User talk:Storkk

Notice: I'd greatly appreciate help with some unidentified photos so that I can upload them. I have uploaded them to Flickr. They are currently very small images that should still be identifiable. If you are a taxonomist (or ornithologist, herpetologist or entomologist), or are otherwise familiar with the wildlife of Costa Rica, Mexico, Europe, or the USA, please have a look to see if you can help identify them! On Flickr, they are very low-quality, scaled-down versions under a more restrictive license: This won't be the case for any photos I upload to Commons ... Many Thanks! Storkk 11:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

---

NB. I will respond on your talk page, unless you request otherwise. I would also prefer if you responded on mine. I annotate conversations that would otherwise be difficult to follow. Thanks! Storkk

Please leave any messages in a new section below, signed with "~~~~"

Star

I moved this from my userpage --Storkk (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for working in duplicated images project. Your effort is appreciated. Emijrp (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

{{tocommons}}

N.B. This conversation pertains to an image that is free, but was marked with {{Non-free software screenshot}} as well as a fair use rationale, which caused the confusion. --Storkk (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you added a {{tocommons}} tag to Image:Bahro-Cave-1.jpg. Please note that non-free images cannot be copied to wikimedia commons. I have removed the tag. Cheers! --Storkk (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note the Ubisoft license that "grants anyone the right to use such images for any purpose, including redistribution, derivative works and commercial use, provided the image is attributed to Ubisoft." so it's a standard attribution license and thus free. // Liftarn (talk)

My mistake. Sorry for the confusion. Cheers! --Storkk (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's a bit confusing it uses two tags, one free and one fair use. I saw you took care of that. // Liftarn (talk)

To the opposers in my RfA

NB. This pertains to User:Walton One's reconfirmation RfA. I replied on his talk, reconsidered my opinion, arrived at the same conclusion, and fleshed out my !vote on the RfA page --Storkk (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to apologise for my intemperate comments during the Melsaran affair. I accept that I should have expressed myself more civilly, and should have waited for the ArbCom to explain themselves rather than jumping to conclusions and condemning them. I can honestly say that I regret my reaction.

In my defence, I would like to reiterate that I did not use the admin tools in any way in relation to the Melsaran affair. I am completely aware that it would be a very bad idea to wheel-war with ArbCom, and I can honestly say that I would never do so.

For what it's worth, I genuinely don't dislike the ArbCom. I respect the fact that they have to make tough decisions, and I understand that sometimes these decisions must be made in secret. It is true that I have a natural aversion to authority and secrecy; this is part of my character. But in future I will do my best to treat the arbitrators with more respect and to assume good faith on their part.

I served this community for seven months as an administrator, with very little criticism. I believe that I can continue to help Wikipedia by serving as an administrator. I ask you to look at the beneficial contributions I've made to the encyclopedia; I believe that the good I can do outweighs the problems with my somewhat combative nature.

Please give me a second chance. Walton^One 13:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thank you for your civil response. If I pass (which still seems possible) I will do my best to address your concerns; if I don't pass, I will run again in a few months, and will hope for your support then. Walton^One 13:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AfDs for really old people

NB. this concerns a large number of AfDs that BrownHairedGirl created for individual articles on some American supercentenarians. I suggested that it would have made a better discussion had most of the uncontroversial ones been posted as a mass AfD, as the arguments are identical. My comment is found on her talk page --Storkk (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your msg: see reply on my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Over Board (film)

Hi there. I continued to dig around and connect the dots regarding that hoax, but it appears you were much faster. Thanks for the help :) Dalric (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Larval food plants of Lepidoptera

Hi, I recently saw your comment on the talk page above, and agree entirely. I'm trying to change them, but am unsure which should remain capitalized. Is "Abelia" a proper noun? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the notice; I didn't have the page watchlisted. I'll reply on the linked page above. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

AccuCMS

Article is notable. Company is notable. Product is notable. Covered in international media. Story of the development of the AccuCMS product will serve as Content material for curriculum at graduate school of major US university. It is being deleted in a completely arbitrary manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QA5Qz (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review

Thanks a ton for contributing towards my editor review! Of course I went to one of the user pages you mentioned to add a welcome message and forgot to put in the edit summary. Anyway, I appreciate your feedback and will work on the areas you mentioned. Thanks again. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Vista-file-manager.png

