User talk:Stifle/Archive 0409

• Archive: October-November 2005
• Archive: December 2005
• Archive: January 2006
• Archive: February 2006
• Archive: March 2006
• Archive: April 1-10, 2006

Talk

If you'd like to add a comment, feel free. Just click the + button next to "Edit this page" above (may vary if you're using a custom skin). But please type ~~~~ at the end to add your name and the date and time.

Email

I would much prefer you leave me a message here rather than emailing me. If you are blocked, then obviously you can't. If I blocked you, then email me (see the toolbox), but if some other admin blocked you, email that admin instead. (See Special:Log/block for more.) If the block was for violating the three-revert rule, and you are going to claim you were reverting vandalism, then first read what vandalism is not and an admin's view of the 3RR.

Linking

If your message is about an article, an AFD, or the like, please link to it. To do this, copy the main heading at the top of the page (like User talk:Stifle for this page) and paste it between [[ and ]].

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.
• If your talk page says to reply to you here, I will reply here (only).
• Otherwise, I will put my reply both here and on your talk page.

Image:Nematocyst-threads.jpg

You removed my speedy delete tag. As explained when I added the tag, I uploaded the image from the Ukrainian wikiedia, and following the challenge to the copyright status, I asked the original uploader. This is his response. Hence the addition of the speedy tag. Thanks, |→ Spaully°τ 17:40, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

I understand that, however there is no entry on WP:CSD representing your concern. CSD I4 requires a seven-day wait, this is not negotiable. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It is now confirmed that we are unable to find the copyright status of this image, having searched through all of the search results for relevant terms. Is an open source, user run system so unflexible?

Never mind, I am just surprised, it is of little consequence. Thanks anyway, |→ Spaully°τ 18:12, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

ProhibitOnions's RfA

Thank you, Stifle/Archive 0409!
	...for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 58/2/0. If you have any comments, please let me know here.

Yep, thanks for your vote. Now I have to figure out what this "delete" thingie does. Regards, ProhibitOnions 22:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophe is at it again

Stifle, in response to Apostrophe's continued conduct, he asked for examples on his talk page of incivility without addressing anyone specifically, so I included several examples without any commentary of my own nor hostilty. His response is found here which appears to be in no uncertain terms a personal attack. I'll stay out of this at this point, thx for your continued assistance. Netkinetic 01:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Telling you to keep your own opinions to yourself, to not act on behalf of something you hardly are, and to stay out of my business is not a personal attack. I was clearly addressing Stifle about examples that occurred between warnings, and I am now forced to bring my whining to his talk page because you are perfectly content in deleting whatever comments I leave on your talk page. Hardly the first time.

Of course, I'm just pushing my opinions! ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 03:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You guys need a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Or failing that, try the Mediation Cabal. I'm not going to intervene in this conflict, it's none of my business. I will say this much: removing content from your talk page, other than obvious vandalism, without archiving it is poor form. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Stifle, excellent suggestions. I've transferred my running dialogue with user:Apostrophe within a archive subpage, including your related comments above. As I've also mentioned on the Incidents page, as long as Apostrophe remains civil I'll support his future contributions. True I had dealings with him a month or two ago which caused me to be aware of a pattern, of which I felt a necessity to bring it to your attention solely on the civility criteria. This isn't relating to any present content dispute as his current field of interest (Kingdom Hearts related), of which his reported violations occured, are not of specific interest towards myself. Regards. Netkinetic 00:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy tag

I'm thinking there should be a speedy tag for duplicate articles. :p The reason I placed a tag on Traditional economic thought in China is because it's a direct copy and paste of Righteousness or Benefits-Tradition Economic Thought in China. The first article was originally created under the name Create an entry. Should we just redirect one to the other? What about the redirection of Create an entry to Traditional economic thought in China? --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted Create an entry, and I'm going to mark that it shouldn't be recreated. Feel free to replace a duplicate article with a redirect to the other one at any time. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help again. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana) vote to keep

I don't understand your reference to WP:SCH in your Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana) vote. This isn't about noteworthiness of a school, it's about clearing out an edit history that exposes the WP Foundation to possible legal action in hopes a valid article can be written. The article doesn;t qualify as a speedy delete since too many editors contributed to it. - Davodd 00:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to partial history deletion and have said so on the AFD page. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have altered the nom after your comments. I believe you will find it better now. Davodd 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 00:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A Question

