User talk:Stifle/Archive 0506b

Request for Editor / User Page Review

Hey Stifle –

You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.

Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. joturner 15:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I won't comment on the editor review, but I would support an RFA now if you were nominated. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century 22

I disambiguated the "walled garden" link in your afd comment. I hope you don't mind. I'm glad you entered that comment, as I was talking about this phenomenon to someone just last night, but I didn't know it had a name. Joyous | Talk 15:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

signature

Sorry, I couldn't sign, the top row of my keyboard was broken and I couldn't change the layout to english. ackoz 17:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The button just above the edit box can add a signature in that case. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Elisa Villar

Hi. I was surprised by your post on my talk page. The page is entirely a personal homepage, and WP:NOT and WP:USER both state firmly that user pages are not to be used as personal homepages. I do understand that userpages need to be given much more lattitude than articles in the main namespace, but it's not as if it was an ambiguous case, especially in the light of the fact that the user has never made an edit to wikipedia other than her user page. It seems to me that wikipedia needs defending against being taken over as a free webhost, so I really do suggest that you revert your reversion. I defer to your final judgement, though, as an admin. You're right about the image though - I should have read the deletion policy more carefully. I added {{IFD}} as you suggested. --Hughcharlesparker 18:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a judgment call; the page isn't really doing any harm and isn't several screens long or anything. Thanks for understanding and discussing. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

hello

hey Stifle, I'm new to wikipedia and have been helping to add images and information of the Fung wan comic series. I'm having trouble with understanding why the images I uploaded are being considered copyright infringement (note I am speaking of those that I have just recently uploaded under the licensing labels such as comic book cover or panels). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo Yan (talk • contribs)

You need to add the source of the images, a brief detail of what the image is, and a short reason why the image qualifies as fair use. See Wikipedia:Fair use rationale#Fair_use_rationale for some examples. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Image

Well, what type of image can I use to depict it? Is a map of the location acceptable?—G.He 21:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The best type of images are those that are under a free license. If you can find a photo of the building that is under such a license, that would be great. Please see WP:FU for information on how an image qualifies as fair use. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about the licensing of another image, but it solely depicts the building. What do you think about that?—G.He 21:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is what the image was originally intended for. An image from Google Earth can only be used under fair use in the article on Google Earth, or directly in connection with Google Earth. This is specifically mentioned on WP:FU. If you can point out the image you have in mind, I might be able to better advise you. Stifle (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What about this?—G.He 21:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, just tag it as {{Non-free fair use in|page name}} and underneath state that it qualifies as fair use to illustrate the article and because it is low resolution. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you think the other image is a violation, by all means delete it. I have no problems with it being deleted. While you're at it, can you please verify the new image to confirm that it's okay to use? Thanks.—G.He 21:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's all good, I've marked it as such. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So what's the consensus of the 1^st image? Should it be deleted or is it still being debated?—G.He 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it per your request. Stifle (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Just as a side question, any pictures I take (I.e. using a digital camera) may be submitted under a free license if I wish, as long as it doesn't violate any possible restrictions regarding the location the picture was taken, right?—G.He 23:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, the only instance where restrictions would be placed on photos you took is if you were working for a company and your contract said that they owned the copyright for your creative work, or if you took a photograph of the Eiffel Tower at night (French courts have ruled that the lighting patterns of the tower are copyrightable, somehow. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

deletion notices of pictures I uploaded

Hi Stifle,

please give me some time usíng the pics I uploaded recently before tagging them... I uploaded them an hour ago, so please check all the pics you tagged in an hour or two again and then remove the tags, ok?

Dankeschön!

Weapon X (de) 21:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please add the images to the articles they are intended for before uploading any more images. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I added seven pics and I will all add them to article in the next our.

(Though, the pic Crt.jpg wasn't uploaded by me...)

Greetings

Weapon X (de) 21:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stifle, now all seven pics have a home!  :)

Please review them and delete the for-deletion-tag, thanks!

Weapon X (de) 22:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It would have been OK to remove the tag yourself.

Additionally, you had one week to add them to the articles, no need to rush :) Stifle (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, next time I'll be prepared...  :)

(But did you really had to threat me to be blocked? Wouldn't the first stop-uploading-message you left be enough? You could see, that I uploaded them all at the same time (22:51 - 23:11), all before the time you left your first message...)

