User talk:Stifle/Archive 1208c

journalreview.org

Hi Stifle. Happy Holidays.

I wanted to ask you about your decision on declining the whitelisting request for JournalReview.org on a future/draft JournalReview.org wikipedia page. The reason for the denial was "no indication of how the link would benefit Wikipedia"

The article is well referenced with peer reviewed published literature - supporting the important roll JournalReview.org is playing in medical literature and medical informatics. I was hoping that these peer reviewed references would be enough to demonstrate the value to the wikipedia community.

Please let me know your thoughts. Regards EBMdoc (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any article called journalreview.org. If one exists, or if you create one, let me know. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I was working on it on my talk page as a draft (as suggested by Admins). I am getting ready to move it as a formal article - but wanted to get the whitelist first - so that the references can be appropriatly configured. The link to the draft is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EBMdoc/JournalReview.org EBMdoc (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have removed journalreview.org from the spam blacklist. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

many thanks EBMdoc (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Stifle, with regards to this site, I've been reviewing the user's contribution history, the site itself, and the quality of online references to the site. I'm not sure that we need to remove this one from the blacklist, as the article appears to be purely for promotional purposes. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the addition wasn't logged in the first place so it's not clear why it was added to start with. Let's leave it for the moment and check if the article gets deleted or if there's spam refs added. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Dolly-get-to-livin-video.jpg

Why do you believe this image fails WP:NFCC#8? Kaldari (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Same question for File:Easy Paula De~vidcap.jpg. Kaldari (talk) 16:37, 17 December 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 feel that neither image adds anything to readers' understanding of the article that a text description would not. If you disagree with my assessment, feel free to place a note on the image or talk page which will be reviewed by an administrator. Stifle (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I followed the appropriate link in your wizard but it did not answer my question. I was specifically interested in why you felt the images failed NFCC#8. Don't you think that those images contribute to the reader's understanding of the visual style of the videos as well as how the performers looked and dressed in the videos? Arguably, the images could be replaced with more extensive descriptions, but even then I think the images would convey the information far more accurately. How does that not jibe with NFCC#8? Kaldari (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. In order to get a better community opinion of the images' usefulness, I will list the images at IFD.

Regarding the wizard, either of the first two options under "replies" would have got you to the message "If I have left you a message saying that an article, image, or other content which you created is liable to be deleted, you should go to the discussion page indicated in the message, or follow the instructions in the message, if you disagree." Stifle (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw that message in your wizard and did exactly what it said. The instructions in the template say: "If you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image." I don't understand why you seem averse to discussing the issue, but if you've made up your mind on the matter, I'll let it go. Kaldari (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I was thinking of another template which says that you should leave a message on the image page. I'm sorry for sending you around in circles in that regard. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

US-Aiport Template Issue

Stifle, I understand that you said you were conflicted about the issue to remove private party links on Template_talk:US-airport but, if you could, I would appreciate it if you could read what I posted on the talk page of the template about this issue. I am not asking for you to make the edit but I would appreciate hearing your opinion on the issue. Thank you for your time - Neilh89 (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Messages from user page

The following messages were moved from your user page (see this edit and this edit) to your talk page. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 16:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Arnold Tremere

A quick note of thanks for restoring the article Arnold Tremere so that I may have another go at it. --Amazona01 (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have started to reorganize the Tremere article. I am uncertain about how much detail to go into on the kinds of transitions that occurred in Canadian agriculture during his time as director (for example NAFTA was signed at this time which spurred a fairly grand scale fight between the US and Canadian agricultural governmental bodies). Also, even after reviewing other biography type submissions I find that I am uncertain about how much documentation is required to meet the notability criteria. Some people seem to be noteable for being bad hockey goalies, some notable for just being in the NFL and others notable for being on American Idol. I want to be sure to provide thorough support in the article but not drone on about stuff nobody cares about. As I am new to Wikipedia I am unclear on the roles that different levels of participants play in the process of editing. Is there anyone who would want a quick check of my article before I try to repost? Also, could you point me in the direction for a tech support page on how to correctly add references in the text as well as the keystroke for the tilde? Thanks for any insights or redirects. --Amazona01 (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that you should leave messages on User talk:Stifle rather than User:Stifle. To answer your questions in order:

• The folks at WP:NCHP will probably be able to check the article better than I could.]
• WP:HD is good for help using Wikipedia, although to your specific questions, WP:CS tells you how to do references, and for how to write a tilde, see Tilde#Tilde_with_keyboards.

