User talk:Stifle/Archive 0409: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:34, 25 July 2008

Click here if you wish to leave me a message.

This message box is using an invalid "type=general" parameter and needs fixing.

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.

Re: Deletion review for Chicago Engineering Design Team

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I thought the deletion was final so thought that our article was just "done with". I have posted some comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chicago_Engineering_Design_Team though. Thank you, Engineer4life (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:SMALL SIZE.jpg

Hello! Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I however, need more help. This image is a Logo of an Augustinian school; I'm pretty sure it has not been release into the public domain by the Augustinians. The original uploader may had been having some difficulty with copyright tags and simply opted to upload the image under GFDL. It's now orphaned too. Should I list it for IfD? Thanks! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 10:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The correct action in this case (where the image is released under a license that does not seem plausible) is to tag the image {{PUI}}. I have done so for this image. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 11:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

PUI bot

I'll hack something up when I get the chance. BJ^Talk 11:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Heliodoruspillar.gif

Please compare the img with the img here [1], they are the same - including dimensions. The Inscription is old but the digital creation of the text is perhaps taken from the copyrighted site.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A faithful reproduction of a public domain resource does not gain a new copyright. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hi, what is your intention regarding the protection of this page please? MSGJ (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to protect it but it seems I failed. Protected now. Thanks for the message. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Step by step

From WP:RFPP:

Move protection. I keep disambiguating this page because of this reasoning, but another user keeps moving it back to Step by Step (song) while giving weak reasoning. I didn't disambiguate it again because I don't want to be accused of being involved in an edit war. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Declined Requesting protection to get the upper hand in an edit war is poor form. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Um... you might want to look at that again. The requester was in favor of moving the article to Step by Step (New Kids on the Block song). At the time the request was made, the article was at Step by Step (song) (and had been that way for awhile). Further, he specifically said I didn't disambiguate it again because I don't want to be accused of being involved in an edit war. And, yet, well, I hope I don't need to spell it out for you... -- tariqabjotu 13:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated the reply over there. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cityflag.jpg

Hi Stifle. Could I trouble you to undelete Image:Cityflag.jpg? I believe a solid fair use case can be made for its use in the Rochester, New York article, as flags are commonly used for identification of government entities -- in fact, the same purpose served by the seal that's still there (the two together provide even more complete identification). Thanks in advance. Powers ^T 15:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it, you will need to add the required fair use details to that page. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The image

In your edit here you have suggested a source. I have provided one that was used as a base. Do you think I need to provide any further details on it please? Wikidās 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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

That is fine. I have edited the page to make it explicit that that is the source. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that what extra hit of ~ does:-) Wikidās ॐ 17:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Eamonn McCann

Your warning was completely unnecessary. I was reverting vandalism, which I reported yesterday, but the admin who checked it saw fit only to warn the offending editor after a final warning had been issued. If 3RR applies to protecting WP from vandalism then we're in some trouble.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The three-revert rule applies to all reverts, except for a very limited number of exclusions. One of them is simple vandalism, which is one or more edits that any person who had just looked at the page would know immediately to be vandalism. (Examples: page-blanking, adding swearwords, etc.) This is not simple vandalism, and may not be vandalism at all. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Alas, it is simple vandalism. You should not fall into the trap of believing that because it's northern ireland it must be a shade of Gray. Eamonn McCann was born in Northern Ireland, not Ireland. That is backed up by WP:MOS and WP:IMOS. The vandal was warned three times, then reported, then inexplicably warned AGAIN. The next day he was up to his tricks again. I was fully justified in reverting this vandalism. It was NOT a content disputeTraditional unionist (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm Irish, and I know the difference. I can see it is vandalism, an average American could not. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Then you know that this instance was simple vandalism and warning me for 3RR was inappropriate.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I know that it was not simple vandalism, as simple vandalism is vandalism that any person who had just looked at the page would know immediately to be vandalism. I don't think that I'm going to be able to explain it any more clearly, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This was persistent, simple vandalism. The user in question was deliberately and knowingly vandalising wikipeida. Engaging in disucssion with a user who has been told three times is somewhat pointless.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