Greetings

Weapon X (de) 23:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see that. Sorry. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

"Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)"

Sorry i'm new at this i didnt mean to delete the tag i'm still getting used to writing down what's needed ,sorry

Your's sincerely

Jason —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acethejace (talk • contribs) 22:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

No problem, just please don't do it again :) Stifle (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't mean to delete the tag, why did you do the exact same thing again? If you remove it again, you are liable to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

i,m an idiot

Sorry i wont touch any tags again , how do you edit the copyrite information , i want the system to know its a screenshot or artwork from a certain site without deleting the tag Sorry again i'm a newbie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acethejace (talk • contribs) .

If it is an artwork from a certain site, then replace {{promotional}} with {{character-artwork}} and add an explanation of where you found it and why it is a fair use of the image. You must also add the web address of the website it came from. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

About Image

I'm sorry for the Image:Hb 23.232.2-1-.jpg. Just a mistake. Could you delete it, please? Ajda 23:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the message. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Thanks for the heads-up. I think I saw someone else use that explanation, so I presumed it was within policy. I'll be more diligent in the future. --mtz206 23:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Send the Pain Below

Was the Send the Pain Below article deleted or moved to Wikisource? Robot569 01:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted as a copyright violation and inappropriate Wikipedia content by Mailer diablo. Please contact him to discuss where to go from here. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving Pages

I ave reverted your changes to

• Surya
• Vijay
• Vikram

I changed it back because they in the industry are not known by the name Saravanan, Joseph and John. It has been changed and now they are completely referred to their title names. Unlike the name Thala (Ajith), these are real names but Thala is a title. Please reply. Happy editing :) Benzee 11:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted these back. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) for the applicable practice - we do not use nicknames or stage names as Wikipedia article titles unless the real name is unknown. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Preview Button

Thank you for your information. Jath16 12:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

List of members of the Norwegian Constitutional Congress

The Wikipedia:Translation into English has requested translation of a list into English. The original is no:Liste over medlemmer av Den Grunnlovgivende Forsamling which would translate as "List of members of the Norwegian Constitutional Congress."

I've been asked to do this translation (I have translated several articles from Norwegian to English) and believe it has Wikivalue. However I am not interested in repeating my recent translation history of being requested to translate list of Oppland farms (estates), only to have it challenged as inappropriate to be a Wikilist. Accurate translations take time and energy. Are you the person that I need to contact to confirm this is an acceptable Norwegian list to translate into English?

Thanks - Williamborg 15:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not any more privileged than other Wikipedians to decide whether a list should be translated or not. All I can say is that I would not consider nominating that for deletion or supporting it, since we already have a similar list for the USA at Lists of current and former United States Senators, by state. It seems like a fine idea for an article. However, I cannot predict if other Wikipedians will share the same opinion. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback.

Switching topics—when do you make the decision on whether Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of farms in Oppland should be kept, deleted or transwiki'd? Or as the nominator, do you defer to another Admin to make the decision?

Thanks Williamborg 18:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Normally the decision is made after five days, but it looks like nobody's got to that page yet. I've closed the discussion now. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

See you've listed it as a no concensus. What does this mean? Do I: 1) continue ahead (there are about 30 similar pages in the Norwegian Wikipedia awaiting translation), 2) call a halt until someone decides on the results of a no consensus, 3) make revisions or 4) none of the above?

Takk (thanks) - Williamborg 20:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Rmrfstar's RfA

I don't understand the logic of your opposition to my RfA. You opposed due to a, "lack of Wikipedia space edits, which indicates to me a lack of policy knowledge." Would you please explain your reasoning? I think I'm quite familiar with Wikipedia policy. How could I have been around here for a year, gotten 2 articles featured from scratch, etc. without knowledge of policy? As I noted in the ==Comment== section of my RfA, I actually do read the Wikipedia namespace often, just rarely vote or edit it. -- Rmrfstar 17:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the RFA page. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sun Moon Mule

Please do not delete the album cover for Sun Moon Mule again. This non-stop reverting is getting ridiculous. Giles22 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The image had no source indicated on the article, and as no source was supplied for 7 days, it was properly deleted. Images are required to have a source given on their image page. Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Highway's RfA

File:Pikachu plastic toy.JPG

Me relaxing...

