User talk:Stifle/Archive 0409

hi

deletion of images (Marcos,arco1,Marcos2)

hi, I just now found out that certain images (MarcoMarcos2, Marco1 )have been deleted you,from the discussion page. I would like to inform you that those images are genuine. Reagrding copyrights, I would like to tell that those were taken by me & and another of my collegue and subsequently sold the undeveloped the reel to the person,who has uploaded it.So, I think there should be no dispute regarding ownership of the images. The contributer (ultrastealth ) is free to upload the above mentioned images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhusastra (talk • contribs) 04:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted a lot of images lately; please provide the exact image titles. tleSif (atlk) 08:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Stifle - just FYI, I responded on his talk page; huge suspicion that this is a SPA trying to bypass OTRS :( Skier Dude (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Editnotice-8

Please refrain from mocking other users. Thanks. —David Levy 08:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Other users should refrain from getting so worked up over harmless jokes. Thanks. tfeSil (aktl) 08:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Harmless jokes are those confined to editor-facing pages (such as this, which you'll notice I'm not complaining about). And MediaWiki:Editnotice-8 is likely to be seen only by administrators (so your edit crossed the line not because it was silly, but because it's inappropriate to mock other users).

This is the sort of thing that we're trying to prevent. Can you see how that goes beyond the "harmless joke" category? —David Levy 09:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Another example is this prank. Due to caching, affected users were stuck with virtually unreadable references (and pink infoboxes) for up to thirty days (unless they happened to recognize the problem's source and know how to clear a browser's cache).

It's because of highly disruptive edits such as these that we reached consensus (wherever the heck this was discussed last year) against allowing April Fools' Day jokes in the MediaWiki namespace. —David Levy 09:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I have to disagree with you on your main point. Jokes which are only visible to administrators are less harmful than editor-facing ones. No non-admin is going to see the editnotice-8, because they can't edit the interface. I really don't think there was anything wrong with the edit.

I will concede that the tagline and common.css edits were unhelpful.

The proposal on April Fools' Day jokes (which was at Wikipedia:Pranking) was rejected.

Also, I think I'm going to change the tagline to "From Wikipedia, the phree encyclopedia". Just so you know. tfeSil (aktl) 09:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1. You misunderstood what I wrote. I meant that because MediaWiki:Editnotice-8 is unlikely to be viewed by non-administrators, it is not the type of system message that we're particularly worried about. (Again, your edit was inappropriate primarily because it mocked another user, which should not occur on any page). By "editor-facing pages," I'm referring to all pages not typically viewed by non-editing readers (including those viewed only by administrators, who obviously are editors).

2. I'm not referring to that proposal. I'm referring to the ordinary discussions in which it was widely agreed that while harmless April foolery should be tolerated/embraced, messing with the system messages is going too far.

3. I don't know whether you're serious about the tagline. If you are, please be advised that this vandalism may result in a block. If you're only kidding, disregard the warning. —David Levy 10:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Fair enough on your clarification of "editor-facing pages". On the other point, I think you're just being silly and if Protonk was genuinely offended and told me so, I would apologize.

2.

3. Again, that is causing an unnecessary clampdown on the fun and frivolity customarily associated with today. In Ireland, we'd call you a damp rag, or "no fun", or something. I'm not going to make that change because I don't want to risk a wheel war, not because I'm concerned about your feelings on it :)

So live a little! flSiet (aklt) 10:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't know whether Prodego was offended, and if you say that your edit wasn't intended to denigrate, I believe you. But it certainly came across that way to me. To be honest, I don't know how else to interpret it.

2. This was a year ago, so I have no recollection of where these discussions occurred. You needn't take my word for it, but I'm not trying to establish anything beyond the fact that Prodego didn't unilaterally determine that the MediaWiki namespace was off-limits.