Hi, again, Gurch. I saw that you uploaded the above-linked image (and tagged it GFDL), from the source http://sa-ki.deviantart.com -- I may be blind, but i can't find it on sa-ki's gallery. I have found a number of Sa-ki's images that are licensed under a CC-xx-ND license, which is incompatible with our Free images. Could you please clarify where, exactly you got it from (i.e. the link to the image's individual page), and where we can see the license specific to this image? Thanks, Storkk (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get it from anywhere, I just uploaded it from Commons so that it could be protected locally, as it was widely used at the time. The image description page at the time I uploaded it was merely a copy of the image's description page on Commons at the time; I hold no responsibility for any subsequent edits to either description page. As the image is no longer widely used (the template on which it was employed now uses a different image), the page can be unprotected and it can be deleted – Gurch 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check the commons: I didn't see any indication that that was what you had done from the image page. It's still widely used here, I think because people subst'ed the template (or they are still using the old one, it's a possibility with the {{archive box}} template). It seems like the original uploader might be the artist who created it, so I'll ask that he confirms via OTRS. Thanks and sorry for the confusion. --Storkk (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Musings relative to some AfD discussions

Hi! I've had some thoughts recently, and I thought I'd share them with you in hope of the potential of your input. I've admired your administrative (in the usual sense, not only confined to adminship) contributions to Wikipedia for a long time, especially relating to ArbCom. I am not, nor have I ever been, a member or Wikinfo (though I don't discount the future possibility), but I've seen countless cases on WP:AfD and other fora of notable dissension, where the major issue at hand is the insurmountable problem of Original Research. It has recently struck me that in many of these cases, it might be feasible to defuse much of the tension with a user talk template similar to {{uw-nor1}}... in style, it would be different, and more welcoming (as opposed to the warning template that it is) and would include a link and an invitation message to wikinfo that states its acceptance of OR. I don't know if such a systematic method of diverting unwanted content from wikipedia to wikinfo would be welcomed here, but I think it might be... I also don't know of any policies or guidelines that would explicitly forbid it (i.e. a template that systematically links to an external and, in some views, competing, site).

A similar template might also be applied to systematic NPOV-violators, so long as their POV is "sympathetic" (this would be especially relevant for pseudoscience, etc. articles that are continually invaded by quacks (as I see it) but who would, because of the sympathetic-POV policy of wikinfo, not be violating policy (and infuriating NPOV sticklers) if they moved over into wikinfo's welcoming arms). I'd appreciate your thoughts on this fledgling idea. I anticipate an answer along the lines of "it'll be impossible", but the short time that it has taken me to write this will have paid off greatly if you think it might be possible, and if even only a few of the acerbic discussions might be avoided by a precipitous switch to wikinfo, where they might be welcomed as valued contributors. Thanks for your time! --Storkk (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. If you would reply on my talk page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In many instances such content could be integrated into Wikinfo, but it is not my place to advance such a self-serving proposal. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Non-free use rationale

N.B. This discussion pertains to errors that the template was having in parsing files with "!" in their name. I attempted to enlist the help of someone with better template experience, more is found on the template's talk page. --Storkk (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so busy now. What seems to be the problem? It looks like Quadell tried something to fix it but then reverted his edits. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 05:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Still around? That template doesn't look like it's been fixed. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 17:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:idw-pui

Hey, Storkk - was there a reason you removed the autosignature from the template? I've restored it for now. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the auto-sign, because most templates don't have one (see all the uw templates, for example, or the vast majority of the idw templates). Usage of most talk templates that I have seen, requires signing separately. This inconsistency caused me to sign twice when I used this template, so I changed it for consistency with the others... Cheers, Storkk (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply - the image deletion user warnings are also used by some monobook javascripts (most notably User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js) - the removal was causing the user warnings to not be signed. I didn't realize it until SineBot left a nastygram on my talk page. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That it's included in some userspace javascripts is a problem, as I really think it should be consistent with the other warning templates, and javascript tools cannot be edited except by the individual users. I don't yet have a good idea how to solve this. --Storkk (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Old humans

My apologies for not replying earlier on the article. ;) Sid (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Russian ancestry of Ivan Rebroff?

Hi; I wondered what might be the source of the statement regarding Ivan Rebroff's "Russian ancestry" in the Rebroff article and asked this question at Talk:Ivan Rebroff. I see that it was you who added this information, so maybe you can respond there. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It was not me who added this information. --Storkk (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

High Level Assembly

Thanks for the notice; I thought the advert tag might've been enough to show my views on the article, but I will make sure to make a note on the talk page in future cases. See Talk:High Level Assembly#NPOV concerns. nneonneo ^talk 19:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why man why?

why man why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOLDIERATWAR (talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Because ⁽¹⁾, man ⁽²⁾... because⁽³⁾. Or are you asking why i used an escalation of the {{test}} templates rather than the {{blatantvandal}} template? --Storkk (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Charge of the Light Brigade

"Sic" doesn't necessarily mean that something was spelled wrongly, just that it is as written in the original and not a transcription error. I suppose I should have made it a link, as here, so that this was more obvious. I'm now standing back waiting for countless helpful corrections into the modern spelling. May I revert, including the internal link, or even using the less common variant "thus"? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. OK, let's wait to see if the spelling does cause a problem.--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hello Storkk, I've granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember to use rollback to revert edits that you are absolutely sure are vandalism: if in doubt, don't use rollback to revert. In addition, misuse of the rollback feature, either by reverting good-faith edits or revert-warring, can and will lead to its removal. For more information, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 17:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability endorsement of David Carrett article

Dear Storkk,
Thanks for your help.
I really appreciate it.
As I said in edit notes if article will be deleted I will publish it on wikileaks.
This folk belongs to a dirty story.