Request for Adminship

---

Thank you for supporting/objecting/tropicanising me in my request for Adminship. Although I wasn't promoted to admin status, with a final vote count of 14/27/12, I am very happy with the response I received from my fellow Wikipedians. I was pleasantly suprised at the support, and was touched by it. I will also work harder on preventing disputes and boosting my edit count (which is on the up), so thank you to all your objectors. Hopefully I will re-apply soon and try again for the mop. Thanks again, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers}

List question

A few days ago I stumbled upon User:Mathbot, which among a few other things, appears to maintain list of mathematicians and list of mathematics articles, using the apparently especially created for that purpose list of mathematics categories. Since the lists are basically created from the categories this seems to make those lists nothing but a waste of space and effort. Before taking the drastic measure of just putting them up for Afd I wanted to ask your opinion and/or advice about this, since I've come to respect your opinion based on the comments I've seen from you on various Afds. (I'll watch this page for replies). -- Hirudo 04:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

While I personally think that categories would be better, the amount of time that the articles have been around and the breadth of people working on them means that AFDing them would probably be futile. Thanks for stopping by. Stifle (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of. Thanks. -- Hirudo 12:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logistics Proponency Office Internship

Since you're an administrator whom I hold in high regard (which approbation is only enhanced by my finding that you seem to agree with me apropos of lists, viz., that, where categories exist, duplicative or insubstantial lists should be looked upon with disfavor), and since you partook in the debate, I thought I'd ask you whether you think I properly closed the discussion as no consensus to delete; hence, keep. As a non-admin, I've closed a few AfDs, but they've categorically been keep or speedy keep, usually per WP:SNOWBALL or in view of the nominator's withdrawing his/her nom with no other valid delete votes' having been cast. Here, though, I nominated the article (now at Logistics Proponency Office) for deletion, inasmuch as it focused on a specific internship and was detailed to an unencyclopedic extent. Two other editors supported deletion, and an anon editor then cleaned the article up such that the focus was less on the esoteric internship and more on the (likely notable) government subagency. You supported keeping that version, and, in view of your comments and the improvement of the article, I then moved the article and rewrote it; the principal topic now is the LPO itself, which seems to be notable, although I'm not wholly sure, as the webpage for the Office is, in a word, convoluted. I'm wondering whether, since there was little initial participation, I ought to have relisted this, or whether, since a proper closure would be no consensus, and since the article has been improved to address the concerns originally raised (by me), no consensus with no relisting is appropriate. If you should have a moment to let me know your thoughts, I'd be much appreciative. Joe 21:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that you should probably have left it alone. The guideline on non-admins closing discussions suggests that a debate should be nearly unanimous before being closed by a non-admin, and that non-admins shouldn't close debates in which they have been involved. Thanks for dropping by. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer; I rather thought I oughtn't to have closed after I did it, but I'll hope that no one's particularly concerned and I will pay better attention in the future. Joe 15:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Frieda Van Themsche

(what Hans van Themsche did is totally unrelated to this person's article) ... highly debatable. A few hundred news articles relate the two. If she were notable due to being a watercolor painter, or archaeologist, or children's book writer, or computer programmer, yes, we could just mention Hans in a one-sentence trivia section. Instead, she is notable as being a politician for an party rather famous for advocating anti-immigrant policies, and her nephew apparently shot people for being immigrants. And even if you still don't agree that's related, a lot of journalists clearly think it's related; I think we need to at least mention that they think so. AnonEMouse 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem of having him linked, but putting the accusation in her article looks like a smear effort against her. Stifle (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What can we do for a compromise? Most links to relatives at least mention why the relative is notable on their own, as in not just "Joe Bloggs is the cousin of Fred Bloggs", but "Joe Bloggs is the cousin of award-winning contortionist tuba player Fred Bloggs". Can you write a couple of adjectives in to accurately describe Hans's notability that would be less of a smear effort against Frieda? AnonEMouse 17:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't honestly know. It may be that she should not have her own article, but should be briefly mentioned in Hans's article, as WP:BIO suggests for relatives of notable people. Stifle (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA Standards

Howdy! You left a note on a recent RfA opposing because the user didn't meet your admin qualifications. I encourage you to document your criteria and link to them from your user page, it may help future admins to know what people are looking for. Keep up the good work, and consider my suggestion. One well thought out oppose is worth more than 10 copy cat supports. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do just that. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeway blogging

Hi Stifle, if you have time, would you mind looking at the above discussion? I'd be interested in your perspective on it. Regards, Accurizer 13:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Image Tagging Image:Dozle Zabi (Gundam).jpg

