User talk:Stifle/Archive 0109

2 Become 1

Hi, I changed the non-free use rationale of the screenshot for the music video(Veedyo.JPG), I don't know if this is the appropriate template. Please let me know if I need to change anything else. (Frcm1988 (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2009 (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?

You have added the name of the copyright holder, but you still have not explained why there should be multiple non-free images in the article, nor what purpose the image serves that increases readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happiness in Slavery image

Can you please clarify why you believe that "NFCC#8, IIRC, is/was specifically excepted from being a speedy deletion rationale"? I'd be very grateful if you would copy your reply to my talk as I rely on the yellow new messages box to see that I have a message. Stifle (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that a criteria for speedy deletion needs to be objective, unquestionable, frequent, and non-redundant. Anything about the NFCC is the latter three. But for NFCC#8... millions of IFDs have proven that NFCC#8 is very subjective. To your credit, you did use {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}}; I think it was your edit summary that tipped me off (as it says "This image is up for deletion per WP:CSD.") Sceptre ^(talk) 23:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the Twinkle edit summary; the consensus at WT:CSD is that a disputed non-free rationale should be tagged as disputed for seven days and if nobody objects, it can be deleted thereafter. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Video profiling

Thank you for handling the OTRS with the Video profiling article. Thank you also for giving me first look at whether to restore the article, since there were also spam concerns. I've restored the article but deleted the text that I felt was too promotional. I've also invited the editor who originally tagged the page as spam to review my changes and see if he concurs. —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nick Savoy

Hi Stifle,

I've been working on the "Nick Savoy" page that was previously deleted. With this new and rewritten article I would like to put it back up again. Since you were involved in the DRV, I would appreciate your feedback on the page of Nick Savoy before I put it back on DRV. Thanks in advance.Coaster7 (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems reasonable enough to me. Opinions differ on whether you should have to go back to DRV on this kind of article, but it would probably be prudent. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Radwan DRV

Will someone please take a look at the very latest version of the article, which was unfortunately moved to "Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan" and is completely different than the original article in which the deletion debate took place?

At this point in time, the article is secondary.

I just want to know, given the sources provided in the article, how the subject is not notable?

If I found widely-published sources in several libraries (UCLA being one of them) mentioning the subject, and said sources took the time to release their efforts on the market after peer and publisher review, then by what criteria is the subject not notable, given third-party sources noted the subject and put their name and professional reputation behind it? These are academic works.

Am I missing something here?

-- Exxess (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be missing that the community has considered your arguments and has not found them convincing. I appreciate that you believe the family to be notable, but Wikipedia operates on a consensus model and no subject is notable which a large proportion of editors say is not. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OTRS? And thank you!

Thank you so much! And how incredibly timely! :D I have just forwarded a permission letter from a professor at Moscow State University. I don't know how these OTRS tickets are assigned, but it's slightly irregular, so I'm hoping to find out if it's sufficient for reasons explained in the letter. I'm not sure that this is the proper use of your wizard or if you can help in this way, but if you can, I sent the e-mail a few minutes ago from (me) @ gmail DOT com (1/5/09), and its title was Fwd: English Wikipedia article, Gauge gravitation theory. The article title, obviously, is Gauge gravitation theory.

I do appreciate the Barnstar. I also appreciate all the work you do in the boring parts of Wikipedia. As I said before the holidays, it's very nice working with you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've found that email and am looking into it now. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) As I said, it's a little irregular. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've got that OTRS ticket validated now and have put up the permissionOTRS tag.

To give you some background on how OTRS works, each of the email addresses @wikimedia.org (info-en, permissions-en, permissions-commons, and so on) generates an email queue, and every email in that queue is assigned an OTRS ticket number. When an OTRS agent goes into the system, the agent chooses to work one or more queues (out of the queues that that agent has access to), and the normal procedure is that the tickets are displayed on a FIFO basis. It's then just a case of replying to each ticket as appropriate.

All replies carry the ticket number in the subject, and there is a second (shorter) internal identifier (called the ticket ID) which appears in some OTRS URLs.

There is also a search system (which claims to be very powerful, but I have issues with it) that allows agents to search their queues for tickets with certain properties (like sent from a certain email address, having a certain subject or text, etc.) The best search identifier is the ticket number or ID, with the originating email address a close second. As a result, agents can find both archived tickets and unanswered tickets that may need to be expedited.

I hope that covers it all off for you :) Stifle (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It does. And it's very cool to know, thank you. :) I had considered at one point that it might be useful for me to request OTRS access, given where I've been hanging out this past half year, but I'm (a) kind of technologically clueless and (b) firmly pseudonymous. I've already discovered many times the great wisdom of identifying myself as female here (most extreme example: about a month ago, a Wikipedia contributor sent me a lovely half-nude photo of himself with an invitation to be friends). Not that I would mind identifying myself to the Foundation, but there's no way that I'm using my real name in signing correspondence to folk I don't know. (I really don't want half-nude Wikipedians showing up on my doorstep with an invitation to be friends.) Even if (b) the Foundation didn't mind my using a pseudonym with correspondents, there's (a). And from what I see, copyright is a small part of OTRS anyway, and it's all in hand. :)

I don't often encounter complicated permissions procedures. They're usually run-of-the-mill, and there's no problem with waiting through the process. But if I do encounter one that's out of the usual, do you mind my bringing questions to you? (I've imposed on User:Avraham a couple of times in the past.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free. You can skip my message wizard for things like that (or just go straight to "other"); that's there mainly as an FAQ and to ensure that questions which any user (or any admin) could answer are directed towards common noticeboards. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SNOW closure