1997 Fiesta Bowl

Okay, now I'm just confused. I know my first edit was almost exactly cut and paste. My second edit was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! Did you even look at my second edit before you deleted it? Bcspro (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at this diff [2] Bcspro (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I can't follow what you're asking me. 1997 Fiesta Bowl has never been deleted and I have not edited it. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about 1997 Fiesta Bowl (December) which says you deleted it twice

23:19, 18 July 2008 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "1997 Fiesta Bowl (December)" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement)

14:49, 11 July 2008 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "1997 Fiesta Bowl (December)" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement)

I think the second time it should have been left alone. Bcspro (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. Please hold on while I check this out. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the non-infringing versions. Thank you for your patience. In future please consider being more civil. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. However, I still do not see why the article was deleted a third time. Bcspro (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I screwed that up. It should be all right now. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your message

>Please do not upload copyrighted images and claim they are your own work. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You left the message above on my talkpage a month ago. I do not understand what you are talking about. When did I upload copyrited images and claim they were my own work?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The message related to the following images, now deleted:

Thanks. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're talking about such old things now. I don't even remember when I uploaded those photos. Maybe two and a half years ago? Those photos were deleted two years ago and I have not uploaded any photos since then. There's no need for you to warn me not to upload copyrighted ones. If you want to warn me, go back to 2 and a half years ago by time machine. Did I claim they were my own work? Sorry but I don't remember. And what are you thinking you are? It sounds as if you were a police officer of wikipedia or something.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the fact that they were uploaded so far back. Never mind. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Your message on my talk page here was about image I did not create or upload. Thanks anyway! Wikidās ॐ 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was letting you know because I restored it at your request recently. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone with a similar name? Wikidās ॐ 16:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Silent removal of Image:Win32-loader.ogg

Hi,

I see that Image:Win32-loader.ogg has been removed, allegedly because it has been "Listed on PUI for over two weeks".

However, I didn't receive any notification that the freeness of this content was being challenged (since 3rd step in Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images about notifiing was apparently ommitted). I tried to find it in the PUI listing, but I can't find any reference to my video.

Therefore I must conclude that the claim was spurious, and re-upload. If you want to discuss any possible problems I'll be glad to; but I obviously can't deal with claims if they aren't notified to me.

Thanks

Robertmh (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Win32-loader.ogg was deleted because User:ViperSnake151 tagged it as possibly unfree and the problem was not addressed within two weeks. The reason given was "Possible copyvio - depicts non-free software". The image was tagged with the {{GFDL}} tag, which is certainly not valid. {{GPL}} might be. I can't say why he didn't contact you, as he was supposed to.

You need to place a license tag on that image, as {{free screenshot}} is not sufficient on its own. {{free screenshot|template=GPL}} should do it, but you need to crop out all parts of the image showing Windows or content supplied with Windows, as that is copyrighted.

Finally, I notice that you clicked the "other" option in my message wizard. If you had clicked the correct option, "a page has been deleted", you would have arrived at this page which would have helped you more quickly. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Tasoskessaris#User block notice

The user is asking for a review of the block. while I agree the block is justified per 3RR, the IP had already crossed the threshold of edit warring more than 3 times to insert that name before Tasoskessaris, even if it wasn't quite within a 24 hour period. Have a look at my comments there and let me know what you think. –xeno (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

While he undoubtedly violated 3RR, and admins are supposed to treat all sides equally in a block dispute, I suppose that the block has served its purpose and will reduce to time served. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. Thanks for looking into this. –xeno (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection of UEFA Cup 2008-09