A fail to understand why this image was tagged as such, as there is a web site provided for a source. Is there something else that I did not do? TomStar81 23:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I was just rushing and missed it. Sorry. You don't need to do anything else. Stifle (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Images with no source

Thanks for your message that will save my time. I am now randomly inspecting Special:contributions/newbies for any images with possible problems.--Jusjih 16:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Rectory farm

Thanks for responding. I've followed your advice. Czolgolz 17:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Robins csd

Your reasoning sounds fine by me. That's why you an admin and I am not! Cheers ww2censor 17:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Thanks for the tip, I wasn't aware of the existence of MFD. --cholmes75 18:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Stifle, thanks for your comments on my RfA. I appreciate that going on 5 months is fairly quick for adminship, but I wouldn't have nominated myself if I didn't feel ready. FWIW I've always been a fan of your work and had been hoping for your support, if you ever have any pointers / notes / feedback on my performance then please give me a shout... Deizio talk 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Congratulations on becoming a sysop. Stifle (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

smythe, blistereno, troceen, et al.

Hello. Regarding the Actuarial Outpost issue, the above sock puppeteer is well known for his vendetta against the site and its administrators due totheir finally taking action against his outright discrimination. Further, the name "Tom Troceen" is the name of the site's administrator, and User:Blisterino or User:Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA's registering of that name should be against any wiki policy that I know of. -- Avi 21:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that someone has registered an inappropriate username, the best place at which to bring it up is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. I've warned Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA and TheActuary about the 3RR. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi 22:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a lowercase 't', User:Tom troceen, sorry. -- Avi 22:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've indef-blocked Tom troceen as a suspected impersonator. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you -- Avi 22:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Libel and the Foundation

Thank you for your assistance in the O.J. Simpson article. There is a similar problem with the Elizabeth Morgan article. If you would be so helpful... that would be in the Foundations's best interests, I would think. And if you anywhere near Dublin, please give Dr. Heneghan and his lovely daughter my best regards. They will know who from. Oh, and despite her excellent education, I feel that Ann could brush up a bit on her Amercian law. Perhaps the recent additions to WP:LIVING should be restored (the ones that attempt to talk about common law countries). Thank you. -- 71.141.11.165 22:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get what you're talking about for Elizabeth Morgan. But if there's a problem with it, remember that Wikipedia is a wiki and you can edit the page to correct it if needed. Stifle (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Stifle :- ) 71.141.11.165 is banned user Andrew W Morrow. Could you remove his edit from your talk page? regards, FloNight ^talk 04:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User: Hganesan

Hi, you recently banned User: Hganesan for up to a week for pov, reverting, edit wars, vulgarity, and flat out racist attacks on people. He has been trying to control the Steve Nash page for a week and as a result, he got banned from it. He got one of the other mods a few bans ago (sounds cliche now) to unblock his IP# because he claimed it wasn't a home or personal IP, [1]

He probably lied. Anyway, he's at it again posting through the IP# 169.229.65.29 on the Steve Nash page and a number of others. He's trying to go back to his revert wars. I just thought you'd like to know since he's supposed to be temporarily banned. -EW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.6.78.50 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC).

I've blocked the IP as well. JzG has read him the Riot Act, so I think (hope) he'll grow up. Stifle (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually just as you were posting that, he was posting under another sockpuppet: 169.229.65.30 *sigh* Mwelch 22:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Avraham, TheActuary

Hello. Regarding the Actuarial Outpost issue, Avi has made false accusations. There is no vendetta against the former site and its administrators. The only vendetta that exists is their not wanting a factual reference to a spin off site that promotes more freedom than their site allows. The actuarial outpost was formerly known as the Rebel Outpost. It was, in fact, a spin off from the CAS web site for precisely the same reason that the RebelActuary site had to spin off from the Rebel Outpost - which changed it's name to the Actuarial Outpost as it became a more commercial venture and less interested in the free expression of ideas.

I only thought wikipedia would be better served to have a true historical perspective rather than be tainted by Avraham's revisionist history which denies that a spin off did in fact take place for exactly the same reasons that created it in the first place.

Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

Shall we invite the protagonists, Glenn, Traci, Claude, and Tom to comment? There was a reason your membership in that community was revoked, after *many* warnings. -- Avi 22:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly care, but would you kindly take your dispute off my talk page and into Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Thank you. Stifle (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. -- Avi 23:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC).