User talk:Stifle/Archive 0908b
 | 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. |
Deletion of the article on Zuckermann
Stifle. Sorry to waste your time but would you please explain why you decided to delete the article on Zuckermann the linguist given the following five issues: A. There was no consensus; B. The professor meets one of WP:PROF conditions: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (Criterion 7), for example taking into consideration the substantial media coverage (no contributor refuted this point). C. The article itself was informative, factual and well-referenced, and in parentheses I can tell you that it was most helpful to me when I had to introduce Zuckermann's sociolinguistic research to my own students (I am full professor of linguistics, not in Australia though). D. Although for some reason no one marked him/her as "suspected single-purpose account" (they did it to me), so-called "Crieff" began his career in Wikipedia with the introduction of this specific AfD and seems to have ended his "contribution" to Wikipedia as soon as you announced your decision to delete this article. Is it possible that he simply doesn't like Zuckermann? E. Zuckermann's controversial ideas of hybridity and multiple causation are much more "groundbreaking" than "esoteric". ("Esoteric" was included in a libelous statement (which perhaps should be deleted) by a hostile anonymous at the "end" of the discussion). The academic reason is that Zuckermann's ideas weaken the accepted "family tree" relationships in historical linguistics. Perhaps you should write to Professor Salikoko Mufwene about it. Again, I am sorry to waste your time but I am simply curious about the matter. Jissen (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. In future, if you're referring to an article or a deletion discussion, please provide its exact title, as I work on, delete, and tag many articles on any given day, and am not always able to find it easily.
- Ghil'ad Zuckermann was deleted after a rough consensus at the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghil'ad Zuckermann. Please note that comments from unregistered users and very new users are customarily discounted at AFDs. User:WVHybrid was the only user who cast a valid "vote" to keep, while User:RJC, User:RayAYang, User:David Eppstein, User:Crusio, User:Pete Hurd, and User:Jenafalt cast valid "votes" to delete. I did not count User:Crieff's decision, but the nomination is sound and I don't see anything that merits overturning such a strong consensus to delete. You are free to challenge the decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
request for article
Existential risks of artificial intelligence
Mailing would be fine, hkhenson@rogers.com or hkeithhenson@gmail.com. It had editing fixes I would like to keep. There is a home for it.
Keith Henson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkhenson (talk • contribs) 06:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
- I've emailed it to the address you have registered with Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review for Dhalla Mahamatra
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dhalla Mahamatra. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. andy (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, quite right, thank you. Will do that now. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemic theory of miracles, sorry to have stirred bad blood here. I should have been more courteous and assumed good faith from the start, so please accept my apologies. I've been down the same road before, having nom'ed some articles for AfD or CSD minutes after they were created... so I've taken some of the heat for this before... how ironic is that! seicer | talk | contribs 16:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's cool. Meanwhile, Image:TBN-Crest_Blockletters.jpg has had its discussion spread over four pages. I've declined to unprotect it, although it might have been a better idea for you to leave protection to someone else to start with. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You may want to take a look at this page as people have reverted your redirect which was a result of an AfD you closed. I'm still relatively new to wikipedia and not sure what the procedure would be in this case as normally this would be a perfectly allowable edit and I'm not sure whether an AfD discussion trumps this. If you have time giving an explanation of your decision on my user page would also be appreciated so I can learn something. Dpmuk (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Note: Having seen your comments on replies at the top of the page if you just 'note' my comment then I'm happy for you just to post here. If a more detailed reply then posting here and copying to my page is also fine. Basically your normal policy, which I was not aware of when I posted the above, is fine. Dpmuk (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I've restored the redirect (with a better edit summary) and dropped a line to the two users who removed it. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Feeling weighed down by ongoing negative interactions? I had an idea
I had an idea, T:DYK and the subpages can always do with extra admin help -protecting the page to be linked to and updating the templates. If you have been feeling a bit drained by ongoing negative interactions, then this place may be a good place to recharge. Lots of thankyous etc. I have been doing it as there has been a shortfall of admin hands there but it isn't really something I can prioritise for long. Anyway, see what you think. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Re. Jim Ogonowski
Hello Stifle. As you can see in the revision history of this article, it was User:WillowGrove who undid your turning it into a redirect. I was simply fighting vandalism with Huggle and his edit appeared like a removal of an AfD notice so I reverted it. But after noticing what he was doing elsewhere, I thought that perhaps I should undo my own edit and leave the case for someone else who knew better what the user was doing. Thus, it might have looked to you that I undid your edit, but in fact I simply undid my edit, which undid WillowGrove's edit, which in turn undid yours. Odd? ;-) Regards, Húsönd 14:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Quite. Thanks for the reply and apologies for any confusion. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: User Pulsifer 3RR report
Please reconsider your ruling per User talk:Mike R#Your report and User talk:Coppertwig#Re: Your_suggestion. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: Image:Cal Poly Pomona banner.png
In regard to [1]. I just made it using MSPaint! I got the idea from the Pittsburgh University banner, but the work is 100% mine. I took the first picture on campus and the horse picture comes from [2], and it's licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Unported thus it can be used for derivative works. I just need some help attributing the horse picture to user Ealdgyth.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cal_Poly_Pomona_banner.png){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trottingarabiancolttwo.jpg){kind=link}
- If you used a CC image to make it, then you can't release it into the public domain. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- A CC template was added to it. Could you remove the PUI label from the picture? Please =)--Dabackgammonator (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
undeleting Hajvery University
Hi Stifle
you deleted Hajvery University because it looked like a test page. This was created as part of the WP:AFC process. We are trying out a new process where pages are moved rather than copied. This means if it was deleted, it is gone totally, it should really have been declined instead, with some feedback to the contributor about what is wrong. Can you please restore Hajvery University back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Hajvery University? Then us AFC reviews will add on the decline marker. It was probably not necessary to protect against recreation as the topic of the article is notable, even if the content was not up to scratch! Thankyou Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Restored as requested. I have protected the title due to repeated recreation; any admin can (and should) unprotect it when presented with a viable article. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, the article is now declined with a reason! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Apologies
Hello! I just wanted to pass along my apology for disappointing you in my train wreck of an RfA (there is a scrap metal sale going on now, if you're interested). I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that I started the derailment; you have nothing to be sorry for. Deletion is often a flashpoint area for admins, and I felt that you were a bit wide of the mark on my question. Hope you get on well on your break and hope to see you again soon.
- For what it's worth, I'd have left the RFA to run as you were within the discretionary success area. Good luck next time. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Why you want to delete my Wikipedia article?
Why you want to delete my Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore_Management_Academy)? Am rally not happy the way you are behaving! Listen, I have spent all my precious time to create this article. its neither to promote nor anything like business, its an article of a college. Are you blind or what? I am fed up with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmabangalore (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 September 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.
- Please note that Bangalore Management Academy was deleted by GlassCobra. If you want him to reconsider his decision, ask him. If he does not restore the page, please use deletion review, but consider reading our policies on conflicts of interest and Wikipedia is not a soapbox first. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
proposal to refactor Wikipedia:Editorial Council/Poll and Wikipedia talk:Editorial Council
I propose to move all voting from Wikipedia talk:Editorial Council to Wikipedia:Editorial Council/Poll and to move the Comments section of Wikipedia:Editorial Council/Poll to Wikipedia talk:Editorial Council. Bwrs (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Poll. Thanks for the alert - as you noticed I had already placed a vote in both places. I'd always prefer to be notified of such a thing multiple times rather than not be notified at all. So your message was appreciated. Regards SilkTork *YES! 09:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I hope that I consolidated it properly. If I count correctly, 3 of the "oppose" voters on Wikipedia talk:, including yourself, had already voted "oppose" in the /Poll which actually was the pre-existing discussion; as these 3 would then be duplicates, when I removed the 4 from the Wikipedia talk:, I only added one "oppose" vote to the /Poll. Frankly all that I care about is that there be one place for "voting" instead of two; where that one place is, I don't care, and if people mind me moving the longer comments out of /Poll, they can be free to move them back. Bwrs (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You redirected this article recently as a ONEEVENT case. Could you please take another look? Myself and another editor have been discussing it on the talk page, and it has been restored several times. The editor has failed to provide any new sources, but is continually recreating the article anyway. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I deliberately separated the AFD closure from the redirect because there was not a consensus at the AFD that there should not be an article. I've restored the redirect and left a message. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: Legends of Motorsport (band) deleted article - thanks for your reply and for reinstating the article, I will endeavor to make it as notiable as I can given my obviously limited understanding of the mechanics of wiki. I have perused the link on notability and am sure we can satisfy these directives. Thanks again. A. 5 Sept 2008 58.105.51.140 (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stifle. Obviously (as nominator) I'm disappointed about the outcome of this AfD. As I'm probably going to renominate, could you give me some advice on how to better debunk the claims of the keep !voters? I thought I had done enough on this AfD by pointing out that it was quite clear that the ROI leagues were not professional, but it obviously wasn't. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I live in the ROI and am more familiar than most with the matter at hand. I think that the keep !voters successfully made out that the guideline didn't entirely work for the Irish leagues. In so far as Gallagher and the Irish league are considered professional, he has competed in that league; in so far as they are considered amateur, he has played at the highest level in amateur sports. Additionally, they pointed out that he is expected to play in the UEFA Cup soon.