WP:SNOW does not require that a large amount of time has passed, WP:SNOW merely asks that the outcome is known. There is no reason to not clear the backlog in such a blatant case. Happy new year, by the way. :) — neuro^(talk) 15:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but WP:NAC suggests waiting for six keeps and one full day. Happy new year to you too :) Stifle (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAC is an essay, and it gives a suggestion. It doesn't give me a policy. — neuro^(talk) 15:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's broken out from guideline WP:DPR... but let's not get bogged down in processes, eh? Stifle (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for notifying me. :) — neuro^(talk) 16:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, Stifle, I think you are certainly right about the minimum time. The only question about the time in that essay/guide is whether it should usually be longer. As for the no. of keeps, it would vary. I think it matters to some extent whom they are from, to weed out the fanboys and the like. But you & I seem to agree lately more than I'd have thought. DGG (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just my opinion but I think if the nominator is actively participating in the AFD beyond his nomination statement, the discussion should run full term. (assuming a good faith nomination) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable points, both. Is it worth taking a look at this by way of a discussion at WT:DPR? Stifle (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Burns

Am I supposed to protest the deletion of the guy with the comb over or something? The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You can make an argument at the IFD as to why the image should be kept. As it's just used for decoration and as Gordon Burns is still alive, it fails WP:NFCC items 1 and 8. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would I make an argument for why it should be kept? I think it should be deleted. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You uploaded the image and removed a deletion tag from it. Am I missing something? Stifle (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you've decided you're happy for it to be deleted, you can just tag it {{db-g7}} or let me know and I'll delete it now. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete it asap. The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gone. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

IFD for File:Don't Love You (alternate cover).jpg

Thanks for this Stifle - redlinked now. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy questions

Hi. :) Any progress on Weirfield, which was listed as up for OTRS conversation on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 December 30? It's come "ripe." Should I consolidate it to allow more time? And while I'm here, would you have time to check into OTRS Ticket#2008121810020738? A creator asserts that she received clearance for an article, but the tag hasn't been placed or the article restored. (See Talk:Marc Snir and User talk:Lina6329.) I had asked the creator to let me know if she didn't receive a response to her further inquiry, but since I'm here I thought I'd see what I could find out myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No reply on Weirfield; you can probably delete it but put something like "see also OTRS ticket#2008123010005713" in the summary for ease of reference.

Regards Ticket:2008121810020738, there has been an email saying that we have permission to use the text on Wikipedia and a request to add a ticket number to the talk page, and two replies saying we need an explicit GFDL release. We have not received an explicit GFDL release yet, although the replies very clearly say we need one. Lina6329 says that the replies (which are bottom-posted, for the record) do not request additional information, but they definitely do. I'm not allowed to copy the emails to you due to OTRS rules, so that's as much as I can say. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's plenty, thanks. I'll let him/her know what's needed and move forward. I'll note the other as you suggest. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Marc Snir Copyright Concern

Hi there. Sorry I did not see your request earlier (as I did not scroll down to the bottom). Yes, I am an authorized representative of the copyright holder. This can be confirmed by visiting: http://www.upcrc.illinois.edu/people-faculty.html. Dr. Snir is listed under faculty (with a hyperlink to the content in question. I am listed under staff. As the Outreach Coordinator, I serve Dr. Snir. He is the one that encouraged me to post a wiki article. Also ... Dr. Snir's permission was included in the original email. Please let me know if there is other information I can provide in response to your request. Thanks!--User:Lina6329 (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your email has been replied to. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would mind. Sorry, but that template's ugly :( Stifle (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have come prepared for those who dont like the template, see User:Promethean/No2   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Added. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Feedback, copyright

Hi. I could really use some copyright feedback on an issue, if you have time and inclination. :) Income annuity is copied from [1]. I routinely respond to dumbbot listings of potential copyvios, and I noticed that the contributor asserted original authorship. I advised how to verify and moved on. If I had read the article, I might well have G11ed it or PRODded it as promotion. I may yet. Not only is its tone clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia, but it's a glorified advertisement for the contributor. But that's not why I'm here. :) The external site is released under CC by 3.0. It took me long enough to get the hang of GFDL. Figuring out how GFDL does and does not work with CC is a bit frustrating. According to the GNU org, CC-by 2.0 is not compatible with GFDL when dealing with text ("Please don't use it for software or documentation"). Do you know if CC-by 3.0 is? This article may not be appropriate for inclusion in any case, but I'd like to figure out the copyright question for future reference. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

CC-by 3.0 is not compatible with the GFDL and cannot be used on Wikipedia until Wikipedia:Transition to CC-BY-SA is passed. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought not, but wanted to be sure. I find all these CC variants confusing. I can't wait until I get to relearn the whole mess when that transition goes through. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Monica discography

Hello, Stifle.

Sorry, but I really need some help with user Raw721. He/she's constantly doing revision on the Monica discography article, removing content, that I proved as notable with sources. I told him kindly that there are rules on Wikipedia and that I'd accept his revisions if he could prove otherwise. Please, have a look at what he wrote on my user page - I'm kinda shocked to be honest! Thank you, Noboyo —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:36, 9 January 2009.

P.S.: Sorry, my English is not the best. You surely have to do better, but you just were the 1st administrator I found.