Absolutely Trustworthy (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Like i indicated in my edit summaries, though... my refactoring of the article and grammar fixes are emphatically not a comment on this person's notability--a topic I know absolutely nothing at all about.--Storkk (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read...

N.B. Indefblocked user. --Storkk (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OFFTOPIC#Stay_on_topic

I will be vigilant in removing off topic spam, as per this policy. Baron1984 (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Storkk

N.B. This pertains to the problems that the Indefblocked User:Baron1984 was causing. I was attempting to cool the situation down. More of my comments are found on User talk:SkyWalker. --Storkk (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it is not worth it. Did you check his edits?. He is removing all of the ubuntu images look here, here, here and many more. Look at his contrib for more evidence. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not the point. Please look at this contrib closely. I can go ahead and remove fedora images and add Debian images all other linux distributions. There is no need to remove ubuntu images unless the ver is old. Those images which is available has been added long back and they have proper license tags. Unlike his images. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted the admins to check the stuff. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There are few admins here who are wise who i can learn from. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect and deletion of David Carrett page

Hi RGTraynor,
from the history log of this page [1] I found your following note:

---

13:57, 17 July 2008 RGTraynor (Talk | contribs) (36 bytes)
(In fact, there is only ONE cite on Google News,
and that just mentions the fellow's name.
Per WP:BLP1E[2], no notability beyond the event) (undo)

(...)

---

I would like to remind you that also Gavrilo Princip was "a notable person for ONLY one event":

the starting of World War I.

But even so he has a wikipedia page about him.
Of course I do NOT want to help starting any "World War III, but I would like to help internet surfers (you as well) to focus on this captain of the U.S. Navy Forces, this David Carrett and I think everyone has the right to know more about this person in a structured "wikipedia way" in order to understand better this War on Terror, and what terrorism is all about.
You cite Google News for allegedly having "ONE cite" about him.
Well I didn't find even that "ONE cite".
But THAT is NOT the point.
In the article that you deleted there were:

1. three links to news articles from La Repubblica italian national newspaper,
2. one to "Guardian" a U.K. based newspaper, and last but not least...
3. one to the "Annotico Report, A commentary by Richard Annotico on current news of interest to those of Italian ancestry, that appear in US, Italian, and International publications[3].
   

IMHO I don't think you have the right to cancel like that an article that has involved two users in writing it:

1. me... and;
   
2. Storkk
   

I am not an english wikipedia administrator but I believe that before cancelling it you should have placed at least a speedy deletion template.
That should be the normal procedure.
Anyway if you google "David Garrett" Cia Piazza Fontana bombings [4] you will find two results (Garrett is another way he is known);
If you google "David Carrett" Cia Piazza Fontana bombings [5] you will find 53 results but you will also notice that the at the end of the second search page there will be a note telling you the following:
In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 53 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included[6].
This will prompt you 283 results.
Should I go on about the "notability" on this folk?
Are you sure you understood who we are talking about?
Please note I am note mentioning what you will find googling with italian keywords "David Carrett" "Strage di Piazza Fontana" [7] (hmmm or should I? Well yeah: 905 results!) This talk will be placed on Storkk page and on David Carrett discussion page.
Tomorrow I will revert the page you deleted and I will try to attract some administrator to our discussion.
Nothing personal with you.
Please keep up your good work on wikipedia: I saw you own a lot of barnstars
Thanks for your attention.

Absolutely Trustworthy (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC) P.S.: I am going to the gym right now.

• No, a template was not required; in fact, WP:BLP generally requires editors to be aggressive in dealing with violations. Having gone over your search results, I see that your numerous hits are studded with personal sites, Wiki mirrors and repeats of the same phrasing over and over again, suggesting that the same material is being copied on site after site. What I do not see, as WP:BIO requires, substantive non-trivial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject and about the subject. Not a single one of these sources treat Carrett as anything other than a trivial mention of a name in the list; not a single one is about Carrett. Mind you, I certainly can't prevent you from reverting the redirect, but the article will go to AfD at the first opportunity thereafter.  RGTraynor  18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)