- Since there's not much in the article, perhaps merging it to a list of Longford Town players might be an alternative solution. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll add short section to Yau's bio with the claims he made about academic corruption in China. That story was carried by Xinhua in English (and it's not a blog). Please make the content available to me. Thanks, VasileGaburici (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've restored the page as a redirect to Shing-Tung Yau. You can find the content in the page history. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review for Enemies of the Secret Hide-Out
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Enemies of the Secret Hide-Out. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lifebaka++ 15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Shipston Image
Why is it unlikely that I'm alowed to tuse the image? I am on the managment commitee of Shipston RFC. We own the copyright and I have the ability to decide where to use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardibling (talk • contribs) 15:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- You need to verify that you are granting permission for anyone to use this image commercially, and to make derivative works from it, by sending an email saying so to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Please quote the image name (Image:Shipston LogoSmall.jpg) in your email. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review for Up North (book)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Up North (book). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lifebaka++ 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I used {{subst:Welcomevandal}}. It is a welcome template that adds additional links and information regarding vandalism and other banned or discouraged content. If you read the upper text of the welcome message, it is more like the user has made some edits that are not appropriate:
... but some of your recent contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see
...
The welcome message was appropriate (at the time). --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 21:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Mu Sigma Rho
- 17:16, 19 April 2008 Stifle (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Mu Sigma Rho" (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance)
Is there a reason for this deletion that does not apply equally to all of the honor societies in the long list at Honor society that have Wikipedia articles? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest I personally think they should all be deleted, but that's not the consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
PUI Aug 21
You closed Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_August_21 as being done but Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_August_21#Image:Kermit_and_Ted_roosevelt.jpg still looks unresolved. Does this date need to be put back in the holding cell or am I just looking at it wrong? Thanks -Nv8200p talk 13:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Breakout Degree
An article that you have been involved in editing, Breakout Degree, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breakout Degree. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Movingboxes (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Carling
The article David Carling appears to have had the deletion step missed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Carling shows a conclusion of delete but the article is still there. Regards, -- Whpq (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, must have missed it when I was closing the AFDs. For future reference note that you can tag those pages as {{db-afd}}. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you misread the article - he didn't play in the game - he was an unused sub.[3] пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Unblock request
Hey Stifle. Hope all is well with you. Gregalton, a user I have had good dealings with, has requested an unblock, and I am inclined to agree with him. The situation is very complicated, and I have tried my best to summarize it at WP:ANI#Sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on Austrian School and related topics. (As you can see, Greg's 3RR block was not my main reason for posting there.) Your comments and consideration would be appreciated. Thanks. — Satori Son 21:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
You do have a new message.
I replied your reply here. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Advice
hi im messaging in regards to POK articles which im peacefully editing and contributing to however some editors like bogorm and soman seem to be concerned with only reverting my edits my ip is dynamic and i have no control over this and they use this as a excuse to call me a sock puppet please help 86.158.238.188 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about and I don't know how I can help you. Please use the administrators' noticeboard to request help from any administrator. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are you a administrater ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
When is it a copyright violation?
You claimed that my photos of my Mickey toy and of part of the mosaic at Disney's Contemporary Resort were copyright violations - the former because it's a protected design, and the latter because a photo of a work is a derivate work. Where's the fine line, then? Is a photograph of *any* copyrighted design or work a copyright violation? Wouldn't this mean that photos of Cinderella Castle (as a copyrighted design and a work of art) are also copyright violations and need to be deleted from Wikipedia, for example? And wouldn't this also necessitate the removal of just about every image from Mickey Mouse? - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:56, 8 September 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?
- Certain countries have a law known as freedom of panorama, whereby photographs of buildings standing in a public place do not attract copyright from the builder. Also, some images can be used under fair use (see WP:NFCC).
- If you have further questions about image copyright, please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I did use your message wizard. I selected "You're replying to some other message I left you", and it directed me to add my message to your talk page. I considered the "You're replying to a comment I left on another page" choice, but it told me that you generally check back to discussion pages after a few days, and I was replying to a comment you left on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 August 14 nine days ago and I didn't know whether that qualified as "a few days". As a followup to my question: what criteria of WP:NFCC did my photo of the Mickey toy not meet, such that it was not permissible under fair use? - Brian Kendig (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, Image:Disneys-contemporary-resort-mosaic.jpg was on Commons, not Wikipedia, so using it as fair use isn't possible. If it were on Wikipedia, it would have failed item 10c of WP:NFCC.
- If you have further questions about image copyright, please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I did use your message wizard. I selected "You're replying to some other message I left you", and it directed me to add my message to your talk page. I considered the "You're replying to a comment I left on another page" choice, but it told me that you generally check back to discussion pages after a few days, and I was replying to a comment you left on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 August 14 nine days ago and I didn't know whether that qualified as "a few days". As a followup to my question: what criteria of WP:NFCC did my photo of the Mickey toy not meet, such that it was not permissible under fair use? - Brian Kendig (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