3. There's plenty of room for fun and frivolity without literally vandalising every page on the site.

Part of what bothers me about such jokes is that many people worked very hard to create our 1 April main page (which presents factual information in a fun and frivolous manner). Throwaway pranks distract from that presentation in much the same manner as a drunken heckler who tries to be funny by jumping out of his seat and shouting "POOPIE!" in the middle of a famous comedian's act. —David Levy 11:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cent

We are primarily an encyclopedia. Of necessity we form a community to assist in the building of the encyclopedia, but we shouldn't let the internet community attitude over-rule our primary objective. I clicked on all three of those links expecting a serious discussion. That simply wasted my time and irked me. That is non-productive, and reduces the value of what is an important asset to the project. If there are objections to a practical joke, those objections need to be listened to, not over-ridden. There are enough jokes taking place on Wikipedia today without abusing a valued asset to serious discussion. If you continue to feel that Cent should be used for practical jokes, perhaps we should open a discussion on the matter on the talkpage. In the meantime I feel the safe option would be to remove the jokes. If the consensus on the discussion is to include the jokes (or one of them, if not all three), then the jokes can be replaced. SilkTork *^YES! 10:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a filibuster; by the time a consensus is reached either way, the matter would be past relevance. We had this discussion last year at Wikipedia:Pranking, and implementing controls on April Fools stuff was rejected. flSiet (aklt) 10:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That we lack a policy against a particular type of edit doesn't mean that users are entitled to override the concerns of those who regard specific instances as disruptive. In other words, "no jokes banned" ≠ "all jokes allowed."

A good rule of thumb is that if someone removes a prank, it probably is best to let it go; it simply isn't important enough to justify the disruption caused by reverting. —David Levy 11:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Bennett

I haven't a clue where to put this, so I'm putting it here. I'm confused to heck by the various instructions and it's very offputting, especially as you say you don't follow threads on other people's talk pages. It's one thing that you're clearly prepared to suffer idiots like me putting messages in the wrong place, but you're actually deterring people communicating with you in the first place, which really goes against the whole ethos of Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way.

All actual messages for me end up on this page, and I do respond to anything left here. It's not my intention to discourage users from communicating with me; rather, I aim to direct users to the location where their issue can be most quickly resolved. If users read the instructions, rather than click a choice and then immediately click "add section", then it works very well.

Think of it as an IVR system, if you will. filetS (atlk) 14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If it works for you, fine! I'd never heard the term IVR system before, so just looked it up. Now I can't remember what I'd have called it before I knew the term for it. <scratches head> --Dweller (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use question

Hi. :) A contributor at my talk page, doing an FAC review, wants to know if a fair use rationale for an artist's rendition of a concept ship is workable, since it is replaceable. It seems to me that he has good reason for his misgivings, but I haven't had a lot to do with fair use. Would you mind weighing in at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Question on an FAC? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for OTRS check on Acid2 screenshots

Hi Stifle, could you check if ticket #2321205 is meant for all screenshots of the Acid2 test, or just for specific screen captures? The screenshots in question are in Acid2 (examples for quick reference: File:Acid2 reference.png, File:Ie7acid2.png, File:Acid2iPod.png, etc). I have raised the question of the ticket in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acid2. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What we have is permission for "the Acid2 image". Hope that helps. filetS (atlk) 13:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Transikwi note

Dear Stifle, as you can see with this, I have figured out how to transwiki. Thus, I only need help with deleted articles as I should be able to transwiki the redirected ones that still have edit histories. I hope you are having an enjoyable vacation! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: User_talk:Stifle/Archive_0309c#Transwiking. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your holiday

Hope you enjoyed it. :) I now strongly suspect that OTRS would not survive without you. I don't remember who directed me to the pie chart of active contributors there or even when and I certainly don't remember how to get back to it, but I know I boggled when I saw how huge a portion of the pie belonged to you! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never even seen an OTRS pie chart, so if you find it you might point it out :) Stifle (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can dig it up. :) It may be buried in a chatlog. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha! And so it was! It is now linked at your talk page on the OTRS wiki. I'm not sure if I can do that interwiki link thing from here to there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the interwiki prefix for the OTRS wiki, but otrswiki:User talk:Stifle might work... Stifle (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Husein Gradaščević.jpg

[1] Ive found out the artist of the painting and added the info to the image page. PRODUCER (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Signature

It appears that you have a template call in your signature; this isn't allowed for performance and other reasons. Please kindly amend it. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Although technically discouraged, not banned as I was substing the template, I will replace this with the raw content. Usrnme h8er (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion

I thought the speedy deletion template started the 7-day grace period, and that that was only relevant to admins. Is there some other template which I should've used? I'd've thought the speedy template would link to such a thing. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. To start the 7-day period, tag the image {{subst:dfu|Reason why you think the image doesn't comply with the policy}}. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Herold Goulon

I don't understand your beef with the Herold Goulon page. Deletion review deals with disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. Herold Goulon's supposed earlier page was rightfully deleted because he didn't make any professional appearances, so there was nothing to dispute. When he made his professional debut, I created his page (to be honest, I didn't know he already had a page that was deleted). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TK Extra555 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 April 2009

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?