I wrote the article, and in all honesty I cannot see what's wrong with it. It doesn't break any rule, slander of offend anyone. Maybe you could help and shed some light on what's going on? I'd really appreciate that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tettsuya (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

It's kind of hard for me to figure out what you're talking about, when you neither mention which article you're referring to nor sign your posts with ~~~~. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

On the democratic peace article

I have read and added much new information from peer-reviewed articles, which hopefully is allowed. I would be glad to discuss any objection with you. I do consider the subject important, since it is the best empirical support for democracy. Ultramarine 00:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider it within my purview to mediate in the issue, for that please try WP:TINMC. My sole contribution will be enforcing the ArbCom's rulings on the issue. Stifle (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. But I do not think adding such information is sterile edit warring. Please have a look at User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies, using material from the academic debate, you might find it interesting. Ultramarine 00:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I also didn't think adding such information was sterile revert warring, which is why I didn't block you for it :) Stifle (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How to delete probable vanity pages.

Stifle: Thanks very much for your guidance on how to request an article for deletion. I'm very new to wikipedia, as you can tell. Regarding the article Dean Nicholas, which I had originally tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "This is an obvious vanity page which provides no citation of the importance of its subject and is generally nonsensical".You removed the tag and noted "This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because articles about real people can generally only be speedily deleted if they contain no claim of notability, citation for same is not required". That's fine, and thanks for clarifying the policy. However, you told me to use the WP:PROD process to request its deletion. But when I get to WP:PROD, that page says "PROD is currently suspended owing to the Toolserver being unavailable. Please do not PROD further articles for the time being."

So I'm not sure how I can help. The article on Dean Nicholas is not something that really matters to me a lot, I'm just trying to help out with the wiki process as I understanding by making wikipedia better. I just came across Dean Nicholas by accident, saw its content and history which indicated it was a rather silly vanity page or something similar. It doesn't even have enough information to determine if the subject is a real person in the first place.

So, Stifle, my aim was to get it deleted and help clean up Wikipedia. But now I'm more confused than ever on how to help clean this up. Any suggestions? Is there a process for this other than WP:CSD or [[WP:PROD}}? Derek Balsam 01:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can list it on WP:AFD instead. See Template:AfD in 3 steps for instructions. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're fast. Thanks for the help. Derek Balsam 01:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Excuse me, this is my first time using this system.

I was converning to the OT5 article. I don't see what's wrong with it; maybe you could clear this matter for me?

--Tettsuya 08:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message.

Judging from the concerns raised in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OT5 (which you can feel free to contribute to, just make sure you sign your message and say that you are the author), it appears that some Wikipedians believe that the subject of the article OT5 is not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, that it is of interest only to dedicated fans. Wikipedia is not a free web host, rather, it is an encyclopedia. If you address these concerns at the discussion page, then editors may be convinced to keep the article. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mayhem_Chimera.jpg

I am wondering why have you tagged this file. It is considered as fair use to use resized 200px pictures of album covers and it has the appropriate tag {{albumcover}}. Thanks! Death2 13:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Brainfart by me, that's why :) Stifle (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understood your message, you made a mistake (didn't see the tag) and you fixed it. I've never heard of a Brainfart so that confused me. No problem, I thought that WP has changed some policy concerning pictures? Phew! Death2 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Tagore(small)

Hi Stifle - I've added the info on where I obtained the pic. Is it sufficient? If not, what other info is necessary? Thanks, Rama's Arrow 13:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfect. Please make sure you include that kind of information on images you upload in future too. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring of The DHARMA Initiative

You mentioned a week ago that you would like to help mediate the heated discussions of merging certain Lost-related articles at Talk:The DHARMA Initiative#Merging/breakout consesus. Would you like the give your view on the state of the vote on

1. Breaking out "The Swan (Lost)"
2. and merging the controversial "Ultraviolet map" into it?

Arru 16:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on Talk:The DHARMA Initiative. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response there; as the poll has nearly run a week, would you consent to closing it soon with your call on the consensus? Regards, —Leflyman^Talk 06:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ograposter.jpg

Thanks for correcting the tag. Cheers! Hoopydink 17:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Cool (African philosophy)

