User talk:Stifle/Archive 0409: Difference between revisions

Help

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:Stifle

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:13, 25 April 2008

Please click here to leave me a message.

Older archives
Archive: September-October 2006
Archive: November-December 2006
Archive: January-September 2007 (you'll notice my Wikipedia editing dropped off fairly significantly this year)
Archive: October 2007
Archive: November 2007
Archive: December 2007 (part 1) (part 2)
Archive: January 2008
Archive: February 2008 (part 1) (part 2)
Archive: March 2008
Archive: April 2008 (1st) (2nd-8th) (9th-11th) (12th-18th) (19th-20th) (21st-22nd)

Replies

Please reply to me here if possible.
If your message is about an AFD or other discussion that you want me to (re)contribute to, I will generally not reply other than by checking the page and adding a comment.
Unless your message or your talk page advises otherwise, I will reply here and copy my reply to your talk page.
Please don't leave your email address as I cannot reply to messages by email.

Deletion of "Boxer Welfare Scotland"

I noticed this page was deleted, the reason being: "Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance"

Boxer Welfare Scotland is in fact a charity - one of quite a few rescue charities featured on this site. I would appreciate it if the page could be restored. If there is a problem with it, could you please suggest what must be added to the page to make it more eligible?

Thanks

Paranoid Marvin (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:ORG for details on the requirements which an organization must meet to have a Wikipedia page. If you feel that Boxer Welfare Scotland meets those requirements, please let me know, and point me to some references in newspapers or other publications where it has been written about. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply.

Are this articles appropriate?

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

Thank you. Now please explain which criterion at WP:ORG that this organization meets. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

I'm just a little intrigued by this barnstar you've awarded JzG. I'm always happy to see people receive these and I was just curious to the 'why'. So eh, would you mind sharing?
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an accumulation of service and good contributions in the face of tendentious opposition. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Any samples? Maybe I can learn a thing or two. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in particular, but look at his contributions to the arbitration process or the admin noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies; Have a groovy week. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(offtopic) Help on recovering User_talk:Jaakobou#Copyright_problems_with_Image:Tunnels_uncovered_in_Rafah.jpg, would be appreciated. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have proof that the images are released under a free license? Stifle (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Images released by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs are released under fair use guidelines. Using the Tunnels uncovered in Rafah operation should be linked in the Operation's article. It's basic fair use and the image possibly had an incomplete fair use rationale, but other than that (best I'm aware) - it should not have been deleted.

Thanks for looking into it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (comment copied from my own talk page) 02:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't be used under fair use due to failing to comply with WP:NFCC #1. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning. I'm not aware that there a "free equivalent is available", but maybe you know something I don't? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A free equivalent could be created. Sorry, should have been clearer. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this material copyrighted so that creating a copy and calling it free is in fact a copyright violation? I don't understand why the image is not allowed while a replacement is not available. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like some arrows on a map. Seems replaceable enough... Stifle (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being rude, but the deletion of this image is somewhat frustrating to me. To clarify, anyone putting some arrows on a map would be copying the arrows made by the Israeli Foreign Ministry and I'm not aware of any copyright free replacements existing. So I have to ask if you would mind raising this image to discussion in front of a larger audience? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The place for that would be Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. HokieRNB (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Two and a half hours? I was expecting a DRV within 20 minutes. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Vereniging Basisinkomen

Hi,

Could you remove the COI-tag from Vereniging Basisinkomen (user:WLU who wrote the present text has no COI there) since a one-purpose account is editwarring over this? Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Same one-purpose account is now stalking me and starting to make disruptive edits like [1]. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Stifle/wizard/dispute. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (4th nomination)

Your closure was against consensus, and reflected your personal opinion, which, as you know, is improper. Moreover, it achieved nothing, as the names were simply moved back into the bulging main article. -- Y not? 14:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has not participated in any interation of this discussion, I think the closure reflected consensus, once you filtered out the statements ("votes") which either had no basis in our standards, or overtly violated those standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with, and request the retraction of, your assertion that my closure was based on my personal opinion of the matter. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the assertion of "against consensus", I see a DRV has already been opened and will defer to that. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I decline to retract my accusation! J'accuse! En garde! -- Y not be working? 15:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Pagecount bot

Please explain your block of this bot, which was operating well within its agreed limit of 10 edits per minute. It is frightfully inconvenient as it takes a great deal of manual editing of code (or time) to start it off where it was blocked. Verisimilus T 19:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't me, try User:MZMcBride. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Iantresman

In reply to your note on my talk page: Probably. Could you explain what would be expected of me? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Having read the material at Iantresman's talk page: OK, yes, I'm willing to be a co-mentor. And, as I've said earlier, I support unblocking him. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I strongly urge you to reconsider unblocking this editor, especially in light of the fact that he is a member of a forum that has trashed ScienceApologist in the past. Why is he shown good faith when he has made a habit of attacking SA both on the project and off? Please reconsider this unblock. He has already shown he is not here to build anything, except his block log. Baegis (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope Stifle doesn't mind me posting a reply here. Just being a member of a forum wouldn't be reason not to unblock, I would think. I don't see any posts by Ian Tresman in the link you give. Do you have examples of Ian Tresman himself attacking SA? Debating of ideas should be allowed, both on and off project. I think Stifle's going to start a discussion at AN/I or someplace -- these things can be discussed there. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of his account name so I cannot attest to any posts he made. But being a member of a forum that attacks WP editors? That is surely a sin. Debating of ideas reaches a point when Ian clearly was not capable of building an encyclopedia and only wanted to further his fringe theories. I think it would be insulting to the myriad of editors who had to put up with him previously to let him back on when he has already abused good faith to the point it no longer exists. Baegis (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See, I can't find evidence that he has "already abused good faith to the point it no longer exists", and if this request is just a front to cause chaos at Wikipedia, then the conditions (1RR and probation) and reinstatement of the indefinite block will close it down. I'm all for giving people a second chance, especially when they got listed at editors for deletion and banned after five hours. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Fair Use of Image:S4Men.jpg and Image:S4Women.jpg

