User talk:Stifle/Archive 0708b

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

thanks

Thanks for modifying your ocmmment on the Alan Cabal AFd page. someone posing as him has ben sendintg legal threats to loads of people and posting them on every page that even mentioend his name. Smith Jones (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Please feel free to give that person a {{uw-legal}} warning or report him to WP:ANI if he does not desist. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Allama Iqbal Road.jpg and Image:AJK council logo.jpg

You removed the {{Db-i9}} tag from these images, which I have replaced. Please note they are part of a larger imagevio issue by the uploader and being dealt with in accordance with:- Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Picasa_Web_Albums. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left the first one alone, but the second one has a fair use claim on it. From WP:CSD, I9 "does not include images used under a claim of fair use". Therefore I have removed the tag as it is demonstrably not applicable. If there is a lack of rationale, use {{subst:nrd}}. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Hi. I'd like your advice, either by direction to a policy/guidleine/etc page or from your personal experience, on how to deal with an editor. If an editor contributes, but knowingly leaves a mess behind for others to clean up, is that considered vandalism or a lesser form of miscreancy? Thanks for your time. dfg (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to explain to them what the problem is, with examples. If it fails, then proceed to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and onwards. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. dfg (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Since when we ban people when they are asking that a consensus was reached before we change/edit a page? Plus I am sure that if you took your time, you would think different.I don't like to complain,but I did report him to [1] since FPS is one of the admin who has spent more time with Balkan madcap users.Thank's --Taulant23 (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I already explained my actions, please see WP:ARBMAC for details of how you can appeal. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheshire cat

Would something like this example, where the author writes that the Cheshire cat and other characters "have become inextricable parts of our popular culture," be enough to consider at least a redirect with restoration of the edit history, i.e. to show that the claim of the article being original research by suggesting that the Cheshire cat had an influence on popular culture has in fact made by other authors? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, please note that another user has started an alternate version of the article in userspace at User:Protonk/Cheshire cat in popular culture, which could allow for some kind of merge discussion based on however the DRV ends up. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

ASOB DRV

Re your comment here: to be fair, he did to some extent. I gave him an answer he didn't like and then I was on wikibreak when the DRV began. I just think he was looking for a different answer for someone other than the big bad deleting admin and the others who all told him the same. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied at the DRV. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Discovery Sound

First off I mailed with discovery firm address. Discovery Sound is owned by the same company. The next time you all think you can delete whatever I will take legal action. You need to learn how to become an administrator. First you research before you get trigger happy with the mouse. Huntersj78 (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but I've indefinitely blocked you for making legal threats. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:USA Men's Team logo.jpg

I'm trying to view this image, and it doesn't seem to work. I'm using firefox and internet explorer, but it doesn't show up on either. Any suggestions?Becky Sayles (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Try clearing your cache and purging the page cache. Or if you're behind an internet filter, try a different computer. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

2nd Police Warning 4 God's Emissary

Thank you for your comment re the image.The other image in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God%27s_Emissary_1.jpg is also nominated for deletion by the same user. You might want to leave an opinion here as well. Before it was re-sized smaller, a viewer could see the lines in the faces. It would be impossible to find a free equivalent replacement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_July_1#Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God.27s_Emissary_1.jpg Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've been accused of being obsessed with these images before, and I am sure this isn't helping my case, but I am really, really not seeing this. There is a discussion about this random non-free image showing the subject of the article chatting to a police officer. This is not of any event in particular, and is certainly not a picture that aids understanding of anything mentioned in the article. Furthermore, the image is enormous, which is clearly not in line with our NFCC. You claim that it is not replaceable- could you please clarify this? What aspect of it is not replaceable? The random police officer who has no significance in terms of this article? Maybe, but, so what? The subject of the article, who actually contacted you above? I realise that when it feels like you're the only person who can see sense, you're probably mad, but why has no one ever actually provided any form of explanation of how this meets our NFCC? It's using a generic rationale, claiming that it is a photo of an event. What on Earth is the event it portrays? I am just not seeing this. These images look completely clear-cut deletion candidates to me. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