Just saw your vote. Did you even bother to read the discussion page? Investigate the links to sources provided? There's ample scholarship on the subject. Improve the article; don't delete it. It's an important topic -- and one that would help deal with a glaring subject matter deficit on Wikipedia. Peace. Deeceevoice 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the article consists of original research. Wikipedia is not a primary or secondary source, and WP:CSB is not an acceptable reason to override WP:NOR. Thank you for your message. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So, a revised/rewritten, properly referenced/sourced article on the subject would not objectionable to you, then. It's not the existence of the article you're objecting to, but its lack of documentation? Deeceevoice 12:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

DPT

I would be perfectly willing to see Ultramarine and myself both leave the article alone for six months, say. I don't particularly want to revert war for the purpose though; would you be interested in proposing this to ArbCom directly? Septentrionalis 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The finding of fact in the arbcom decision was the maintaining of two separate and parallel versions which was reverted between. This is not the the case now. I will not again participate in having two separate and parallel versions. This was a mistake and the arbcom decision successfully prevents this. I think that the recent edits have created a much more correct article without having two different version. So I think that the arbcom decision has been very successful.

I think that if you examine the edits since I started edited the article again, there has not been sterile edit wars. Instead numerous findings from recent studies has been added, adding the view of the majority of the researchers in this field. Something Pmanderson almost completely ignored in the text he had created during the several months and which selectively described the view of the critics. So there has not been sterile wars, but instead a constructive improvement, adding the view of the other side. Again, the maintaining of two separate and parallel versions was a mistake, which I regret. However, this is not the case now and I think that if the recent edits are examined it will be found that the article has been improved by also adding the view of the other side. Ultramarine 05:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ultramarine for the time being, but that is strictly as user, not an admin. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Template:User marriage man-woman

Hello, thank you for your message. I am well aware that the template was kept by TfD. However, I find the rationale of the comments there to be inexplicable or irrelevant now that the accompaning template {{User Same Sex Marriage}} was deleted by Mackensen (talk · contribs · logs). The comments that were not calling for it to be kept to avoid the appearance of "double standards" seem to me to be based on their personal sympathy for the point of view expressed by the template, their ignorance of Wikipedia policy, or both. Therefore, I see no reason whatsoever to overturn my own decision. You are, however, free to take it to deletion review if you wish to refute these points, of course. Thank you.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will list it on DRV shortly. I don't want to wheel war about it. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:V-cemetery-2.jpg

Hi, i have reloaded the 2 images and tried to make clear that they are photos i took and that they are free to use on wiki. The route is the same i have used many times and hope this is ok now Collieman 12:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. Just make sure all images you upload are tagged. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

CSD "this is advertisement"

If you check that page's history, i simple reverted the removal of that. An anon IP tagged that page. --Zsinj^Talk 16:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. The anon has now been notified. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of The Game (game)

Hey -- I saw you redeleted The Game and protected it; I was in the midst of nominating it for AfD. If you look at the Talk page you'll see that things have actually changed since the DRV debate and previous deletion, a newspaper article has been found about the game, and there's a fair bit of discussion about the translation of that source [1], an article from the newspaper De Morgen. I think that given the new source, it might be necessary to have another deletion debate. Did you know about this when you deleted it? What do you think? Mangojuice 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess a new AFD is the correct procedure. I'll go and list it. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oy. Looks like DRV would have been more to peoples' liking. I know we are on different sides on this debate, but would you be willing to join me in an RFC or an RFAR on this if this debate doesn't settle things? Mangojuice 21:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think AFD was correct. DRV is only for questioning process. Since there is new content (the reference in question), I suspect that AFD is the correct place for it. The people demanding DRV may be accused of venue shopping for somewhere that will support their own preference. I feel that this article has a wide-ranging interest and needs to be listed in a more central place. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

List of shock sites

Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 10:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Spinebuster (band)

Hey!

Not ot get on yoru case or anything here, but your logic behind deleting a lengthy article detailing the history of a well-known band in the thriving Glasgow metal scene seems pretty questionable to me.