Hi Stifle, I'd like to object to your decision to mark these images for speedy deletion. At the very least I'd expect any decision to be delayed until this discussion is resolved. I am not going to argue with you over the specific terms involved in your said objection to these being fair use, however I'd like to point out that the omission of these images from an article about the specific individuals involved in the programme would "affect users' understanding of the article". Seaserpent⁸⁵ 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I really can't agree with that whatsoever. The images are completely irrelevant to users' understanding of the article — there is no need for people to know what the candidates look like in order to follow the article, and even if there were, it would fail NFCC#1 because all the candidates are still alive so a free photograph of them could be created. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions Query re copyright of images illustrating data and findings from published reports papers

I have left a reply to your comments at this thread. --Sf (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Marking of WP:N/CA as rejected with no consensus

Discussion had been limited - partly because I was away and not around to provoke some. But fair enough. The question I have is, how did you establish no consensus? Did you look at the support/oppose !votes at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions? Or did you just base it on the wroking discussions on the talk page? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

More on the discussion (or the fact that the discussion seemed to have terminated), but I did take the opinions page into consideration. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just a little unfortunate - I really got back onto WP today, and had just asked someone a question about this guideline proposal and getting the discussion going again when I noticed it had been marked. If I can re-generate interest, would you mind if I swap the tag back to the active proposal one? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much Fritzpoll (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Whence

You can go ahead and delete Whence if you must. I noticed on your user page that you're a Deletionist. I am most certainly an Inclusionist, so at least we've identified the source of our disagreement. Wikipedia has a fine article for Thou -- which can in part be used to justify the existence of an article for Whence. I will have to rewrite and resubmit Whence on a later date. -- Mattbrundage (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Permission

Could you show me the best "casual" message to use for asking for permission? Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ERP#Casual. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bosniaks

Please google haplogroup I1b, and see if it reflects Bosniaks texts related to genetics, such as highlights that Bosniaks are firstly of Slavic genetic heritage. Because the consesus is clearly dominated by one or more Serb editors with multiple nicknames. And you keep banning all Bosniak interests and everybody who this Serbian based vandal group dismiss. My advice, just read for a while about haplogroup I1b and you will see that Everybody says it is isolated in Bosniak based populous and drops amazingly when outside of their regions. Find some maps from gov based sources that do not generalise to nations, instead look at maps that offer higher resolutions and zooms. 77.78.198.147 (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you want me to do, but please see User talk:Stifle/wizard/dispute. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Way to Happiness

FYI, the second sentence of the WP:LEAD is also unsourced WP:OR... Cirt (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Monckton

My i ask why you are editing the users version[2] - instead of the original version[3]. Which (at least in the past) has been carefully vetted from BLP violations and other contentious stuff (because the user previously has done the same thing)? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent attacks on me and on my biographical entry by Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen

Dear Stifle - I should be grateful for your assistance and protection against Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen, who has on numerous occasions undone edits by me of my biographical entry. These edits were intended to correct a number of libelous factual inaccuracies and unbalanced point-of-view comments which had an unfairly detrimental effect. If you are not able to assist, then I regret that the matter will have to be dealt with in the Scottish Courts, where I shall - if necessary - obtain an interdict preventing any mention of me from being broadcast on the internet by Wikipedia or by any internet carrier or service provider, pending full trial for libel. I stress that I have only involved my lawyers after making all reasonable attempts to go through other channels, and after having given several fair warnings. Provided that a sensible solution can be negotiated, I shall of course stay the action. So I should be grateful if you would revert to me with an indication of whether or not you are able and willing to help out.

I should point out that, after I had completed a careful and fair and detailed revision of my entry, Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen reversed all the edits within two minutes. He could not possibly have had the time to investigate the merits of the changes I had made, or to verify any of the facts with me or with third parties. It does seem to me that he has not acted reasonably. Also, I am told that he is an enthusiast for the alarmist presentation of climate change, and that he has acted in a similarly unreasonable fashion in respect of several other biographical entries of people with whose opinions he personally disagrees. I shall be calling some of his other victims during the court case.

I should also say that in Scotland the judges regard the law as having a purpose: in this case, a due balance between freedom of expression on the one hand and the right of the citizen not to have his reputation unfairly besmirched by deliberate and persistent factual inaccuracies reinforced by one-sided expressions of opinion. I realize that Wikipedia does not like to be told that it faces legal proceedings, but, after you review this case, you will, I hope, come to the views that Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen has left me little option but to go to the courts. Your own intervention, therefore, is the last chance to put matters to rights. Otherwise, Wikipedia's lawyers will be hearing from mine imminently: the letter before petition is already in draft and is receiving their final attention at present. I have not rushed into this lightly: I have stayed my hand in the hope that something would be done about Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen's misconduct, but, alas, to no avail. - Monckton of Brenchley

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle/Archive_0409&oldid=208091579"