Seeing as you didn't know the page was deleted, I withdraw my message. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Baqofa

Hello their, regarding Baqofah, it is vandelism, that is why I removed it. Please see the talk page of it. Iraqi (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the tagging was not vandalism. It was requested by the copyright holder through OTRS. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for issuing that warning. History2007 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect Emma watson

Hi Stifle, you declined speedy deletion of that redirect. It is unnecessary because when you type 'Emma watson' in the search field, the right article will be found automatically, nomater if that redirect exists. Maybe you could delete it. --Myself488 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It won't, however, be found if you type "emma watson" into, for example, a Mozilla search bar. It's not doing any harm, so I don't think I'll delete it. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:John-Serry-Sr.gif Deletion Review/Active Speedy

Dear Administrator Stifle: Just a quick note to thank you for your kind remarks regarding the deletion review of this photograph. As per your request I have identified the photographer on the Deletion review/Active page. In addition I have attempted to address the concerns of User:Damiens.rf which were raised on the same page. I hope that these insights coupled with the newly observed fact that the image contains a logo (Atlas) which is copyrighted and serves as a trade mark, might expedite the undeletion process and justify the use of the copyright tag for the photograph. Thank you once again for your kindness and best wishes for the holiday season.--Pjs012915 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915

Re: File:John-Serry-Sr.gif Deletion Review Request

Dear Administrator Stifle- Just a quick note to thank you for your insights regarding my deletion review request of this photograph File:John-Serry-Sr.gif. As per you request I have researched and identified the photographer on the Deletion Review page for April 7, 2009. In addition, I have attempted to address the concerns raised by User:Damiens.rf and cited new information concerning the presence of a logo (Atlas) on the instrument which serves as a trademark and is copyrighted. With this in mind, I hope that the photograph can be undeleted by an administator in the near future and restored to the parent article John Serry, Sr.. As an inexperienced contributor to Wikipedia I remain grateful for your kind assistance. Best wishes for the holiday season and thanks again for your thoughtful insights--Pjs012915 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)User:pjs012915!

Note

Dear Stifle,

Thanks for the rollback rights. It will help combat vandalism which I think Mr. Wales has noted is one of the biggest problems within Wikipedia. As for the deletion codes, I'm generally used to the one I'm using right now. Secondly, I only tag the most obviously unencyclopedic or useless images. I have seen some images which are orphaned or of unnotable people but have not filed a DR. I'll master your new DR system after the coming Holy week. I'm just not used to it at present and have to prepare for the Holy week events at church in Canada. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega

Stifle- In discussion you were informed from another administator that the five images you tagged are probably mine. The first one of the five was deleted. 72 Vega Kammback..(the green vega wagon) Reason for deletion says...magazine scan, and your reason was I just scanned it. from where? The photograph was scanned. It was taken in front of my grandfathers house in 1973. (The magazine scan was the non-free image-73 Vega GT #0 and was deleted.) I'll get permission from car and driver to keep that one... I guess I have to show you...then maybe we can stop these tags on my free images. Please go to Chevrolet Vega 1970-1977-the two green vega wagons. Check the licence plate on the lower photo (that's me in 1974) and the top photo (taken in 1973) The top photo is the deleted one from the article. Same licence plate number. Do you still think I just scanned the image?..these are my photos, some of which are 30+ years old. Please stop tagging my free images. Please allow the deleted image to stay.