J the event is reference 1 in the article, Dave Rogers, "Second police warning for God's emissary", Ottawa Citizen, 10 September 1977, A2. The week earlier I stood up to speak in public for the first time in Ottawa. I didn't have a reputation or supporters with money to advertise or rent a hall. To my thinking, this was the only option left to an ordinary citizen to reach the public under the circumstances. It was testing the taken for granted abstract right of freedom of speech. Being the Labour Day holiday, I was locked up in maximum security, solitary confinement for 5 days. I didn't know until I actually tested my right of free speech it was considered such a serious charge. Or was the State showing me what they could do if I continued? The Citizen reported the event with a 3x3 item headed 'Preacher arrested on Mall'. The image is of the Police threatening me with arrest if I don't stop speaking. Everyday in every city people can be seen publicly speaking or cursing or whatever. This is no threat to the State. When the people stop to listen and the crowd grows, that's another matter. I agreed to stop speaking to avoid another weekend in jail. For this event the Saturday Citizen, choosing the article header, wrote the story on page 2 with the two images and a border around the 3/4s of the page. It was an event, J. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't always agree with my opinion from yesterday, or even an hour ago. I think I might be calling for a delete over at the IFD. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It's good to know you might change your mind again on the image. When I discovered a Wikipedia article on me April 19 and it was there for over two years, I was happy at the find and I developed it as raw material hoping other editor/contributors would translate the information into acceptable Wikispeak. Being so new to the ways and policies of the site, I had to defend my work against respected Administrators who removed 95% to history in addition to the ongoing discussion over the images. There were some raw words exchanged in the heat of a moment, but I believe all parties, me vs 5 Administrators, took part in the discussions with a spirit of goodwill. I understood other users might not want to support a newbie with an opinion differing from experienced editors they might have to seek for advice.. I believe I have reached accommodation and consensus with them. I'm happy for that. You were probably as surprised as I was to see the comment of J Milburn, an experienced and accomplished editor. I'm particularly happy to believe, after such a long, drawn out discussion with him, we may have arrived at a new level of understanding with better things to come. How about Ray and J? This is the good thing about Wikipedia. People of good will reason together to reach a higher plateau. Hopefully you'll change your mind about the image in a hour. If I didn't contact you to thank you.....? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I have made my final decision about this image. It doesn't satisfy the non-free content criteria, so in my opinion it should be deleted.

I'm sorry if you feel aggrieved at other users' actions, but I am not in a position to intervene in your dispute, which you should take to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Arts criticism

What on earth do you take issue with as 'original research' on that page? There's absolutely nothing controversial there at all. --bodnotbod (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are there no references then? Stifle (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, how many talk pages have you got!? :o) You need one that says "I put a deletion template on the article you created". Anyway, I'm not trying to get wise. The reason that there are no references on arts criticism is that I'm genuinely baffled as to where to get them from. It's a bit like trying to find statements for "human beings exist" or "there is a colour called purple", if you see what I mean. I feel that the statements are so uncontroversial and... just the way it is that it's hard to think where to go to add a citation.

I think it was a bit harsh to go for deletion but I have responded on that debate. I genuinely think that this is a topic than can be covered in an informative way and a subject that belongs. However, in some way, I am somewhat grateful because - I hope - the deletion debate will get people to improve the article rather than deleting. I absolutely do not mind if someone replaces my entire content of the article with something that is put more eloquently and with sources. But I would hate to see it vanish. --bodnotbod (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied at the deletion debate, but noting that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core, non-negotiable policy. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, would you reconsider your nomination, given the recent, minor addition of a source to the article that helps it to avoid accusations of synthesis and original research? The article can be a good one, given time. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 20:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy and paste.

The items I am copying and pasting from is a proposed book that I personally wrote and all materials represent 40 years of personal research. If you would like a copy of the entire article before I add any additional material I will be happy to submit it to you it is about 256 pages. (Passengertrainman (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

No problem there then. Would you consider adding a "references" section at the bottom of the article with details of the book title? It's customary on Wikipedia to cite your sources. I added a section heading for you at Chicagoan so you can see how it's done.

