User talk:Stifle/Archive 0409

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.

Women's Campaign Forum Foundation

Hello! You deleted a page I created entitled "Women's Campaign Forum Foundation". I have changed the content completely to reflect an unbiased point of view and would like to know what you recommend if order to make sure this page is not deleted. I am new to wikipedia and am still figuring out how to add references and whatnot. If you could help me to ensure that the page I am creating fits with Wikipedia's standards, your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Womenscampaignforum (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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

You would need to show how the foundation is notable. The draft article you have written does not seem to show that. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yoshi3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Yoshi3.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Permission

Dear Stifle, I was checking the Commons OTRS web site and they say that I need the copyright holders permission to upload an image onto Commons. However, even if the copyright holder gives his permission (which I assume would be CC by SA by 3.0), the start of this form must be filled out as follows:

"To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ]"

What happens if the specific web link has 2, 3 or 4 images on it like this? If you scroll through the web page, there are a total of 4 pictures on the web page but I want only the first one. Would 4 separate images be uploaded by me--or would I just upload the first and leave it at that...but insert the aforementioned link.

Secondly, as an Admin do you know the proper process of uploading an approved image (by the copyright holder) onto Commons? Do I upload the image, tag it as {{OTRS-pending}} and then wait until someone at Commons E-mails me--or will it be speedily deleted? Do they even have my E-mail address? I'm just lost here--what is the right step? I'm sorry to ask you this question but its very specialised--something only an expert like you can answer. Regards, from Canada Leoboudv (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not know anything about Commons policy. Please contact someone who is active on Commons. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

arbreq rup

[1] Please explain more fully why you feel IPs have the right to edit, but not to comment on arbitration requests like any other editor. 86.44.31.35 (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally arbitration involves established users. As such, IPs should not need to comment. If you do need to comment, create an account. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Telling me to create an account in order to edit—which is what you are doing, rather than informing me of the option—is contrary to policy, and I'd rather you didn't. A lot of pages generally involve established users, but it remains an open wiki, and, even taking an evil realpolitik over principles fundamental to the project, it's not inconceivable that IPs may occasionally have something helpful to say there. Certainly two or three times since December I have felt that I have had .

If it's your view that, say, all arbcom pages should be semi-protected indefinitely, they aren't, so your view isn't shared. Likewise, editors go to some lengths to keep AN and ANI unprotected as much as possible. Presumably they're aware of the pillars, foundation issues, etc. etc. This one page is now an anomaly left over from one undiscussed action and log statement by Krill when the page was being disrupted in December. Protection against vandalism and disruption is good, but one or two editors can't change policy by admin actions, regardless of who they are. Wikipedia is not a system whereby IPs are permitted to build the encyclopedia while any processes are restricted to a bunch of insiders. This is a good thing. 86.44.31.233 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous editing was great when Wikipedia was a grass-roots effort. It's now one of the biggest sites, and most popular, on the net. The cons of continuing to allow IPs to edit FAR, FAR outweigh the pros. 98% of constructive content comes from registered users; 98% of vandalism comes from IPs and one-off accounts.^{[citation needed]}. Tan ǀ 39 22:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile discussing this at WT:RFAR. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Stifle, I appreciate the attempt to get it looked again.

Quick comment to Tan: Citizendium and Veropedia are that way ---> where you can flounder in the obscurity your vision deserves. ; ) Attempts to get the drawbridge pulled up here are evil. I appreciate the fact tag though, it's more than people usually afford such views. : ) 86.44.18.48 (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Counterpoint to Tan's claim: [2] 76.197.56.242 (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for your comment

Here! :^) $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 23:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC) I'm asking for your expertise -- or at least input, lol -- on how we might operate procedurally since what we're contemplating is sort of new ground. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 00:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied over there. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bramson ORT College

You have deleted articles for both Bramson ORT College and The Ort Institute, claiming that both articles are in violation of WP:Copyvio. Both articles had been completely rewritten, with any possible copyright violating material removed and appropriate sourced material added. WP:Copyvio itself states that material violating copyrights should be removed or that you should revert to a non-infringing version of the article. You have speedy deleted both articles without justifying the infringing source from where the material has been copied. I will ask you to undo these deletions. Alansohn (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The matter is already under discussion at WP:DRV. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Recreating deleted pages

The Ort Institute has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. However, if you continue to recreate the page at different titles, you are likely to be blocked for disruption. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Forwarded to Delrev, feel free to join in if you wish to comment. Also, while i technically don't fully support the policy, have a look at WP:DTTR. (Apart from that, isnt a wizzard supposed to make things easier? This actually feels more complex then just dropping a message) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading my last responce it it seems to be quite harsh and rude, which was not what i had in mind when i posted it. Apologies for the wording, and know it was not intentional! :) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only is WP:DTTR not a policy, not only did you go through a wizard page that said I don't support it, but the message I left you wasn't a template :) Stifle (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey man