Also other images marked for deletion- the 76 cosworth was my car-I took and kept many photos of this one from 1985-1988..plates match on all these photos. The 74 Vega GT was also my grandfathers (have other photos of it taken in 1975 in front of the same house as the green Vega- licence plates match as well on other photos of this car)the 75 cosworth belongs to a friend and i took the photo last year at his house. The 71 Vega is my car..took many digital photos of it last year in front of my house. You can find them on Cars Domain.com with my name on the page. (go to external links in Chevrolet Vega select millionth vega blog.) In the blog my name is mentioned I own the 71 Panel and there is a link to see the photos of the car on Cars Domain. Vegavairbob/Robert Spinello is listed as the owner-that's me..I took the photos. two of those photos are also in this article and one you marked for deletion. These are all my photos. One of the reasons I'm still into these cars after all these years is because I was very close to my Grandfather,(he died in 1976) that's why I'm sentimental about his two Vegas in the article-You have the other one up for deletion as well the 74 vega GT. I have matching plate photos of that car as well...Can we please stop the tags on the free images? If file says I took the photo... I took the photo. Now you have proof the deleted one is my photo I took, and the other free images (my old photograhs I took, and newer digital photos i took) are mine as well. Thanks.

(VegavairbobVegavairbob (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

From what I can see, nothing has changed — I haven't nominated any more of your images for deletion. If you object to the nominations, the correct place to voice your objection is on the deletion discussion page, which is linked from the image page. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE 1

Dear Stifle, I'm owner of yayinakisi.com and i can't get listed my page on Wikipedia cause you have banned my website. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/yayinakisi.com I didn't understand why does this occurs. What can i do to remove the ban Will be waiting for your reply Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.79.136 (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can explain how it would be beneficial to Wikipedia (and not to your website) to have it linked, make a listing at m:talk:Spam blacklist. Stifle (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Our site is one of the greatest information place for Turkish biographies. Also there is lots of information for television, cinema and other tv related stuff. In Turkish language there is no other site gives this amount of information. Also we have a dictionary with more than 100K translations at our site. We are still trying to add more quality content to our site. I have tried to write there but that page says i have to talk with you. Here it is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#yayinakisi.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.79.245 (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Note1 add on

Hi again Stifle I couldn't get any reply from you. What is the situation of my website? Will you remove the ban? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.63.214 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It says that you have to ask at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. I don't have the necessary access to deblacklist the site. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

FPC Nom

Please re!vote on this nom. It was relisted and your previous vote no longer counts. Thanks. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Could I bother you for an explanation of a statement you made?

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_10#Heart1973_BC.png, you have said this picture fails 3a, but you don't explain why or how it fails. As you have placed your statement immediately after an explanation of why it satisfies 3a, I would find it useful to know what it is about that explanation that you believe to be incorrect. I would also find it useful to know why you believe it fails. With thanks in anticipation of your explanation, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Seriously: Most appreciated. (I've replied there.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Rôle

I always spell it that way - I think it looks prettier! DuncanHill (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Bonnie Bishop

Please undelete File:Bonnie Bishop.jpg. Thanks. 2ndAmendment (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

We don't appear to have permission to use that image. Can you please clarify why it is appropriate to undelete it? Stifle (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. It's been replaced. 2ndAmendment (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyvio concerns

Hi, experienced image admin. :) Would you have a chance to look into a matter concerning a problematic image uploader at the copyright cleanup talk page? The uploader has definitely placed content on here from various other websites, including uploading a postcard. He has been warned in the past, but may have language issues. The problem is that a lot of the images he's uploaded have "metadata" from different cameras: four different cameras used for images uploaded yesterday; six if we incorporate the last several months. I don't quite know what to do with this one. As usual, if it's not a good time, let me know, and I'll harass somebody else. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I know this one is in good hands! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Jonny Palmer

Hi there,

I'm enquiring regarding the deletion of the page Jonny Palmer. He is a broadcaster in Birmingham, UK broadcasting the traffic and travel news on BBC local radio and commercial radio. He is known particularly for his humourous on air attitude which was reflected in the article. I am a contributor to the BBC wiki articles, and it is on my to-do list to link his page with the stations he is actively a presenter on.

I would like to request that this page is restored on the basis of it being accurate and certainly notable as a well respected and trusted voice on UK radio.

Thanks Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevincoy (talk • contribs) 15:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

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

In future, rather than immediately assuming the deletion in question was covered under "other", please try to find the actual reason for deletion as it helps you to find the answer to your question more quickly. The page User_talk:Stifle/wizard/deleted/undelete1#Speedy_deletion would have applied to your issue.

Jonny Palmer was deleted because the person it refers to does not appear to exist. When I search for "Jonny Palmer BBC Nottingham" on Google, the only relevant page that is returned is the Wikipedia page. Also, the article was written in a jokey tone and bore no references whatsoever.

