User talk:Stifle: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:36, 11 February 2010

Due to being busy with real life, I am, for the foreseeable future, doing very little work here other than OTRS tickets and a few articles that I'm improving.

Welcome to my talk page. Please read my Frequently Asked Questions, which may answer your question.

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.
I will normally reply here and copy my reply to your talk page, but may sometimes use {{talkback}} or, occasionally, reply here only.
Please don't leave your email address. My email address is user.stiflegmail.com, but please don't email me anything that isn't confidential or sensitive (unless you're blocked or I'm away and not responding). I check my email far less often than my talk page, so leaving a message here is significantly more likely to get a quick reply. I find that offwiki messages are contrary to the open and clear communication that I prefer, and if you email me with a non-confidential request, I will reply to you onwiki.
- Exception: if you are requesting the text of a deleted article, then make sure your preferences include a valid, confirmed email address, as I will email the article to you at that address (only).

A Piece of Strange

Hello, Stifle. You have new messages at Ccrazymann's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks. Ccrazymann (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stifle. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Spam whitelist standardised format proposal

Hi there, I've proposed a standardised format for additions to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist on the village pump. I've noticed you seem to be acting on a lot of the requests, so would appreciate your comments. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} 19:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About images with permission

Hi, since it was you who checked the permission of the image from theRobert Darnton article, I have a question related to permissions. I have acquired two other permissions, for Levi-Strauss and Stephen Greenblatt, but the user who checked the permissions re-uploaded both pictures, so now they aren't under my list of uploaded files. Why did he do that? Is there any reason for it? It would be nice to have them under my own list of uploaded files, so that I can keep track of my work here in Wikipedia. Thanks! Evenfiel (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link me to the files so that I can investigate this more? Stifle (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one you did for me, [1] and the pictures that were re-uploaded, [2] and [3].

Looks like the latter two were moved to Commons so that others can use them on other Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects. You should upload free images to Commons. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Can I re-upload it to Commons, so that I can have them under my history of contributions? Evenfiel (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can if you wish; it'll appear on your Commons contributions but not here. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image deletions

Hi Stifle, You recently deleted this image File:Albino_baby_malawi.jpg as it was available on commons. However this image was initially on wikipedia before it was "moved" to commons. The uploader on commons did not mention the original uploader, so when the wiki article was deleted, the original information was lost. The image is from flickr, ordinarily this wouldn't be a big deal. However the image was previously "all rights reserved". I requested permission from the copyright holder to add a creative commons license so that it could be uploaded to wikipedia. When he did so, I uploaded it to wikipedia, this was before the big push to move images to commons, otherwise I would have uploaded it to commons. This has happened to a few images already. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it make? The license has been verified against flickr now. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to licensing, it doesn't make a huge difference. But it does make a difference with regard to the history of the image. When moving images from wikipedia to commons, it is recommended to use the commons helper, because this preserves all the original information, including the original uploader and any other information. Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons states,

If the image has a revision history, make sure to upload the old revisions first. Of course, you might choose to ignore some revisions as irrelevant (for example, vandalism). You should always upload the original version the recent version is based on.

While licensing issues are not a problem, it is not best practice to see an image on wikipedia, and then upload it independently on to commons, without acknowledging the original wikipedia file in some way. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add whatever attribution you feel is appropriate to the Commons page. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACC technical issue at the moment

Stifle, there has been a bit of a glitch in creating accounts in the last half hour or so. Accounts are being created but the user is not getting access to their account. Some people are requesting accounts until they reach the limit of 6. That request you handled on ACC might have been a bit of a protest request to the technical issues. Prodego and myself both created accounts via ACC that did not register an email address for the respective users. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks for the heads-up. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scapegoat

I strongly disagree with your "no consensus" on Scapegoat. Both myself and User:84.92.117.93 voted in favour while only Skinsmoke was opposed - his argument was that it was against Wiki naming conventions but when I checked them out it looked to support my case not his. I wrote a long reply explaining this and I also prompted Skinsmoke on his talk page that I had responded so he could in turn respond. Although he seems to have been onlne a lot in the last 2 days he seems to have voluntarily chosen not to support his case.--Penbat (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I suppose. I've moved it. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much ! --Penbat (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I did what now?

I don't see any record of what I may have allegedly done wrong, since it has been convienently erased from the record. I can't even defend myself at ANI, which I plan to try anyway.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did a rollback of someone who blanked libellous accusations from the talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Stifle and his rollback removal. –xeno^talk 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your move

Your move of the appropriately-titled "Whataya Want From Me" to the inappropriately titled "Whataya Want from Me" is wrong-headed, in my view. However, if MOS guidelines do, in fact, overrule what the reliable sources call the song, then there are a ton more moves in order. Any works by e e cummings that employ his idiosyncratic spelling need moved or fixed. Also, k.d. lang (and other such artists) should be moved to the appropriate spelling. If MOS overrules RS, then it should apply accross the board. Unit Anode 15:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only moved as I saw the consensus lie. You're welcome to establish consensus for other moves, or perform them if they aren't controversial. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Lavergne Article

Hello Stifle, here is from WP primary sources - "Our policy: Reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material." (end Quote)

If you revisit the deleted (undone) section in Laverne's Article, you will find the sources that uphold the exposures and errors in Lavergne's Op-Ed. Just because he is a living person doesn't mean his mistakes that are documented, can't be exposed.Victor9876 (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IRFU Flag and OI

Hello. Thank you very much for your response to Gnevin's notice (at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#IRFU flag) on this issue. I note that you have indicated your willingness to hear arguments for the use of an alternative to the IRFU flag with regard to OI policy. You will be pleased to know that there has been a full and robust discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union spanning many days and involving a large number of contributors, in which we made great efforts to give our reasoned interpretations of OI policy as it relates to this subject. I have recently tried to summarise the discussion here: Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion. The full discussion sits above that section. Your input will be greatly appreciated. I have posted this same message at the noticeboard as well. Please indicate if this is the correct protocol of relaying our discussion to you. If it is not, I apologise.Kwib (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for fixing that deletion log entry on the MfDd page. Not sure how that happened Fritzpoll (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 Hello. Thank you very much for your response to Gnevin's notice (at [[Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#IRFU flag]]) on this issue. I note that you have indicated your willingness to hear arguments for the use of an alternative to the IRFU flag with regard to OI policy. You will be pleased to know that there has been a full and robust discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union]] spanning many days and involving a large number of contributors, in which we made great efforts to give our reasoned interpretations of OI policy as it relates to this subject.  I have recently tried to summarise the discussion here: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion|Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion]]. The full discussion sits above that section. Your input will be greatly appreciated.  I have posted this same message at the noticeboard as well. Please indicate if this is the correct protocol of relaying our discussion to you. If it is not, I apologise.[[User:Kwib|Kwib]] ([[User talk:Kwib|talk]]) 13:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
+== Thanks... ==
+...for fixing that deletion log entry on the MfDd page.  Not sure how that happened [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 18:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)