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

• I have removed the offensive message from your user page and left Raw721 a message warning him that he will be blocked if he makes such edits again.
• Raw721's edits on that article are not vandalism.
  • You are having a content dispute, and should discuss it on the talk page rather than reverting.
  • Please note that you may be blocked should you make more than three reverts in 24 hours.
  • Please don't describe his edits as vandalism, as that can provoke people.
• Just to let you know, it is not usually a good idea to leave a message for a specific administrator when you need help from any administrator. We have a noticeboard at WP:ANI for situations when any administrator could help.
• If you need help from someone who speaks German, try WT:GSWN or Category:User de.

I hope this reply helps. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments moved from user page

The following comment was moved from your user page: --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 23:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Anoop Chandola

Hello Stifle, why don't you 'request further details' by contacting Prof Anoop Chandola personally, by email? AndreaUKA (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it is the responsibility of the person wishing to include an image to prove that it is available under a free license.

However, in this case, Prof. Chandola has already been contacted to request further details. Stifle (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Building

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Replying over there. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Three-pronged test for Elements of Fiction

I have drafted a revsion to WP:FICT that may address some of your concerns. I would be grateful for your views at WT:FICT#Three-pronged test for Elements of Fiction. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

deletion of page

May I know why National Institute of Malaria Research page was deleted? My email ID is [redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.176.79.132 (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (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?

National Institute of Malaria Research was deleted under criterion 7 (under Articles) of our criteria for speedy deletion because it appeared to be an article about an organization which didn't indicate why it was important or significant. Please see WP:ORG 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. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons image?

Dear Stifle, How can this person claim copyright over this image: [2] ? It should fall under fair use...right? What do you think? With kind regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted it as a copyvio. It's not used in any articles, so fair use isn't an option for it. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your PROD of 49th meridian east

Hi, you probably aren't aware that many of the related articles have been PRODded or taken to AfD and have all been closed as Keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east - which is the article used to demonstrate precedent to keep the meridian and parallel articles. I should say that I've had nothing to do with their creation and I'm only aware of the precedent because I went to do a PROD for another one a couple of weeks ago and found that the current community consensus is to keep the articles. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... thanks for the heads-up. Stifle (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking of AfD

I've blanked one of the AfDs you closed, diff, due to some comments about a living person that violated WP:CIVIL. If you need any background please e-mail me. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for letting me know. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you. That was most kind and, particularly from yourself, a very pleasant message to log into. Happy editing and all the best - Peripitus (Talk) 07:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC

Oh well. Nightscream should have signed in the right place ... he's never done that before. Unfortunately, Asgardian's behavior is such that the need for an RFC will arise again, and this time he'll do it right. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple album covers

Thanks for that -I think it will prove most useful. I decided to run the first few batches through IfD to gauge the reception as AWB tells me there are over 5K to look at. I'll probably bang a script together (perhaps mod twinkle for me) to make this all a bit smoother. Thanks again - Peripitus (Talk) 11:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'll carry on with the music video screenshots (which I haven't had time to look at in a while). Stifle (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the FFDs aren't going very well. I'm trying to post detailed, individual refutations of Grk1011's cookie-cutter posts where possible. This could become quite a big issue. For future nominations, it might be better not to do so many at once. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has stirred up a bit of opposition and I think some space between them would be good. It will be interesting to see how someone deals with this as the closures popup on my watchlist. I've tried your more passive suggestion - only 3 out of 30 contested so less feathers ruffled - and may try again in a few days. Sometimes I think we need a Wikipedia specific dictionary
"Fair Use (noun) - You want to use it ?......That's fair" - Peripitus (Talk) 12:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. You can always FFD the disputed images. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

At least one user having a merry time reverting the CSDs and the FfDs have attracted lots of amusing responses. For interest I've tried a different tack today in only putting up images that are basically identical except for the colour (in small batches). As for the OTRS - thanks for the offer. Happy Editing - Peripitus (Talk) 11:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Jersey Paranormal Research

I write to you following the guideline in WP:DRV. Can you take a second look at this Afd? In my opinion consensus for deletion was not reach between established users (not all !votes were from new users). Can you relist the article so consensus can be reach? Thanks, --J.Mundo (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2009 (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?

In my opinion, the circumstances for relisting provided in WP:RELIST were not met. On the other hand, there were ten people suggesting deleting the article, and of the eleven people suggesting keeping it, four were SPAs (SusanSJPR, Tom Butler, JennaBugg, and Twostars n saturn), and four were weak. As such, my feeling is that the consensus of established users was that the article should be deleted.

You are, of course, welcome to list the matter at DRV. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fundraising gadget

Eh? It's definitely disabled. If you're seeing it logged out or something, it's just cached. (And logged out users don't have access to gadgets anyway.) If you're seeing it logged in, there's something horribly wrong. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, earlier I cleared my cache and the fundraiser banner reappeared. I then noticed that the gadget had been removed on Saturday. I re-added it and the banner was gone again after another purge. Not sure what the store is. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

South Jersey Paranormal Research

I don't feel the argument to delete my group's page, South Jersey Paranormal Research, was valid. Those for deletion just kept saying that we have no notariety - how much more notariety than national media attention is required?? Also, the voting within the discussion was clearly for keeping the article, yet you deleted it anyway. Why go through the pains of a discussion and voting if you plan to do just as you pleased anyway? It was mentioned that there were "first time visitors" to page. That's because when people heard of the deletion, they signed up to put in their 2 cents and have their opinions heard.

If these are the unfair, unwarranted practices that you use as a Wikipedia administrator, you really have no business in that role. Be that as it may, I am requesting that the article be reinstated. SusanSJPR —Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanSJPR (talk • contribs) 19:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have found the wrong section of my message wizard — instead of choosing Copyright, you should have followed the directions under "Articles for deletion".