Regarding [3] and the message you left on my talk page - can you let me know what you're referring to? I don't seem to recall anything of this nature... this "wizard" for your talk page is decidedly inconvenient, too ;-) Tan ǀ 39 16:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Volten Sins

Hi
I'm curious to know why you didn't consider Jessie Jacobs having been a member of The Volten Sins an assertion of notability in the AfD although that information is establishing notability according to WP:MUSIC? Note that you're not alone with this opinion since it was speedily deleted as an A7 in the meantime (and recreated as a redirect), so it's purely academic. :)
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 20:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was more a side-project of hers. However since I wasn't especially sure, rather than deleting the page on my own motion I tagged it for another admin. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice

I had asked another Admin on this (Llywrch) but he seems to be away today.

I have a question about images on Wikipedia--not WikiCommons. As an Admin, can you tell me what happens if someone uploads an image from a website and then tags it as pd-self onto Wikipedia? I refer specifically to this user who has a history of copy vio warnings from a quick scroll of his talk page history: [4] He added a major copy vio here [5] and claimed to a professor who contributed to livius.org [6] to which Captmondo and then Markh added this

Anyway, Leo III uploaded this image Image:Seuserenra Khian.JPG on Khyan but never bothered to give the on-line source. (I had to add the specific url on the picture's history through my anonymous 24.87.136.31 IP No.!) I wonder if it passes the smell test? Should the image just be deleted? I don't think Leo III owns this image since it comes from this Spanish page: [7] In contrast, livius.org has no Spanish language pages--just English, Dutch and German. Can Leo III still release it onto Wikipedia and tag it as pd-self. I'm talking about Wikipedia here, not Wikicommons. Its a great image from a dubious source. I have CSD the image for 20+ hours ago thereabouts but am surprised it still exists. Leoboudv (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You. I don't know why the image wasn't deleted for the longest time. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

AfDs due to lack of sources for 2 years...

Did you look around for sources on that group of AfDs you put in before doing the noms? Some of them are very easily sourceable. Hobit (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything for Gating, Martin Gallagher, Jet-CD, or Jet upset. List of socialists from Eastern Europe is effectively unsourceable. Coverage of Oleg Maisenberg seemed trivial. Economic Analysis and Business Facilitation Unit hadn't anything I could find in English. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, jet upset, Jet-CD, and Gating were fairly easy to find _something_ on. Gating has plenty of good sources. I guess there is a reason folks have paid me silly amounts of money to do web searches for them :-). Economic Analysis and Business Facilitation Unit has plenty of primary sources (if you count all of the HK government as a primary source) and huge numbers of hits, but very little (in English) that describes what they do in a non-primary source. Thanks for the reply! Hobit (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Sarr3

You deleted this image stating that it is not appropriate to use an image from a TV series to show what a person from the series looks like. This was not a screen shot from a TV series and it was not included solely to show what the person looks like. It was a still photograph, offered for critical commentary on the first appearance of an association that would grow to become in international philanthropic organization. Please restore the image. Thank you. Otto4711 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You still can't use non-free images of living people on Wikipedia, per item 1 at WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Which reads "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." If you know of a way for me to travel back in time to 1964 and take my own snapshot, please share it with me. No free equivalent is available and no free equivalent can be created. Otto4711 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are using the image as an image of the living person. A free image of that person could reasonably be taken and released under a free license. An image of the person as he appeared in 1964 (or whenever) does not satisfy NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:Sarr3.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Sarr3.jpg. 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. Otto4711 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Image:India House today.jpg

Hello, I have only just recieved the permission from Richenda Walford at Londonremebers to use this image, with the caveat that Londonremebers be credited as source. Could this be please restored?. Thanks.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 17:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have just recreated the page. Hope this is not a problem.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to send the permission on to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Master of the world.jpg

Hi, I saw you decided that this image is irreplaceable non-free content. I disagree. The book was first published in 1904 so it should be possible to get a scan of a public domain edition. Garion96 (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be highly impractical. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why that would be unpractical. See Texar's Revenge, or, North Against South another Jules Verne book and hundreds (if not more) other book articles with PD images in Wikipedia for an example. Plus unpractical, i.e. the easy way, is not really a defense for wp:nfcc#1. Nevertheless, I nominated the image for deletion. Garion96 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pigs in Heaven

Hi there, Stifle. Regarding the Pigs in Heaven AfD, I've found a reference that says the book won a Los Angeles Times award for Fiction, which I've added to the article. I've also added reviews from the New York Times and Los Angeles Times to the article. Hopefully that gives the article enough to pass WP:BK? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, closed off. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete images