It is possible that I made a mistake in this, so if you can provide some proof of Mr. Palmer's existence as a BBC DJ, I will undelete the article. In that case, however, I will also have to remove a lot of its content in accordance with our policy on biographies of living people, as it is potentially defamatory and not cited to a reliable source.

You can avoid things like this happening in future by adding citations to reliable sources whenever you create an article. Wikipedia:Footnotes explains more. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Hulu_App_Store.png

Re [2], I realized I cut and pasted the wrong rationale. The current one may still fail a reasonable test, but let me know what you think. No great loss if it's pulled - there's plenty of easier to justify screen shots to illustrated the article, but it would be nice to avoid the rework. Mattnad (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've transferred this image to WP:FFD because I still feel it's not appropriate. You can comment on the listing by clicking the link on the image. Stifle (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hello,could i please just tell you that i have been on wikipedia with my friend who recently quit for 2 years.I decided to make my own account. i have a great experience and i request the ability of an administrator.BF153 (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an unusual review requested

Hi boss. As you probably don't remember, next month, I will have been an administrator for around a year. You opposed me during the course of my RfA, and now I have come to exact my revenge, Bwuhahahaha! I was rather hoping you might pass comment on how you think I'm doing. This probably sounds rather indulgent, but it's like a very focussed Editor Review, trying to work out if I've allayed fears etc. and I'll be asking a few other people for this opinion as well.

I'm rather hopeful of a positive reply, admittedly, but I will take negatives into account - severe enough, and I'll hand in my tools! In admin terms, I've been involved in a little DR here and there, and in the domain of deletions so that should provide some interesting material for you! Hope you can help. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there some page where this is operating? Stifle (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: User:Fritzpoll/Review. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

NFC, images of living people

Hi. What is the WP:NFC when an image of a living person is used to represent a fictional character, ala File:Liam Connor CS.jpg? I know that living people are not supposed to be used in non-free images, except in limited circumstances. Are there special rules for when people are in costume? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no defined rule, nor any precedent or consensus. Each image use stands on its own merits.

In the circumstances of this image, I would suggest that it merits deletion as it is no more than a non-free image of Mr. James-Collier and doesn't add to readers' understanding of the subject in any way. You should consider nominating it for FFD. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Would WP:FFD be a better place for it, or the moribund WP:NFCR? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely FFD. NFR doesn't really have an end to speak of. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. My very first FFD. :) And on a related note, if I should ever happen to casually mention to you that I've been asked to get involved in writing a dispatch, please block me. It will be for my own sanity, really. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A deletion review discussion you may wish to contribute to.

Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Wikipedia:Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

word use

Hello. Regarding your recent minor edit to The Amazing Race, while it is not worthy of being reverted, I have to strongly disagree with your reasoning. Impact can, in fact, be used as a verb as it was in the article. Your edit was completely unnecessary. 192.91.171.36 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in proper English, it can't. Stifle (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And what do you mean by proper English? British English? The word is defined as both a noun and a verb in every dictionary I've looked up, including:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impact

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/impact

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impact

It seems proper enough to me.192.91.171.36 (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to read the "usage notes" in Wiktionary. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What more did I need to say

How much more would I have had to say about non-free image policy, given the living person scenario, to have got your support. (I'm not trying to get you to change your !vote.) Mark Hurd (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your answer was rather woolly. Your first point was that the use should be fair use under US law, which is wrong; Wikipedia's fair use rules are far more strict than that. You also referred to the image needing a rationale, which is true of all fair use images. I am looking to see what distinguishes images of living people from others. See also foundation:resolution:licensing policy.