Articles for deletion is not a vote, but an attempt to establish a consensus among established Wikipedia users as to whether the article should be kept or deleted. The normal practice at AFD is that contributions from new users are given less weight.

There were ten people suggesting deleting the article, and of the eleven people suggesting keeping it, four were new or single-purpose accounts (yourself, Tom Butler, JennaBugg, and Twostars n saturn), and four were weak. As such, my feeling is that the consensus of established users was that the article should be deleted.

If you feel that I have not correctly followed the official deletion policy, you are entitled to appeal my decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kanonkas#Oppose

Some people have replied to you at the aforementioned link, it seems them make good points to. You may or may not wish to check it out and reply. Please don't shoot the messenger :) Cheers! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Relisting AFDs

I try to keep a limit of four or five "votes"; is that reasonable? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RELIST contemplates anything more than two people plus the nominator as being enough, and says "If a debate has already been relisted once, the closer should consider carefully if a no-consensus close would be more appropriate than a second relisting. If further discussion is unlikely to bring consensus, then the discussion should simply be closed". As such, I suspect that once a debate has already been relisted, if there's four or more "votes" including the nominator but no clear result, no consensus is the correct outcome. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Stifle/No featured articles

I have read this and added to my own RFA info page. Dlohcierekim 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear it! Stifle (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

single-purpose accounts???

Just wanted to know when "single-purpose accounts" became a reason to discount a person's vote. It seems logical to assume new people may have been called in to help slant a vote, but that is no different from an editor asking help in a vote from another editor. In fact, if I am correct that there is a group of editors supporting a common point of view )and there is [3]) then it is entirely probable that many of the editors voting for deletion have been asked to help.

I am focused paranormal subject, but I am also capable of rational thought. Discounting me because of my focus only disenfranchises me in what is supposed to be a "grand experiment."

I admit that the South Jersey Paranormal Research article is about a regional group and pretty self-serving. I have attempted to defend it primarily for the sake of due process. The people who started that article did so in good faith and even now confused about what they did wrong. Rather than deleting the article, it would be a good time to offer a mentor to help them make the article right or understand why it should go.

PS: did I see you say that ScienceApologist was the one who closed the vote? [4] If so, and noting that Martinphi has just been eliminated makes me wonder ... Tom Butler (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to read the page Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. While it is an essay, it does enjoy wide acceptance. Recommendations from new and unregistered users are customarily given less weight at AFDs because AFD is not a vote; rather, it is an attempt to establish the consensus of established Wikipedia editors.

ScienceApologist did not close the AFD, but he was "otherwise interested" in the article. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Harry va

Do you think it's worth me filing a ANI report against Harry va for his upload history, seen here. He's turning into quite the net negative. BTW, another user I told you about, User:BlassFamily, was blocked indef for his image uploads amongst other things. — Realist² 22:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an ANI report would be very useful, but you could go through his upload log and tag images as no license/PUI/etc. as appropriate. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

When did I ever do that?

Contrary to your assertion, I have NEVER complained anywhere when an article I created has been deleted. In fact, I don't know of any case in which an article I created has been deleted, and the number of articles I've created is very large. Do you know of any deletion of any article I created? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon; I will strike incorrect parts of my statement. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pentney

Hi. Pentney has come current for closure at CP. You mentioned at Talk:Pentney that you had requested GFDL release. Any update on Ticket:2009010910013381 or should I delete it for now as unreleased? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't had anything back on that ticket. It can probably be deleted as lacking permission. If the sender of that email comes back with a valid permission we can undelete it. Stifle (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to go. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm updating....

Anything new on User talk:Lina6329 about Marc Snir? Ticket#2008121810020738, evidently. It's been over a week since you pointed out to her that additional information was requested and you indicated you replied to her question (above). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had a reply, but there is still no GFDL release. This can probably go too. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked page-WWE roster

Hi, I don't really know why you blocked the page, when there was no edit warring and no vandalism. Answer on my talk page. Kalajan€₣ 21:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you do, do not unprotect that page. It has been protected multiple times in the past week or so. The warring is not going to quit for some time now. I can assure you that. I'm not apart of it but as a by-standard the same people involved in the war will start it back up after it is unprotected.--WillC 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there was edit warring; feel free to request protection at WP:RFPU if you disagree. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees

Hello. I notice you recently changed the protection level on this article due to edit warring. I have made a suggestion for article probation due to the high levels of edit warring. The suggestion can be found here. Your input is welcome. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

May I refer to you?

Hi. I'm getting ready to go out of town for an extended weekend (though I'll be here some hours yet), and I have discovered a rather large copyright concern with User:Redpathanderson. He had an article listed at cp which came current today. As standard operating procedure for active contributors, I checked his other contribs and have so far located 12 other articles that either consist of or include large chunks of text copied from other sources. (I'm processing them, of course, and they're at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 January 16. I've spoken to the contributor about it at User talk:Redpathanderson#Copyright problem: Reculver Castle, but he may have questions or concerns, particularly since his contribution here suggests he may not understand the issue. Do you mind if I refer him to you if he has questions that I am unable to address before going? If you don't have time, please let me know, and I'll track down somebody else who may be available. :) (This, of course, presumes you'll be around before I go. If not, I'll think of something.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll only be online today through 17:00 UTC, but until then as well as at some yet-to-be-determined time tomorrow I'll be on as well. You could always refer him to WT:CP. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I could, but quite often that means me. :D I'll ask User:Dougweller. He's also active in copyright issues. (Meanwhile, I've discovered a few more.) If nobody else is available, I'll just let him know that he may not get a response to his questions for a few days. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I heard the author's battle with Wikipedia. In my opinion, fact is fact, regardless who told it. I think the post is valid as long as all facts can be verified. I would like someone point out to me just exactly which sentence in that short paragraph violated NPOV. Ruoerx (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Buddy McLean image