I hope that helps. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Arnold Tremere

Dear Stifle, I have tried to follow up on all your links from the message above. I did not have much success with the WP:NCHP although I am probably submitting my request for help to the wrong people or in the wrong way. I also couldn't get the tilde command to work. Using Unicode I can place small tildes into the text with keystrokes but these are not recognized by the Wiki text editor, so do not format the signature; no biggie, I can just copy it until I figure it out. Thanks once again for all your help. I have reposted the article and saved a copy of the text so that if it is taken down again, I can keep at it. Best wishes, Amazona01Amazona01 (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also a button above the edit box () which will add in your signature for you. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks as always, Amazona01 --Amazona01 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Dolly-get-to-livin-video.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dolly-get-to-livin-video.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have responded to the deletion nomination. You may want to read my response to better understand why I believe the image is important to the article. I still do not fully understand your position on it, so perhaps you could elaborate further at the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am working on it

I have already been successful in establishing contact with ISRO and have asked for the copyright proof or type of licensing from them. I believe that the matter might be over by next week. So, until then let there be a fair use rationale on all ISRO images and please don't delete them in the meantime. Thank you! --Johnxxx9 (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Akiha Tohno 'merger'

Figuring out this system has been fun. Glad its a Friday.

Anyway, I'm replying to your remark in my deletion review of Akiha Tohno. Thanks for helping me figure out how to see the page's history and pull up the previous data. I notice that it was supposedly 'merged' by Kung Fu Man following an AfD. S/He claims it was voted merged, and I can see how s/he might conclude that, but the talk page states no consensus.

I can sorta understand the reason for merging it (notability?), but I don't see that any actual merger took place; Kung Fu Panda simply redirected the article to an abbreviated page. Since almost no information from the original article was carried over, I find it hard to see how the redirect can be classified as a merger.

What controls are in place to prevent such a loss (or obfuscation) of data? Would I be out of line to transfer the information from the old page to the new page, or to reformat the List of Tsukihime Characters entirely?

Thanks!

Luke "Julian Tempest"

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

Users are entitled to merge pages if they feel it's justified, and you can revert and/or de-merge the article if you want. See WP:NCHD if you need more assistance. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. I'll read up on the NCHD.

I'm hesitant to revert the article since it will probably result in a back-and-forth, ya know? And Kung Fu Panda may have a point, one which I am not yet well enough educated on Wikipedia's policies to argue. I'll work on it, though.

On another note, the three image files in the original article...have they been deleted? I can't get to them. Julian Tempest (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You could discuss the merge at the talk page.

The images from the article were deleted because they aren't being used. If you want to use them again, I can restore them. Stifle (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Neil Carrick

Why was this article deleted? It is obvious to me and others the article and the person meets the requirements of notability. I believe that the request to delete was by somebody who was at war with multiple individuals with the cult Greater Grace World Outreach

I would apprecitate if you would recover it, and also look at the same with the edits currently going on with the Greater Grace World Outreach page. None of the editors of the Neil Carrick article were notified, and as one of the original editors of the article I would be glad to over the course of time make the article better, but please for the time being restore it. I asked one of the editors of one of the books he is mentioned to help me with material and articles.

Thanks Tryster (talk) 20:36, 19 December 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?

Neil Patrick Carrick was deleted based on the consensus of the Wikipedia community as established by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Patrick Carrick. If you feel that I did not follow the deletion process correctly, please open a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Templeton the Rat

I would still like an email. Also can you restore the past history of File:Spongebob soundtrack.jpg and tell me why Image on Wikipedia was renamed to file. It's reall y annoying and I want an explanation and it moved back. Thanks. BTW about the email it's for The Fox and the Hound Steal Money and not Templeton. I just choose that header for convinince; since that the old debat was archived, I wanted to continue it from where we left of. And since I've edited the section on here many times and it links in the history, it makes perfect sence. 68.220.187.133 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As I already told you, I will email it to you when you register an account and confirm an email address.

There is no past history to restore to that image.

All images on Wikimedia projects have been renamed from Image: to File:. It is not possible to restore it. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: File:Famous Last Words alternate cover.jpg non-free use rationale

I believe this image is needed on this page, and that it complies with all the non-free use rationale guideline. To address the concern that there is already a cover provided for the image I will say this: both album covers were used interchangeably when the single was released and one is only labeled as the alternative cover by chance. A reader is as likely to identify with as with the other. – Zntrip 02:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and on most websites this would be fine, but Wikipedia has a strict fair use policy and it is unlikely to meet that policy. To allow for a better discussion from the Wikipedia community, I will transfer this image discussion to WP:IFD. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Tom Knox.jpg

Sorry I dont have all the information you are asking for for verification. For the following image file File:Tom Knox.jpg, there is a claim that OTRS permission has been given for the photo. I guess, given the user's ongoing inability to deal with copyright issues and the evidence, I am finding the claim to be dubious. The copyright notice out there lists the author as the Steele for Chairman campaign. The tag was copied over from the photo File:Michael_Steele.jpg for which OTRS permission was given. I suppose it is possible that the candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee took a flattering photo of a possible Democratic candidate for governor and then licensed it to the candidate's campaign website. But best to be safe and check.