I wouldn't like to say exactly what I expect people to say to that question, because obviously then it gives the opportunity of gaming the system to others. But I hope what I said helps. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this count as Accreditation?

http://www.ctsstudies.org/accredit.html Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how accreditation works in the USA; I was relying on DGG's assessment. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick note on RFA

I'm not sure if you've noted the "response" under General Comments on my RfA. I had to finally break the silence on that one. If you have a moment, feel free to have a look. Thanks in advance. Also, if you have hints on what it does take to gain your trust, please let me know (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's more a neutral on balance. I'll revise. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion due to misunderstanding

Hi there. The image File:Moroteuthis robusta.jpg was deleted due to a misunderstanding. I meant the old version of this image (under the same name) should be deleted, but I !voted to keep the newly uploaded version. User:BQZip01 seems to have misunderstood my comment in his !vote as well. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Restored. Stifle (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another image issue

Hi. I see that you're busy, but if you get a minute there's a strange permissions issue that could use knowledgeable image admin/OTRS permissions queue eyes. Recently minted admin User:Toon05 points out on my talk page that File:NadineVelazquez1.jpg may have a "provisional" GFDL. Ultimately, the subject seems to accept our straightforward GFDL. Of course, thee's no OTRS ticket, but given how scrupulously the uploader documented the chain of communication, I don't doubt that he would still have those for logging if necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We should get the email sent into OTRS and taken off the image, if possible. I'm not 100% sure that the wording is tight enough, but assuming Ms. Velazquez has the right to authorize the reproduction, it's fine. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

All right. I'll ask him to forward that e-mail chain to OTRS. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons deletion question

Hi,

I posted a question about your deletion proposal here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:PrincessLeiasThemeSnippet.jpg

But in case you don't get around to it I thought I'm drop you a line. I'd lke to add proper fair use rationales help to save these files. Is that OK or is there another problem?

thanks

Replying over there. For future reference please try to choose a message subject that's relevant to your query. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again,

regarding these files, I am prepared to add FUR to each image on EN:WP, not sure of the best way to proceed. It won't let me re-upload them as they exist on Commons. Can you restore the deleted versions on EN (and delete the Commons versions)? Then I will provide thorough FURs for each file. Will that be OK? Thanks, 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:PrincessLeiasThemeSnippet.jpg#File:PrincessLeiasThemeSnippet.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidwitch (talk • contribs)

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

Please try to choose the correct selection from the options provided. Neither this nor your last message was an OTRS query. To leave further messages, just edit this section.

I cannot delete anything from Commons as I am not an admin there. I will see if I can restore the other images to Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The images have now been restored, here is the list. Please add a fair use tag and rationale to each of the images, and remove the no license template when you have done so. If you have any queries, please go to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for you help. I'll sort out fair use tags and mark the commons vesions for speedy deletion when complete, so you don't need to worry about them. Apologies for contactng you in the wrong way - I don't know that OTRS is but the link from your commons profile seemed to invite me to contact you that way. I'll come back here if I have further queries. Cheers, Wikidwitch (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

ACC volunteer account

Hi Stifle, I tried to register a volunteer accoutn at ACC but rejected due to lack of experience. If I want to apply again in the future, what should I do? I just realised that once I was rejected, it seems that I cannot summit another registration again? The message of rejection always appears. Thanks a lot. Ben.MQ (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You can ask me or anyone marked as an admin on this list. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider Rockets

Stifle, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider Rockets which, it turns out, saw the participation of sockmaster (Sock Category, CheckUser) JamesBurns and his comrade A-Kartoffel. I'm not fussed about the close myself, but in light of the sockpuppetry I'd like to see it relisted for a few more comments. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 14:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, will do. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that JamesBurns and his socks have caused quite a bit of strife. Any admin can feel free to undelete and relist articles where I have closed an AFD that would have been closed differently had they not participated. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Whadjug map

Thank you for your post, some time ago about the Whadjuk map. It would be difficult for anyone to have copywrite on this map as it was traced and then redrawn using Powerpoint polygons (hand-drawn by me) copying a public domain base map of Western Australia. I then added the colour of the Polygons and saved the file to a jpeg format before uploading it to Wikipedia. The publications I made use of for the sources was a 1979 150th Anniversary Atlas of Human Endeavour, produced by Western Australian Government Print, and a South Australian map produced by Tindale in the 1930s. To get the map restored can you help? Thany thanks. John D. Croft (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. We had an email from an Australian government source claiming copyright in the map, but it was clear (from subsequent emails) that the map they claimed you copied was completely different from the one you used.

The map has not been deleted.

For my own tracking purposes this relates to Ticket:2009011910003631. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

An OTRS question related to Commons

Hi. Somebody has posted a question about permissions for Commons at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Permissions Letter. I've only undertaken very straightforward Commons issues. I've recommended some other avenues for asking (including the permissions email address), but wanted to let you know about it because I think you might be able to answer it on the spot. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll respond there. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

re Adminship?