Hello Stifle,

I'm writing to you concerning the deletion of File:McLean.JPG which I believe was in error. I'm somewhat familiar with the situation, although User:Lanoitarus can fill you in on the entire story, the anonymous editor is incorrect in his claim that the image was stolen from WhiteyWorld.com but is instead actually cited to "Paddy Whacked: The Untold Story of the Irish-American Gangster" by T.J. English. I say this not only because I have the book in my possession but that it is confirmed on the Google Books listing. Also if you check the original history, the image was scanned and uploaded using a digital camera and not taken from a website. I should also mention that this user, under various IP addresses, has falsely claimed other images as being taken from his website (..again which Lanoitarus can attest) and has generally been disruptive when asked to take his case to WP:COPYVIO. 71.184.54.174 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The evidence which was presented to me via OTRS strongly suggests otherwise, that the picture was taken from another website. In any case, it had a spurious fair use tag. You're welcome to open a deletion review if you wish. Stifle (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees

Could you please remove the protection level for the page because this starting to getting fucking ridiculous. And who gives you the fucking right to block anyone from editing the page? We live in a free world, god damn it!!!! Thank you for understanding. Have a nice day! :) HabsMTL (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to be civil, I might like to help you. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD discussion

Previously, you participated in an AFD discussion about the Lists of solo piano pieces article. I have renominated this article and its sub-articles for deletion; please join the discussion if you have time. Thank you. Timneu22 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD discussion / Patrick Purdy

Are there any options to reopen an AfD discussion or overrule its decision, if it is disputed? Its just that the discussion about the Patrick Purdy article was closed with the alleged decision to merge/redirect, while myself and others think that there was actually no consensus, as three were for keeping the article and three others for merging. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure why you're contacting me about this, as not only had I nothing to do with the decision, but I'm also marked as being semi-inactive at the moment.

To answer your question, you can discuss the situation with the administrator who closed the debate (User:MZMcBride), and if that discussion fails to produce a satisfactory result, you may make a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I saw that you are an admin who is quite involved in those deletion reviews, so I thought you might know, what to do in a situation like this. Anyway, sorry for bothering you and thanks for the advice. (Lord Gøn (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

Article: Information For Action

Hi Stifle,

I would like to ask the community to undelete the article (Information For Action) that i've posted last week. After receiving warnings from the community about the article, i've already added in more information to the article.

Information for action is a well known non-profit organization in WEstern Australia. Their website (www.informaction.org) contains massive information about the environment and provide lobbying service to the community. The website has an average of 700,000 hits per month (as according to the website)and has won awards such as the Golden Web Award and the Critical Mass award.

I hope the community would consider to undelete the article. Feel free to send me an email by - [redacted]. Thank you for your attention.

Regards, Hin6769 (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Information For Action was deleted after a unanimous agreement that it should not be included in Wikipedia. You can read that discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information For Action. If you feel that I have not followed the deletion process correctly, you can make a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but unless you can present proof of your above claims and details of how this organization meets WP:WEB guidelines (which should be from reliable sources), I don't think you will get very far. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomasammann.JPG

The photo on the page of Thomas Ammann is my own and I released it into the public domain. It was taken by me in the 1980s. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isisosiris (talk • contribs) 10:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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

As the image is public domain, please reupload it to Wikimedia Commons. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Goztepe.jpg and File:KonakIzmir.jpg

Hello Stifle! I had made a deletion request for the image file http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Goztepe.jpg, because I had uploaded the same in Wikimedia Commons, and it was declined by you on 19 November with an edit summary stating that I had to update the links first. They were, and they are updated, and included in the article Timeline of İzmir under the link http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Goztepe_IzmirTurkey_1880s.jpg. I will appreciate if you could have this one deleted because it is useless. No pages link to the former one. The same is the case for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KonakIzmir.jpg included in the same article under the link . Although there, the deletion was declined by User: Pegasus, User: Kimchi.sg, User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh (well...one of these, now ret'd anyway, after having been around for more than two years), on the grounds that the new file in the Commons was of a lower resolution so did not fulfil CSD criteria. I will appreciate if you could review his judgement on the matter too. Cretanforever (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted File:Goztepe.jpg. I can't see File:KonakIzmir.jpg on Commons; can you indicate where it is? Stifle (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KonakIzmir.jpg is a duplicate of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KonakSquare_IzmirTurkey_1865.jpg. Another one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KonakMeydan.jpg, is a duplicate of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KonakMeydan.jpg on Commons. I have updated the links to articles and requested deletion again for the two images still in English wiki. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cebit images

Thanks for the info - I didn't think to check on the article talk page. I should have known better - I'm a lapsed OTRSer myself... (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia spam whitelist

So what problems have you had with whitehat.servehttp.com? just wondering. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist Deo Favente (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Also: I have another problem, look at my talk page. I don't really think 20 edits are worth worrying about but just wondering that as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deo Favente (talk • contribs) 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The domain servehttp.com is a free URL redirection and hosting service. If you need to cite anything from it, you should cite the target website directly. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Improving referencing efforts

I've responded to your most recent suggestion on this page. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I get a chance. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:OTRS Ticket #2008120910013531

Running into some problems with getting these images up to snuff. Apparently, you needed something else from me. What was it? JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to resend you the mail I sent on December 12th. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:OTRS Ticket:2009011510019041

Sorry about your computer problem! (In terms of disasters, I rank "computer problem" pretty high. :/) Is there an update on CBp Carbon, which you listed at CP on January 15th? Should I give it a few more days? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No reply yet on that one. The GFDL release is fine but it comes from someone whom I can't connect with the source website. I don't know if there'll be anything forthcoming on the matter, so if it's past due you should delete it and we can always restore it later if things are fixed up.