Dear Stifle, Please delete these 2 Star Trek TAS images which I uploaded: Image:Jihadtas.jpg and Image:Yesteryear.jpg. I found better replacements. I apologise for any inconvenience. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, but in future please tag such images with {{db-author}}. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thansk for the tip. I truly did not know that. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 10:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: 3RR

Just replyed on User:Gene Poole reported by User:Bidgee (Result: Incomplete). Bidgee (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied over there. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines (2nd nomination)

Regarding the above, I strongly believe one of the participants is a ban evading sock per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was confirmed and you have correctly struck out his "vote". Stifle (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

In May of this year, you had contacted me to assist in verifying permission had been granted to use an image of the author Gad Granach. Unfortunately, the image has recently been removed. Why did this occur? Thanks. Silas10961 (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Granach jpeg.jpg does not appear to have been deleted. And additionally, I don't have any record of contacting you about it. You might want to try contacting User:Nv8200p, who originally tagged the image. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Help!

Dear Stifle, I need your help. I have just made the following entry The Unruled Paper (film), and lo and behold within few seconds of saving it (not long enough for any human being being able to read it), someone has packed it with most strange tags. The same person has also "welcomed" me to Wikipedia. Should be most grateful if you would kindly take some appropriate action. With thanks in advance, --BF 13:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC).

Dear Stifle, further to my above message, you may wish to view my messages here: [8]. Kind regards, --BF 14:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC).

While the "welcoming" and so on is not really appropriate, I would have to agree with some of the points he raised. The article, in particular the third paragraph of the introduction, does not appear to comply with the neutral point of view policy. The first three paragraphs look like they come from a review, and there is quite a bit of detail there that may only be relevant to a specific, limited audience.

Just because the tags are there doesn't mean that the article is in danger of being deleted or anything — consider them as suggestions as to how to make a good article better.

I would caution you that the messages you wrote to User:Triwbe on his talk page are quite uncivil. While you are doubtless annoyed, please try to assume that his actions are in good faith. Editors on new page patrol regularly run into articles that may need to be improved (or indeed deleted), and often tag them appropriately as a heads-up to other editors.

I have advised Triwbe that the "welcome" message he left (using an automated editing tool) wasn't appropriate and invited him to change it. Although since you have asked him not to edit your talk page, he may not do so. Of course you are welcome to remove the message yourself.

While I'm happy to help, I would encourage you to report future problems like this to the admin noticeboard or the incidents noticeboard. I am not always online but those noticeboards are watched by most of the admins who are currently active and are likely to reply to your concern more quickly than I can. Alternatively if you want to contact one or two users, you can see WP:HAU. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Stifle, thank you for your prompt response. I was fully aware that I was uncivil and would readily admit that to any person asking me, but please note that the entry had not been saved for 5 seconds when I received warning messages in my talk page (please check the history of the entry at issue here: [9]; as you can testify, I saved the file at 13:25, and it was tagged at 13:30; the second tag is added 1 second following the first, etc. Is this a civil way of dealing with someone's intellectual property? Further, for your information, what made you think that the entry came from a review? Not a single word of the text is borrowed; all is by myself. The film is simply one of the best ever made internationally, but for some reason it has never received the recognition that it certainly deserves (try finding any trace of it on the Internet); without any hesitation, "The Unruled Paper" is one of the very best films that I have seen over my entire life; there is something absolutely magical about this film. Nasser Taghvai is by the way a giant of a film director. All these facts made me sacrifice several hours of my time as a tribute to a great work and a great man. I had not expected that my heartfelt tribute would be savaged and rubbished before even having been read - I emphasise, the tagging started within 5 seconds subsequent to my saving of the entry. What kind of an editorship is that? This is human-rights abuse of the first order; someone rubbished the fruit of several hours of my dedicated labour within 5 seconds of its publication! Where is justice? For your information, I could have earned hard cash by offering my text to film magazines, but offered it for free to Wikipedia for the good of the public. And this is what I have received in return. It is simply disgraceful. It is absolutely impossible, unless this so-called Editor viscerally hates Iranians, that this person could have come to a reasoned judgement in less than 5 seconds of the publication of my text. In view of these statements, I sincerely believe that all the tags in the entry must be remove forthwith. I am not against informed judgements; I oppose brutality, which is what this so-called edtior has committed in regard to my work. With kind regards, --BF 15:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC).

Incidentally, in the entry at issue you will find only one external link (a measure of how much is available on the Internet in regard to this film). Please consult the page in the External-links section, and you will realise that the entry has absolutely nothing to say about the film. Persian Wikipedia has an entry: [10]. As you can see, it consists of one sentence. In the event that you can read Persian, you will immediately realise that this very sentence gives an utterly wrong description of the film. It is remarkable, that this appalling text has not been tagged. My text however, has been tagged by six separate tags within ten seconds of its publication. I am, and have always been, in danger of being attacked by people whom I have not encountered even for once. People must somehow find my name unpleasnt. --BF 15:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC).

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