were incomplete. I sent you a image of the story because they were incomplete. If Wikipedia relies on electronic history (such as archive searches) only then Wikipedia is altering history. It appears that the archives do not archive the Local News section of the Recorder ,,, only the regional. That is why your assumption that your 1990+ negative result was all that there is. If you want, you can call the writer of the piece himself (old school type investigation). Last know work # (413) 772-0261 x286 for Arn Albertini. I left a message with the writer who now holds extension 286.
Please don't delete the Species List Forest
Stafursky
July 2010[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Species List Forest. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the position. Thank you. Ravenswing 04:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Species forest for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Species forest is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species forest 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 high-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. Yunshui 雲水 10:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring[edit]
Your recent editing history at Natural landscape shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Marathon (talk • contribs) 01:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —Darkwind (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
{{Help me}} Rstafursky (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 | You used the {{Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access. Mysdaao talk 16:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC) |
Natural landscape[edit]
Some intense research as made me better appreciate both the difficulties of this topic and the problems that you face with limited time to edit it. I have been endeavouring to understand your point of view not attack the article. Rwood128 (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I decided to make further edits to the lede, from the draft, because they seem to correspond to your interpretation of natural landscape. However, if I'm mistaken feel free to edit/revert, or whatever (I won't accuse you of anything). That's how Wikipedia works, as I see it. Cheers.Rwood128 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Can you check this (if you have good security on your computer): Top 10 Ways Man Is Destroying the Environment, Matt Schwarzfeld, Discovery Communications, LLC. 2013 (History of natural landscape, citation no.24). My computer gives a security warning. I don't know how to flag a suspicious link like this. Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I've found a better and safer citation.Rwood128 (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Please use the Talk Page of the Article in question. Thanks. Rhstafursky (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Brattleboro Meetup[edit]
Hi Rstafursky! I saw that you say that you are living in Brattleboro. I am going to be visiting the Brattleboro in May, before I move there in August and I wanted to see if anyone would be interested in doing a Wikimedia meetup there during my May visit. If you are interested, it would be great if you responding at the event page at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brattleboro to help me schedule such a meetup! Sadads (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Rstafursky. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)