Computer is with an IT guy at work; hopefully I should be properly back online this weekend. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. And good luck with the IT guy. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Theta Sigma

Can I suggest salting this page? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tameko49

Tameko Wood.jpg is me! I am Tameko Wood what license do I need to put my own picture of tell my own story on this web based information site. This is a true story and is news worthy to people all over. People need to know they can overcome. There is not a legal problem here! Tameko49 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. In future please try to select a more appropriate message topic as it can help resolve your issue quicker.

There are two separate issues here.

The first is the image Commons:File:Tameko Wood.jpg, which you say is in the public domain. I believe you misunderstand the meaning of "public domain". It does not mean that the image has been published somewhere, but rather that the copyright on the image has expired or that the copyright holder of the image no longer claims copyright on it. As the image is copyrighted, unless we get permission from the copyright holder (which would be the person who took the photograph or possibly her employer) to release the image under a free license, we cannot use it.

The second is the article Tameko. I deleted that article because it doesn't explain how the subject (you) might be notable (see WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO for how someone might be notable). It's better to wait for someone else to write about you on Wikipedia; it's not a free webhost.

If you can provide details of reliable sources which have written about you (these would be major newspapers, magazines, books, or the websites of any of those), or otherwise explain (with verification) how you meet one of those notability guidelines, I'd be happy to reconsider my decision. Otherwise, you may file a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you not reaad the newspaper article or the radio stations that was listed before deleting all articles contributed by Tameko49? I included the newspaper article that represents who Tameko is and which should validate her picture being part of public domain both in print and online.

Tameko49 (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The only links in the deleted article are to the website cdbaby.com and to myspace, neither of which are reliable sources. I don't see anything there about newspaper articles.

Regarding the "public domain" issue, please read my previous message again. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Stifle please go back to my discussion page where I left you references to verify what I say is true. Newspaper references radio references and television references.

Also I understand public domain but when I signed the paper giving permission to release my picture....that I supplied to them it said that by signing this release I released the picture into public domain and relingished all rights to the picture as my own. That is why I am pushing that it is public domain.

Tameko49 (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see what in that meets WP:BIO.

Regarding the image, the newspaper would have to give permission.

You can file a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review if you still feel that the article should be restored. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

tameko49

Please go back to my discussion page for final rebuttal. You are outside your own requirements. I have received secondary notarity from independent sources other than myself what do you call radio television and newspaper sources. Do you want to to supply another picture in its place that I have not given away any rights to? Where do I send the letter to authentic I am the legal owner? Tameko49 (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on flickr images on Wikipedia

Dear Stifle, Is there any way someone could check to see if there are flickr images which are licensed as pd-author, CC BY 3.0, 2.5, etc on Wikipedia. Some people place images on this license and give a backlink to the original flickr image which may or may not be licensed freely. If the image is in scope, I would like to move them to Commons and submit them for a flickr review...provided the flickr license is free enough. I don't know how to search for them if the image is still on Wikipedia rather than Commons. Any ideas? I believe WP has very sophisticated software here for these tasks. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried Special:Linksearch? Stifle (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Billie Lawless

Hi. I've restored part of the cvio template for the non-Billie Lawless site pending a brief discussion with you. I strongly suspect that some of the material duplicated at the Billie Lawless website is not owned by Lawless: note that this is by Amy Spark, whose work in the New Art Examiner is reproduced here without evidence of permission. Do I take your OTRS note to indicate that we have permission to use the matter from the Billie Lawless site, but not explicitly for the material by Amy Spark? (Or do we have verification of permission for him to license Spark's contributions to that paper too?) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket refers only to the Billie Lawless site. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So we'll presume that material hosted in probable violation of copyright there is not usable. :) (You'd think an artist would grok intellectual property rights!) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have agreed, except that there's another ticket after showing up (OTRS:2379129) which purports to release the didywahdidy.com content under the GFDL. I can't open that site at the moment which I need to do to verify some things. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll be interested to see how that plays out! I can access the site. It has been altered since I last looked at it. It used to say "Amy Sparks, 1989", but now includes a claim that Sparks "...was paid by Mr. Lawless for the above text. Copyright Billie Lawless, 1989." This presumes a standard work for hire copyright, which may not apply unless that was explicitly set out between Lawless and Sparks at the time. Good luck. Don't want your job. :) (I note that Lawless is still reprinting Sparks article from The New Art Examiner, January, 1989. Vol. 16, No. 5 without showing of permission, here. I wonder if he claims to have commissioned that, too.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the email I have is certainly from Mr. Lawless, and he clearly controls the didywahdidy.com site. As such, we can wash our hands of it and validate the usage. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD for WP:NFC #8 deletions

I'm concerned that you have again been using CSD for material that you consider fails NFCC #8, but where by no means all would accept your assessment. (Compare the discussion at WT:ALBUMS#Alternate_album_covers that you are aware of, where I previously raised this concern.)