Admittedly, I am a member of the band in question (a quick glance at my username makes this fairly obvious), but I did not write the article - it was submitted and brought to my attention by someone else in the local music scene. I watched it on the "Articles For Approval" page for a while, and it looked as though it was going to be one of the masses of overlooked articles receiving neither a thumbs up or a thumb down, so I copy and pasted it up myself immediately under a registered username.

I was going to use this article as a starting point to write a good few articles about the growing music scene here in Scotland, which is so far poorly represented on Wikipedia, but if they're going to just get erased for what seems like no really good reason every time then it's obviously not worth the hassle. Quick decision-making like this surely must be very off-putting to a lot of new contributors, and so stifling to the growth of Wikipedia.?

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe.spinebuster (talk • contribs) 20:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC).

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

Spinebuster (band) was speedily deleted by both me and JDoorjam because it was, or appeared to be, an article about a band which does not assert that band's notability or importance. Wikipedia is not for advertising new up-and-coming bands or the growing music scene. Please see some details about what bands need to get onto Wikipedia. They should first get notable, then get an article.

If you feel that I have erred in judgment, please make a listing on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Love-shyness

I wonder if any have any suggestions about how to address the tone/cleanup on this article? I made some additions to it, and hacked at the list of attributes to reduce that in size (although it keeps growing back like kudzu) and suggested on the talk page that those attributes be sourced. Admittedly, I've made no effort to source them yet myself. Any thoughts would be welcome though, thanks. Шизомби 22:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are requesting my help on the subject. I do not think I can be of any help for you. Why not try Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Stifle (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you had tagged the article, so I hoped you might be able to identify some of the problems that motivated you to tag it. RFC is only if there's a problem of consensus, I thought? Шизомби 23:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. I think the article is far better than when I tagged it 2 months ago and I have removed the inappropriate tone tag. RFC can be used when there's a lack of consensus, or just to get an outside opinion on articles, but I don't think it's needed here. You will probably need to leave it on your watchlist to make sure that the lists don't overgrow. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You might find this interesting

Just thought I would let you know that an aritcle which you voted to delete and was deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Long Island Project (2006), now seems to have been put up again as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Long Island Project. --Strothra 15:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Stifle (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

CE

You wrote: this has been to ArbCom and they came down very strongly against the CE notation. In which case did this happen? The only one I can think of was the jguk case, where the arbcomm came down against changing from CE -> AD. Guettarda 20:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I remembered incorrectly. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Saudi COA

It's CSD I1, it's a redundant lower quality version of the other image... and it's also a Now Commons candidate... which, it already was. So, it would be deletable no? O_O gren グレン 01:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

CSD I1 specifically excludes images whose replacement is on Commons. See Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons for full reasoning. Images that are redundant to an image on Commons must go through IFD. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So, what you're telling me is either "This does not apply" means it doesn't apply... or that I can't read. Whichever the case may be... you would be right. gren グレン 16:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality of Adolf Hitler

FYI...This article is up for vote on AFD. OSU80 01:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Commented. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

any outstanding reason that The Game (game) should have semiprotection?

It was brought up on WP:RFPP for unprotection. Syrthiss 15:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Syrthiss 16:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jade-3j.gif

hi stifle, i called the law department of DESY to confirm we can use it fairly and added source and copyright information to the above image. if this has to be in a specific format, its not quick to find in the manuals. if all is fine, can you please revert Three jet event so the (very important) image is visible again? thanks! gbrandt 16:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not sufficient. We need verifiable proof that the image can be used on Wikipedia, or else we need to assert fair use. Please have someone from DESY email permissions@wikimedia.org to confirm that we have permission to use the images under the GFDL, a Creative Commons license, or without any conditions, and have them reference Image:Jade-3j.gif in their email, or alternatively post a link on Image talk:Jade-3j.gif to where this is indicated on the website. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Onefortyone

Well, its been one month and Onefortyone has gone straight back to aggresively adding the same information with the same sources that got him banned before.--Count Chocula 01:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I recommend posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, including diffs of alleged disruptive behaviour, because I'm just about to go off to sleep. Stifle (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I give up. I've left a note on the Administrators notice board a while ago, but no one seems interested in doing anything. As far as I'm concerned Onefortyone can ruin as many article as he likes. This is just getting too tiresome.--Count Chocula 00:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks! --Rory096_(block) 23:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC) _{P.S. You can help at CAT:NN! (/shameless plug)}