Hi Stifle and thanks for your confidence in my editing. I don't want to be an administrator as I'm not that great at interacting with other editors. I'm very happy behind the scenes not being noticed :) THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media

Hey Stifle. Since you're both active and knowledgeable in our image policies, I thought I'd let you know about a new project (combining several inactive projects and breathing new life into the amalgamation) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media. I hope this becomes a centralized location for discussion of image tags, Commons migration, deletion policy, and all other things media-related. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No flagged revisions category up for deletion

The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Using your name in an example

Hey Stifle. I was commenting in an Arbcom case here, and I used your name in an example to make a point. Later, thinking about it, I realize I should have asked you first. I you don't want your name used in this context, no problem, I'll provide a different example. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Blockland

Hello Stifle,

The Blockland article which is at AFD was listed for Speedy deletion by you for A7. The A7 tag can not be used for software, and since Blockland is an online game it is considered software. The admin did decline the speedy. The AFD is still on-going. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)--gordonrox24

It's web content. It may also be software, but it is web content. I'll let the AFD decide. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I know. I asked the admin and he said that the article is about the game, not the website; making it software. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has a terrible WP:NPOV issue. All the editors are users of the game, and are beginning to turn it into an advertisement.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That's beyond my remit, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats ok.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I just closed this as "keep". Even with the SPAs, the assumptions of bad faith, and the NPOV problems on the article itself, the declined A7 was the only argument for deletion besides the nomination. I would suggest waiting a few months and if the article doesn't improve, try again. I particularly didn't like the charge that the nomination was initiated by a rival game. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As a side note. I made sure I let the clock tick past the full 7 days on this one :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Filter 155

I edited the rule, and turned on the log. Hope you like youtube links. Dragons flight (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Homie

Please don't. I'm an experienced user and stay anonymous for a reason. YouTube can be used as a source sometimes, this is a part of Pablo's well-known "preview man" routine and I couldn't think of a better way to source the bit than... you know, presenting the video. In any case, I'm restoring my edit with the Amazon.com reference of the DVD of the show. I'll appreciate some good faith and common sense, thank you. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindly don't restore the link to YouTube. If you're as experienced as you say, you'll know that we don't link to copyright violations. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Youtube on HOET

Perhaps you could double check for me, but as I see the videos were all from people who had licence to them, or the producers of the videos themselves. Wikidea 18:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The one about Paul Samuelson doesn't look like it's licensed, unless there's some reference I'm missing from the username "dogshu". The other one is probably OK; I'll put that one back. Sorry about the false positive (we're testing an automated system which will warn people who add links to various sites that host a lot of copyright-violating content). Stifle (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Deletion Squadron

Hey there! You might be interested in this new venture! The fightback starts here! Yeah! Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of an image

You deletion of my image without any rational or explanation is puzzling. Please explain. Richard McCoy (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

I delete a lot of images, so it's helpful to specify which image you're referring to. It appears that you're referring to File:Portrait of Richard McCoy by Chad Gallion.jpg, which was deleted under our criteria for speedy deletion (number 3 under "Files") because it was marked as having permission only for use on Wikipedia. This was explained in the deletion log, which you can access at Special:Log/delete.

While it might seem that this permission would be sufficient, it actually is not; our founder, Jimbo Wales, has specified that images on Wikipedia must, with a very few exceptions, be free to use anywhere, not just Wikipedia.

I see you have uploaded the image again. You have not placed any license tag or other information on the image, which you must do to avoid it being deleted again. There's a list of license tags at WP:ICT. You also need to say where you got the image (if you created it yourself, then say that).

