User talk:Stifle/Archive 0606

This is an archive. Please leave new comments on my talk page. If you refer back to one of these discussions, please copy it over.

Unlawful Enemy Combatant

Oh, Sorry....It's one I found on a discussion page and it looks to be in some contention. Here is one of the discussions:

unlawful enemy combatant

Please stop vandalizing Unlawful enemy combatant. Thank you. Merecat 20:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The AfD tag you placed on this article did not function as there was no page for dialog. Because you did this wrong, I have deleted that tag. Merecat 20:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

-Mark

Unlawful enemy combatant was deleted because of a consensus for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unlawful enemy combatant. If you wish to appeal the decision, please use Wikipedia:Deletion review. Also, may I recommend getting an account and signing your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end? Stifle (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks again 69.253.236.36 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Mark[reply]

You have an imposter

Congratulations, you have an imposter, you may want to consider blocking Stif1e. --Hetar 03:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish railway project

Hi, I've added pages for some of the stations on the Maynooth-Dublin line that were missing, namely:

I appreciate that some of my contributions may be ideal and welcome advice on how to improve them.

I also have to admit that I made an error of my own - in correcting the mistake where the nonexistent Seaport railway station was in place of Seapoint railway station, I created the latter and copied over material, then corrected it. I realised afterwards that I should have looked more closely at the tabs and used "Move". I can only say one thing to this: D'oh!. At least the links on the neighbouring stations point refer to a real one now!

My caffiene levels are really low - I left out my ID & time! Autarch 19:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Stifle/Archive 0606, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again! Cool3 talk 20:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

A haiku to thank you for your input

Thanks for your input

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

Even though you didn't feel I had enough experience, I appreciate your comments, and hope that I am able to demonstrate appropriate adminship with the experience that I do have. -- Nataly a 05:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake

Actually when I nominated Bertha Fox Dominguez for a speedy deletion, Ididn't know that I was supposed to do that somewhere else. I found that out a day ago, and I apologize for the error. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 18:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needing some advice

Hello, Stifle. I recently bumped up against a problem in AFD, and you were the first admin that came to my mind, probably because of your advice in the past and involvement in the MD RFA. A few days ago, I nominated an article for deletion on grounds of non-notability. Its author had posted a bunch of nonsense tangentially related to its subject (the basketball player Mouhammad Faye) in AFC, and took it as an affront when I declined to create the article because he couldn't demonstrate notability. However, he is now registered, has created the article, and when I sent it through the AFD process, lo and behold: the AFD is now seriously cluttered with apparent sockpuppet and double votes, whose origin I imagine to be the author; can't say for sure though. I've tried to sort out the garbage from the legitimate votes, but am concerned that not enough people have noticed it in AFD for consensus to be apparent. If you could let me know what you think, I'd appreciate it. You can get to the AFD via the wikilink above, or check my recent edits. Thank you for your time, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a fine job so far. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words and the quick response on the AFD page, I appreciate it. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't reorder comments?

You wrote:

Don't reorder comments on the deletion page, except to move comments placed above the heading.

In fact, isn't it routine to reorder comments that were put in out of order, especially by new editors who mistakenly add them at the top? Fan1967 13:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. The intention was that people shouldn't group keep/delete/move etc., because it removes the ability of the closing admin to see who responded to whom, etc. I've revised it. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 15:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redshirt (college sports)

Thank you for calling out that the page Redshirt (college sports) required additional context. I created the page but did an insufficient job of describing redshirting for those new to the term. Please take a look at the page again, as I have attempted to address the concerns you raised. (Terryn3 22:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I've replied on Talk:Redshirt (college sports). Stifle (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abaidullah

Can I ask what you found soapbox about the article about Guantanamo detainee Abaidullah?

Was it the second paragraph? I added it, possibly against my better judgement, when User:MilesToGo nominated the article for deletion due to non-notability.

I think I have read half or more of the 6,000 pages of transcripts the DoD started releasing on March 3rd. Abaidullah's detainee ID number had two separate Combatant Status Review Tribunals. It is not my place to say that this is inexplicable -- if the administration of the documents and evidence backing up the allegations against the detainees were well-managed. I came across anomalies like this, over and over again.

If I had only come across this kind of anomaly occasionally I would not consider this one notable.

Two other detainees, Abaidullah's former partner, and an acquaintance of Abaidullah's former partner, who he happened to be sitting next to on the bus that takes passengers across the border from Afghanistan to Pakistan, were rounded up and ended up in Guantanamo based on Abaidullah's confession. Abaidullah has recanted the confession that implicated these two men, which he stated was beaten out of him at Bagram.

The original research policy doesn't allow us to draw our own conclusions. I can't say Occam's Razor suggests that the account offered by Abaidullah to his Tribunal is the truth, and he and the men implicated by his false confession should be released. But, if I am not mistaken, the information needed for a reader to draw their own conclusions about the connection between these men, and draw their own conclusion about whether they really had ties to terrorism can be stated, provided it stated from a NPOV..

FWIW I now suspect that User:MilesToGo is a sockpuppet. Most new users, a couple of days into creating their new wiki-id, don't start nominating articles for deletion. -- Geo Swan 01:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it is trying to push a particular anti-US agenda, that's all. I have already suggested that some of the AFDs in question were WP:POINT, and I think some have been closed.

Please remember to link to articles when you leave a message on my talk page, as I visit a lot of articles and AFDs and don't always realize what a certain message may refer to. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a POV. I also do my best to write from an NPOV. I take every suggestion that I am falling short of that goal seriously. If you feel you have the time I would really appreciate you being specific about any particular passages you feel are pushing an anti-US agenda.