Would you please also have a look at the manual of style? We appreciate your contributions, but someone is going to have to go around after you cleaning up those articles, wikifying them, and adding relevant links. Thanks for your help! Stifle (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

serbian adjectives

I don't get it. I was making a dictionary, just an example. First of all, you didn't let me finish it, and second of all why don't you look at the other "adjective pages" in foreign languages then you'll see it ain't a "Dictionary". Jebi se! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luby (talk • contribs) 11:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see the Serbian Wikipedia for a useful place to add articles about Serbian. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, Wiktionary. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

British Psychoanalytic Council - new entry

Hi - I notice you had a concern about copyright violation when I created this new page. Please be assured that the content of this new page is our own to use. Any questions please contact:

Janice Cormie, Head of Service British Psychoanalytic Council janice@psychoanalytic-council.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misskat0 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of religion

This seems like the most relevant section of your wizard but its not exact. I just wanted to follow up on your decline to protect Origin of religion. Since the beginning of 2008 there have been a handful of constructive edits on this entry. It has rarely been edited by anyone but User:Muntuwandi in his many may attempts to revert it back to his deleted and non-consensus OR version. My point is simply that protecting the page will not prevent good edits. Those are few and far between even in stable periods, but when Muntuwandi is up to this they never occur in the first place. So if we leave it unprotected then its just a tedious daily routine of reverting him and blocking more socks, while the page never changes for the good. In fact we only increase the possibility that Wikipedia's various readers don't get the consensus version when the look this subject up. Why not just protect it for a few weeks. He will get bored and go away and its no loss to us.PelleSmith (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please specify the section of the protection policy that applies. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI--My initial mention of the "relevant section of your wizard" came from some confusion as I have since found out. I made my way to this talk page by clicking through links in your wizard, but it appears this is the end of many such paths, so clearly you probably don't even know what sections I clicked through. At first I thought I'd made it to a special page to discuss page protection requests. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm not really up on my policy in general but the relevant section here is the one governing "content disputes":

"On pages which are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others."

Your perspective seems to be that this issue is (and has already been) "better addressed by blocking" since it involves "persistent edit warring by particular users." My point is that blocking has in fact not addressed the problem--or at least the problem persists despite blocking, perhaps even more so because of blocking. Also, the rationale for blocking instead of protecting is stated clearly: "so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others." My point in this regard is that temporary full protection will have little to no impact on normal editing, which rarely happens ever on this entry. In other words the rationale for blocking instead of protecting doesn't seem to apply. My question is basically for you or any other admin to do a cost benefit analysis here. I don't think the policy clearly states one way or the other what is appropriate but the benefit of protection clearly outweighs the costs. No?PelleSmith (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My perspective is that the page is not experiencing edit warring, actually, or to the extent that it is, protection is not a proportionate response. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's your judgment call and I guess you are welcome to it and there is clearly no way for me to convince you otherwise. It would have been nice to know that before digging through policy, but don't worry about it. Case closed. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I'll watch the page and try to ensure that there is no further disruption. Judging from the way that Muntuwandi has created several new accounts (and even used one of them to talk in the third person about how the block was unfair at WP:ANI) I don't think that a temporary protection will put him off. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Joel Kass

I don't mean to be stepping on your toes, so if you disagree with my most admin recent action, I don't mind in the least if you revert me. Someone has nominated Joel Kass (which you fully protected) for deletion. I have added the AfD to the page, and in reviewing the page history (noticing the new and IP accounts) decided to reduce the protection level to semi-protected. It seems like that level of protection should help with the issues from this morning, and it seems wrong to have a fully protected page under AfD consideration. Obviously, if the disruption continues, the protection level should be reconsidered. Just letting you know in case you want to revert me or comment further. Thanks!-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Article: Justin Bambrick

you deleted this article for NO good reason, this article is for a Pro Poker PLayer on UltimateBet.com

he is also Carey Price's cousin as you see on Carey Price's page

poker pro's who are signed have a wiki page, now he does

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHockeyman88 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 11 July 2008 (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?