Appreciate it if you could look into this for me. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 02:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This one's good, I found an OTRS ticket about it. I've asked him to use the {{OTRS pending}} tag when he's sent in a permission, and allow OTRS users to put through the confirmation. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 20:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Flashdance

Personally, I doubt whether the image was causing a violation of WP:NFCC#8 here. It is discussed in the context of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The key point here is that nobody needs to see that image to understand that section of the article. The rationale for the use of the image was also generic and not specific to that use of the image. If you disagree, please consider listing it on WP:NFUR. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Loving Kind YouTube video

Just an FYI, I've AGF-reverted your deletion of that link. If you look at the video, you'll see that it is from the official Girls Aloud YouTube page, which means it isn't a copyvio link. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 11:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; my bad. I guess I've assumed a bit too much that most links to Youtube are copyvios. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I'm just going through the Girls Aloud singles to check, and have found a few copyvio videos (obviously videos from Girls Aloud, Fascination or Polydor channels aren't copyvios). Keep up the good work through :). ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 11:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Random praise

You are so on the ball. :) (in re:) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Stifle (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion of Image:FleaHydePark2004.jpg

Ridiculous. I'm sorry but this incessant need for "delete", "delete", "delete" by people who believe they are being "righteous" is beginning to make me wonder what the true purpose of Wikipedia is. I understand that you do not wish for these matters to be placed on your talk page if they are not pertinent, however this question is not addressing an issue that needs to be resolved, but rather a growing thought-process that is infesting the minds of Wikipedians across the globe. First, let me explain to you that there was already another image on the page that was deleted. Both images serve(d) to enhance the reader's ability to identify the subject of the article. Second, Raul654, without my nominating the article, placed Flea (musician) on the Main Page this year on the date of August 19. The picture in question was there when not only Raul nominated the page but on August 19 when it was featured on the Main Page.

I also noticed you deleted the second surviving image on the page, which depicts Flea in a film. I do not know exactly what sort of philosophies you follow or find true but these kinds of actions are not making Wikipedia better, by any means. Deleting images and or adding non-free templates does not make you a better administrator. When half of your talk page messages deal with the exact same issue, do you not think (as noted on your talk page) that you are creating the drama yourself? Perhaps it is just me but when I see an image in an article I do not think "How is that specifically relevant," or "Can that be deleted?" Such thoughts are practically malicious. NSR77 ^T 17:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. While I understand your frustration, please consider being more civil in future.

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?

For your information, the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia, which involves using as little free content as possible. The German Wikipedia, indeed, permits no fair use images at all and does not seem to be too badly affected.

I have not deleted the image you name, only marked it for possible deletion. Non-free images of living people are generally not permitted on Wikipedia in accordance with the non-free content criteria, which state that such images are usually replaceable by a free image which either exists or could be created. As the image tag suggests, you can place the tag {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|Your reason why a free replacement can not be found or created}} on the image page to point out to the administrator who reviews this image that you consider it irreplaceable. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Megas (character) article content

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Megas_(character)

Could you please throw the content of that onto a sub-page of mine? I need it for important research purposes. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, moved to User:Norse Am Legend/Megas (character). I'll have to take out the fair use images though, and any that aren't used elsewhere will be deleted in the next week or so. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image advice

I'd like to ask you for some image advice since you are experienced in image copyright issues, which is a pretty dicey area. I am looking for an image of Alexei Khvostenko for the WP article about him that I created this summer. Khvostenko died in 2004 so, in principle, one could use a non-free picture of him under the fair use claim. There are several problems, however. First, most photos of him are at various Russian sites that are very sloppy regarding copyright issues and it is basically impossible to find out who really owns the copyright on any given image since they are typically posted and reposted without attributions. I did find an image of him in this article in Moscow Times[1] that I think would be usable since, at least, there is a copyright logo at the bottom of that page and one could reasonably assume that the copyright belongs to Moscow Times (although I am not completely sure even about that; the image caption there points to a now defunct site www.ekho.msk.su; presumably that was the site of Ekho Moskvy, but a search of their current website[2] returns several entries regarding Khvostenko, but nothing containing the photo in question). There is also another problem. I think that any fair use claim would have to involve a statement that no free equivalent is available. There is in fact a picture of Khvostenko at the Russian Wikipedia site[3]. In theory I could have used that image as a free one. However, it seems very likely to me that the Russian Wikipedia image is not free but a copyvio. The image is of professional quality. The licence info given at the Russian Wikipedia site for the image file is very wonky. The licence says that the image was made personally by a user called sir66. However the file was actually uploaded by another user, called Ruskiman. This all looks rather fishy to me. I don't know if it would be appropriate to upload a non-free image (assuming I can find one with identifiable copyright ownership) and if yes, what one would have to say regarding availability or non-availability of free images. I'd much appreciate your advice. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

From what you say, it would seem that a non-free image would be appropriate for this article, and I would use the Moscow Times one. As long as you can provide details of the source and copyright holder (which does appear to be the Moscow Times), you can make out a rationale for use of the image. While there is a presumption that a non-free image of a living person is replaceable, there is no such presumption for a dead person. Stifle (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)