If you require further help with the image, please post at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't seen your message wizzard. It sounds helpful, though. Perhaps next time you delete an image you could make a reference to it. This would not only be a pleasant think to do, it would be helpful and useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCoy (talk • contribs) 03:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you have seen my message wizard; if you have edited my talk page you will see a notice above the edit box saying "If you haven't done so already, please check my message wizard. Many of the questions I am commonly asked are answered there." Stifle (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Postmarked birmingham.jpg

I've tried to fix the rationale, let me know if I solved the problem. Thanks. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to explain more than this. Our non-free content criteria require that the copyright holder of non-free images is named, and that the image be helpful in understanding the article and not just decorative. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Where would I find the copyright holder? I was looking at similar images and this one doesn't seem to be listed either. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not know where you could find the copyright holder. Thank you for pointing out that other image to me; I have tagged it for deletion also. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to look for one where the copyright holder is listed so I can figure it out. Then I'll get back with you. Other than the copyright holder being missing, how does the rationale look now? --Lost Fugitive (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• This image seems to have a very extensive copyright non-free use rationale but the copyright holder is not listed. In fact, the upload template does not have a section to state the copyright holder, unless I am mistaken, which is possible since I am a new user. I looked at similar images and they do not have the copyright holder lister either. Do you think the video linked above should be deleted or is there something on it that is not on the image we are discussing, which I could change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lost Fugitive (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you for pointing out that image to me; I have tagged it for deletion also. The requirement to quote the copyright holder is noted at WP:NFCC under point 10a, among other places.

  The rationale on File:Postmarked birmingham.jpg is sufficient other than for lacking the copyright holder. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I found out from the website where I found the video that the copyright holder is Arista records. Thanks for all your help. I now understand the wikipedia image policy much better. I feel that what you are doing for the encyclopedia is very important, please keep it up. I'll let you know if I stumble upon any other images with missing information.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy notice at File:Paranoid Android video.png

Hi Stifle,

I've added attribution to the creator and publisher of the work. Does this address your concerns? Thanks, Papa November (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems fine. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for finishing up the old WP:FFD backlog! – Quadell ^(talk) 12:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi. :) Ticket:2009042610020334 is addressed to your attention. I tried to put it into your queue, but could not find you on the pulldown. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's probably because I don't have access to whatever queue it's in. I only have permissions* and info-en::Copyvio. Can you move it to one of those? Stifle (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Nuances to the system! Sure, if I can figure it out. :) I'm off to give it a go. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you did (or something you didn't do, if you didn't do anything) worked! Thanks. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That one turned out easy. It doesn't always. Yesterday, after successfully merging many tickets, I tried to merge one only to somehow "lock" it to myself. Oh, well. I know how to unlock, but I don't know how to disavow a ticket once the system has said, "Okay, it's yours!" --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That I can tell you is accomplished by zooming to the ticket, unlocking it (if it's locked), clicking Owner, and assigning it either to the previous owner, or to "OTRS Admin (root@localhost)" if you want to just dump it back in the queue. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That information may prove tremendously useful. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm after getting myself access to some of the info-en subqueues now, so this kind of issue probably won't arise again in a hurry. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If I should see it again in the meantime, I'll know what to do. :) I usually do a glance at the whole queue and merge and tidy what I can before responding to the ones that seem in my neighborhood. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Uups.

As you're obviously not a bot, I please ask what feels wrong or irritating with my fair use rationale (re: User_talk:W.#File:Otto_Felix_Kanitz.jpg). [w.] 05:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Replying there. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jerry Supiran

Oh dear, you're right, that was definitely a mistake on my part. Thanks for catching it. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 11:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Recreation of FC de Rakt at Rakt

See the discussion at Talk:Rakt - what we seem to have here is a couple of editors who wanted to keep the article, including its creator, not being willing to abide by the delete decision and recreating the article with a different title (and I see the old article is still there as a redirect. I don't know Lucien Sunday but I do know TharkunColl (talk · contribs) and this does not come as a surprise. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section on the football season as irrelevant to the article. Will mention something on talk. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put a notice on TharkunColl's talk page about recreating a deleted article. I'm sure he knew what he was doing. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you used the wrong template. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Which one should I have used? Lucien Sunday's just blown up at me on the Rakt talk page, what a nice guy. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and decided since there is an RfC, we mustn't 'circumvent the system until the RfC is decided' and put the table back. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we may as well continue this at Talk:Rakt. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I've deleted the template, but the one I meant to use isn't appropriate either, so I'm not sure what to do. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Rollback

Oh yes please. Thanks Stifle. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

He he. Thanks again. I'll never misuse it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette

This is a courtesy to inform you that I have made a comment Here Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFPP

Sorry about that! I got a bit mishmashed. Thank you for correcting me though. I'll apply this in the future. - Vianello (Talk) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)