Justin Bambrick was deleted under criterion 7 (under Articles) of our criteria for speedy deletion because it appeared to be an article about a person which didn't indicate why it was important or significant. Please see WP:BIO 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) 09:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Leastminor

Per the mfd we no longer tag his socks and we now delete his userpages on site --Chris 10:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

SELEX Communications

Hi, I have repeatedly adding articles under the SELEX Communications, and repeatedly my articles are deleted. Please advise me on how to add an entry here as I am getting increasingly frustrated with the whole process.

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by SELEXCommunications (talk • contribs) 10:22, 11 July 2008 (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?

I notice that you referred to an article as belonging to you. Please be aware that nobody owns any articles on Wikipedia.

SELEX Communications was deleted under criterion 7 (under Articles) of our criteria for speedy deletion because it appeared to be an article about a company which didn't indicate why it was important or significant. Please see WP:CORP 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) 10:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

SELEX Communications page

Hi Stifle, Apologies if this is in the wrong area, or if I signoff incorrectly again... I'll do my best!

In terms of the article... I work for SELEX Communications, and have been tasked with adding a WIKI entry. I have tried to used the same format as successfully uploaded (and presumably approved) by our sister company SELEX Galileo. The article was based loosely on an aticle on the SELEX Communications website, which I administrate. I have stated previously that I own the copyright to the article contents. In terms of username, it makes sense to call it SELEXCommunications to enable transparency with future updates to the page, perhaps when I am not with the company.

I'm very much hoping we can resolve the entry soon.

JamesSELEXCommunications (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's address those in turn.

I work for SELEX Communications, and have been tasked with adding a WIKI entry.
Whoa! Have you read the business FAQ? Wikipedia is not for advertizing your company!
I have tried to used the same format as successfully uploaded (and presumably approved) by our sister company SELEX Galileo.
That's fine, but that article explains why the company is notable and is written in a (relatively) neutral manner. The SELEX Communications article was not.
The article was based loosely on an aticle on the SELEX Communications website, which I administrate.
No problem there, as you wrote the article.
I have stated previously that I own the copyright to the article contents.
That's fine.
In terms of username, it makes sense to call it SELEXCommunications to enable transparency with future updates to the page, perhaps when I am not with the company.
That is against the Wikipedia account policy. Role accounts, i.e. accounts that are shared by multiple people having the same role, are not permitted. Accounts are one per person only.

As you have repeatedly recreated the article with the same content rather than making an attempt to resolve the concerns that people have raised, I have had to prevent it from being created. However, if you can explain which of the criteria from this list that your company meets, and back up your claim with references to reliable sources, then I will be able to unprotect and restore the page.

Please also note that I will be going away for the weekend in about 5 hours' time so if you are unable to reply by then, please refer to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

BOXEE article deletion?

Hell Stifle, why was the BOXEE article I started deleted? I just created and was not even close to finished with it before it was deleted, (I had not had time to insert the refernces and such). I do not agree with your "Web content which doesn't indicate its importance or significance)" comment, if so then you might as well delete all articles in Wikipedia about open source software. Again, I was still writing the article and were going to add many references but you did not give me a chance, here are some to start with:

PS! I am one of the project managers of XBMC, the open source software that BOXEE is based upon Gamester17 (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2008 (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 notice that you referred to an article as belonging to you. Please be aware that nobody owns any articles on Wikipedia.

I have restored the article so that you can improve it and add those references. I'll check back later. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard Fawkes and Richard fawkes

I see you protected the first, and now there's the second. Plse either zap the second as a repost of the first, or move the second to the first per naming conventions. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Sigh... Stifle (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan Cabal

Hi: Smith Jones and I have been working, improving, and referencing extensively the life story of Alan Cabal, to the point where we (at least I) believe we have "won": User:Smith Jones/Alan Cabal (journalist). Can you reinstate the article, make it exist again? Then I'll simply include a single edit summary reading something like "improvement" rather than the dozens of dinky little edits we've made.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)