FYI, I have removed the CSD tags from a number of items, and raised the issue at WT:CSD; including a reference to your and Peripitus's previous discussion, as previously raised at WT:ALBUMS.

CSD is a process for non-controversial deletion. These very controversial image deletions should be going to IfD. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (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'm concerned that you aren't distinguishing between CSD and delayed speedy deletion. The {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} and family are used where an image may fail the fair use criteria. They are not speedy deletion tags, but if they are uncontested for a week, the issue is clearly uncontested, and the image may then be deleted.

Any editor (other than the editor who uploaded the image) may remove those, at which stage the person who placed the disputed tag may raise an FFD. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of the WT:ALBUMS thread. I don't think my participation there would serve any useful purpose, because the participants in the discussion are already entrenched in a belief that all images of all album covers whatsoever are inherently permissible, and that I am part of a cabal seeking to remove them from the encyclopedia. I don't think that anything I can do will be able to amend that entrenched belief, different as it is to Wikipedia policy. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Olympian's rant isn't the most recent comment, he's not even a project regular, and I shouldn't take it as characteristic of the discussion.

More typical I think is the view that to be something that significantly informs a reader, an alternate cover needs to be significantly different from the original; and it needs to represent a release that is in some way a not insignificant. (See eg contributions by Freekee, IllaZilla and others).

Any contribution to try to constructively discuss or refine those notions more closely I am sure would be most useful. Jheald (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Konkordat.jpg

Hi, i dont know why you removed the replacable fair use tag. The images was tagged PD-1923, which was obviously wrong because it was taken 1933, i dont know how this could survive a deletion request. So it is fair use (i changed the license to a fair use rational), but it is havily used against the fair-use policy. There is a free image of the same setting at Commons, so this image is qualified for speedydeletion. --Martin H. (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not correct. According to the speedy deletion policy, "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted". As such, this image does not qualify for speedy deletion, and you will need to take it to IFD. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Can wiki trust this ismage

Dear Stifle,

• Do you think the actual copyright holder of this image: [5] gave permission for it to be used here? The uploader has been banned for sockpuppetry...but that is not the issue. The problem is his talkpage is fully of warnings about images which have since been deleted. If you are in doubt, I would recommend you consider deleting it...there are other images of Pompey on Commons. Its a tough call. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  I've tagged it {{subst:npd}}. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

National Insurance

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that an article's whose title broke the WP naming convention ought to be renamed. Where does consensus come into that? There either is or is not a naming convention. If the Manual of Style is optional, that certainly makes my life easier. Millstream3 (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any reference to the MOS in the deletion request. If you can point one out, I'll gladly reconsider. You can alternatively use {{db-move|National insurance|Section 1.2.3 of the MOS says so}}, which handily adds a link to the deletion box which an admin can click and it automagically makes the move for you. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Protest against your message about File:Manuel Barrueco snapshot.jpg

Hello. I'm writing here because I want to protest about your objection to File:Manuel Barrueco snapshot.jpg which I uploaded long ago. Either the rules for non-free images have been changing, or someone is over-zealous. I wonder, if you find the image above to be objectionable, then why don't you also aim your artillery toward File:Ninth Doctor.jpg, for example? It's exactly the same situation.

Moreover, if you think that freely licensed media could reasonably be found for artist Manuel Barrueco, then go ahead and find it yourself. I just couldn't care less.

I do believe you (and several other destructive admins) have been overdoing your police work against illustrations in Wikipedia. You obviously would prefer to have a text-only encyclopedia. Shame on you!

--AVM (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we'd prefer to have a free encyclopedia. Non-free images of people who are still alive are generally not permitted (see foundation:resolution:licensing policy). If you feel another image should be deleted, please tag it accordingly. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)Well anyone attending the Peabody Institute would be in a good position to create a free licensed photo of him for starters. You and me might not be in such a position, but the fact that it's reasonably possible is all that's required per policy to deny the use of a non-free image in this case. The other image you point out is used to depict a fictional character, not a real person. I know there are those who argue that an "out of character" photo of the actor will serve the same purpose, but I don't believe that interpretation is quite as widely accepted. Either way Wikipedia is a big place, the fact that someone is pointing out a problem in one place and not another doesn't mean you have been somehow singled out, it's just that it would take one person or group a rater long time to adress all potential issues with all the 2,716,084 articles and 831,863 files currenly on the site (pluss however many hundreds are added daily). People simply adress things as they encounter them, there is no way to guarantee a 100% consistent approach in a project of this scale. --Sherool (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Sherool; you may wish to copy that message to User talk:AVM. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Errrrr - why did you delete File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg ?

I don't understand why you deleted File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg. It may well have been "‎(Listed on PUI for over two weeks: 5 January 2009)", but so what? Nothing had been resolved, no consensus had been reached, and no advice had been given that the file was about to be deleted. The file just suddenly vanished.
I left questions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2009_January_5#File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg; no-one answered them.
Please restore the file, and don't delete it until some form of decision has been reached and announced.
And what does "please consider contacting another active user or the helpdesk" mean? Yes I've considered it - what do I do now? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2009 (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?

File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg was deleted according to the Wikipedia deletion policy. Specifically, an editor had raised an issue with the copyright permission of the file, and this was not resolved. WP:PUI does not require a "consensus" to delete an image. Your question at the page you indicated was answered, and details of what you need to do given, by Moonriddengirl and Wordbuilder within three hours of you asking your question. You have had over three weeks to get the webmaster to send in permission and have not done so. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being polite and accomodating, and for responding so unexpectedly quickly.