I hope you don't mind, but per my comments here I'd like to ask you to remove the protection on that page. I don't mean to blame Hockey-holic, I have nothing against him or his motives, but I think his actions in requesting protection were very disruptive and completely in ignorance of the fact that we were working towards a solution already - one which he had taken virtually no part in. Of course I will respect your opinion on this over mine, but I personally believe he requested protection for all the wrong reasons, and in ignorance of the work we had so far achieved. Falastur2 (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

I've replied at that talk page. Stifle (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: 3RRN decision

[3] - I think a block might be okay. Would you reconsider? Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Responded at WP:AN3. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: NEW ARTICALE

Dear Sir,

As it shows you have put a protection on a articale that i made. your comment was "doesn't indicate real person. well it does as i have the offical website address and if you had a moment to read then you would of seen this spectacular person.

you have deleted that artical for no reason, which puts wikipedia down and i will take this further if you do not give a good explination of why it is not allowed.

i suggest you email me or contact me back within 2 days or i will have no other oppertunity than to write to wikipeida its self explaining the difficulty as a user i am having.

Many Thanks, Mr Parmar

The Page you deleted was :Jamie Parmar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamieparmar1 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

Jamie Parmar was deleted under criterion 7 (under Articles) of our criteria for speedy deletion because it appeared to be an article about a person which didn't indicate why it was important or significant. Please see WP:BIO for details of what might show notability. If you think that these criteria are met, please explain which one and provide citations from reliable sources to back up your claim, and I will consider undeleting it.

You may alternatively file a deletion review request.

Threatening people and condescending comments won't help you get anywhere on Wikipedia and I would suggest you be more civil in future. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Following the last message,

i am sorry to be threatning i just was angrey as it took me a while to make it and all of a sudden it was deleted.

the reason i dont think it was meet because it does indicate the importance of the subject as it shows the meaning in the first sentence as a Teenage Adventurer. this is then backed up from a link of Jamies official website.

Please Reply,

Mr Parmar Jamieparmar1 (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Jamie's official website is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Has there been anything written about him in independent third-party sources, like mainstream newspapers or news websites? Stifle (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

marcus goldhaber deleted.....why?

Hi Stifle,

I'm one of Marcus Goldhaber's publicists and he asked me to create a wiki on him.

Although he is not of the stature of Michael Buble or what not, I really don't understand why his page was deleted.

He is a signed artist, and his first album was reviewed by People magazine (among other noted publications).

None of the content is a violation of copyrights because it was written by myself and another publicist.

Please provide an explanation for the deletion of his page....

If you find it too PR-y, I will most certainly make edits. But otherwise, I think he deserves a wiki page.

thank you. Termeh (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)termeh

I will restore the page but you will need to make it a bit less promotional. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot less. Massive WP:COI issues here, obviously. I'm skeptical ;-) Tan ǀ 39 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: NEW ARTICALE

Yes he is currently In Goole Times, and also has just been given £4000 for the travel journey for the event from a company from the sewell group in hull and also Miles Hilton-Barber is a close friend and will support him all the way.

Jamie Parmar is being supported as well from the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as that is whom he is sponsoring. Is that a good enough explination for the deletion to be cancelled and for him to be on wiki?

Many Thanks Mr Parmar J Parmar 19:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

@@ Line 185: / Line 185: @@
 :I will restore the page but you will need to make it a bit less promotional. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 19:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 ::A ''lot'' less. Massive [[WP:COI]] issues here, obviously. I'm skeptical ;-) [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]]  {{IPA|&#448;}}  [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
+== RE: NEW ARTICALE ==
+Yes he is currently In Goole Times, and also has just been given £4000 for the travel journey for the event from a company from the sewell group in hull and also [[Miles Hilton-Barber]] is a close friend and will support him all the way.
+Jamie Parmar is being supported as well from the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as that is whom he is sponsoring. Is that a good enough explination for the deletion to be cancelled and for him to be on wiki?
+Many Thanks
+Mr Parmar J Parmar 19:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)