"Why not try it next time?" I can't think of any good reason not to. I tried it; I couldn't find a category that fitted. I did try one that seemed relevant, but when I got "inside" the option, I found it wasn't relevant.

"was deleted according to the Wikipedia deletion policy". WP has lots of deletion policies; which one is applicable in these circumstances? (i.e. does it have a code like other policies I've seen seem to?)

"Specifically, an editor had raised an issue with the copyright permission of the file, and this was not resolved." - "was not resolved" is misleading. I feel "has not been resolved yet" is a more useful statement.

"WP:PUI does not require a "consensus" to delete an image." That sounds unusual. I thought everything in WP was by consensus. I gather not. Why doesn't this one require consensus?

"Your question at the page you indicated was answered" - There were several questions, not just one. This question was not answered:

(I don't know the process or etiquette here, there's no example of a discussion to follow, and there's no obvious "help" page. Please provide a link to more information on the process, etc.)

"details of what you need to do given, by Moonriddengirl and Wordbuilder within three hours of you asking your question." - If you replace "question" by "questions", I agree.

"You have had over three weeks to get the webmaster to send in permission" - True.

"and have not done so." - No, I haven't been able to get the webmaster to send in permission. So what? Nobody advised me I had a time limit to satisfy. Nobody advised me that if I was unable to get the webmaster to respond, the image would be deleted. And Moonriddengirl said this was "one of the easiest ways to resolve this." No other way "to resolve this" has been suggested, let alone attempted.

Also, you have not addressed many of the points I raised:

• It may well have been "‎(Listed on PUI for over two weeks: 5 January 2009)", but so what?
• Nothing had been resolved, ... and no advice had been given that the file was about to be deleted. The file just suddenly vanished
• Please restore the file, and don't delete it until some form of decision has been reached and announced.
• And what does "please consider contacting another active user or the helpdesk" mean? Yes I've considered it - what do I do now?

So what happens now? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. It is 2am here - it will be at least 18 hours before I read your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To address your points in turn:

• The message wizard section you would have been looking for was Administrative Actions - Deleted Page - Ask me to undelete a page that I deleted - You think I was wrong to delete it. This would have taken you to here.
• For the official policy that enabled deletion of this page, please see the first item of WP:DEL#REASON.
• While the issue has not been resolved ("yet" or otherwise), after two weeks images at PUI may be deleted.
• The PUI process is explained at WP:PUI#Instructions.
• Those instructions explain that "Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days". PUI is not based on a consensus because a thousand users saying an image is not copyrighted does not make it so.
• To have the image's use on Wikipedia validated, we need proof that the copyright holder agreed to release it under a free license. Without that, the image is deleted. It can be undeleted when the permission is received and verified. As an alternative to sending permission by email, the webmaster can send it by snail mail or fax (foundation:contact us has the address), or can place a notice on the website stating that the image is released under a free license. As it was already indicated on the main WP:PUI page that the image would be liable for deletion after fourteen days if the required information was not provided, and users are notified of this by means of the Template:Idw-pui, it is not considered necessary to repost this information in every listing.
• To your final points:
  • It may well have been "‎(Listed on PUI for over two weeks: 5 January 2009)", but so what?

    Images listed on PUI for over two weeks may be deleted by an administrator if the permission to use the image has not been established.

  • Nothing had been resolved, ... and no advice had been given that the file was about to be deleted. The file just suddenly vanished

    See above.

  • Please restore the file, and don't delete it until some form of decision has been reached and announced.

    A decision has been reached, by me, to delete the image. As dozens of images are listed for deletion every day, it is not practical to provide any "announcement" of decisions to delete them. The PUI log will shortly be updated to show that the image has been deleted, and the deletion is also recorded in the deletion log.

  • And what does "please consider contacting another active user or the helpdesk" mean? Yes I've considered it - what do I do now?

    That was a request as an alternative to leaving me a message. As you have left me a message, it is no longer relevant to you.

I hope the above answers cover your concerns. As previously mentioned, if and when a valid free license release is received, the image will be restored. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

DJ Dust image

In regards the speedy deletion for the image for DJ Dust on the article -- the photo is a promotional one, and has been used before in promoting the group Mars ILL. It's currently being used on other articles, so I'm not sure why it would be singled out here on DJ Dust's article.Wardomatic (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2009 (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?

Please add messages to the bottom of my page, not the top.

The image File:Manchildrapper.jpg has been tagged as replaceable. This tagging applies to all uses of the image. This is because the image is of a living person, and non-free images of living people are not generally permitted on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

File:SamuelLincolnHouse1.jpg

Hello, I just forwarded permission to OTRS Commons from the photographer for this image as well as several others we uploaded. This was per the conversation I had with Lupo at Commons, who was most helpful. Thank you. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it. It looks like there has been a reply sent already; you may wish to check your email. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Silent Prey.jpg

Hi, Stifle. You wrote the following on my talk page:

Thank you for uploading Image:Silent Prey.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy.

Since that image had one of those templates at the time you wrote that, giving great detail as to why the rationale was met, I have no clue what you're on about. Please don't use boilerplate that doesn't say what you mean. I gather you want the image deleted; if so, please say why. I'd also appreciate, as a personal favor, if you not rush, since I haven't been not very active for almost a year now, and it might take me some time to hold up my end of the discussion, though I will do my best. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The rationale you added to that page did not include a purpose of use, which is a requirement. (This is the version I tagged.) Another user has subsequently added the purpose correctly, so there is nothing else for you to do. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)