FWIW I do not consider my personal POV "anti-US". I am not an American. But I believe that my commitment to the high principles American is honored for representing is as strong as any patriotic Americans. I value freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, the rule of law. Feeling critical of a particular policy of a current American President doesn't make an American citizen a traitor or "un-American". And it doesn't make a non-American "anti-American". I certainly don't consider myself "anti-American".

However, like I said, I do my best to conform to the NPOV policy. And, like I said, I really appreciate when someone is prepared to be specific about where they feel I fell short.

Can I tell you what I find when I ask people to explain their concerns about my contributions being "anti-American"?

Here is my favourite example of how another wikipedia contributor and I addressed his concern that something I wrote was anti-American. It is an example where we both left satisfied, and with the article improved.
But the response I got from User:MilesToGo is, unfortunately, too common. There is another wikipedia contributor who, when asked to be specific, instead spent over two months following my edits around, almost like a stalker, nominating a dozen articles I started for deletion, put a bogus {copyvio} on, put literally dozens of bogus {npov}, {dispute} and {unencyclopedic} tags on other articles I was working on.
The most common complaint I get is that it is anti-American to refer to the detainee policy as a "Bush Administration policy". I dispute that, because the US Government has three branches, and the other two branches have challenged and over-ruled aspects of the Bush's detainee policy. The SCOTUS isn't finished reviewing it. Which, so far as I am concerned, would make it factually innaccurate, and indeed biased, to describe it as a "US Government policy", which is what those critics of mine initially preferred.
Another common response I get when I ask people to be specific about what they consider anti-American is that they simply don't reply. That could mean that they decide to save their energy. Or it could mean that they tried and were unable to find a specific anti-American passage. -- Geo Swan 17:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rip this Joint

Regarding the article Rip This Joint, I had put a speedy delete on it because it really was gibberish, I suppose I could've put a "notability" on it, but no biggie either way. I'll slap an AFD on it if you or someone else hasn't already. V. Joe 01:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Un-redirect

If an article went on Afd and consensus was to redirect to another article, what's the best place to go for a user afterwards to get the page reinstated? For deleted pages WP:DRV would be the right place, but since the page wasn't actually deleted I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. -- Hirudo 15:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion on my talk page: User_talk:Lar#Article_Un-redirect where Zoe and I have commented. Hirudo asked all three of us, good thinking for getting multiple inputs, but keeping the discussion in one place may be best, and my page is as good as any since most of it is now there. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Ehab Tawfik

Hello again, Stifle. I've come to you because of how helpful and prompt you were in questions and issues I've had in the past. I've found a user who insists on inserting and keeping POV material in the above article, and according to the talk page, it's apparently at the request of the article's subject. Normally, I would have no problem at all just reverting to the more-NPOV version, but the sticky part is this: Apparently, the older version I've tried to make NPOV was originally a copyvio of something from the artist's personal site. Now, I've googled around and couldn't find any evidence of it, which leads me to think that it's not in English. I'm not sure of the best way to handle this. If I could find the original source, I'd tag it as a copyvio, but I can't, so for the time being I've reverted to the old version, which may or not be a copyvio, but is more NPOV than the one User:MiriamNader is pushing. (It incidentally contains gems such as "Ehab Tawfik is an outstanding Egyptian singer, who is endowed with a wonderful and unique voice, as well as refined artistic taste.") Anyway, if you could give me any advice as to how to handle a conflict like this, that'd be tops. Thank you, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assistance. I've done a bit more work on the article, cutting away POV and adding templates where needed. I appreciate your effort. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The new additions might be copyvio too, except that they were probably added by the copyright holder. I've left User:MiriamNader (who appears to be Ehab's publicist) a message explaining why we don't publish official biographies.

If she continues to revert, possible solutions include:

WP:AN3, if she does it more than 3 times in 24 hours.
Listing the page as a copyvio on WP:CP
Reporting the issue on WP:AN, for consideration of a block for disruption

However, I will be away on a business trip from tomorrow until the 19th so for now, coming back to me will be unuseful. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! You've been as helpful and prompt as always, Stifle. Top class adminning, in my book. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Stefan

Hmmm.. I have already declined speedy on this person, as the article asserts he is a famous architect, and slapped a verify on it... - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't thing that someone is famous for being an architect, or anything, but I will restore it and list on AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ifd

Okay, Ill tag it with IfD, Also could you delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Roflcopter.gif i tagged it more then 5 days ago but it hasnt been deleted. Thanks. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 14:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because you did not list it on the WP:IFD page as per the instructions in the image page. Please list it and allow seven days from then. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Together&forever's images

Thanks for catching some of the copyright violations caused by this user. I agree that copyright violations must go, and I have deleted some as copyvios. However, we must assume good faith and not presume that all his images are copyright violations; instead I recommend listing images with a copyright tag that you don't believe on WP:PUI. I am doing so for the images I can find. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe, me I've assumed good faith. And I continue to do so. See the big header on my user page... my patience is never-ending. Anyhow, how many images did you delete and how many did you tag? I tagged a total of 8 images for speedy deletion. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 22:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted 4 (the ones that had sources) and put 3 on PUI. The other one must have been dealt with by another admin handling CAT:CSD. I've also left the user a strong warning about the matter. Stifle (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also be careful when editing Letterkenny to stay within WP:3RR. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I found the eigth one - the one you thought another admin handled! That would be this one: Image:St. Eunans Cathedral Letterkenny.jpg. It features the same picture as Image:St.Eunans Cathedral Letterkenny.jpg and Image:LkCathedral.jpg, both of which you have already handled. Kill off the speedy deletion nomination and wait for me to find the picture's real source to kill them all three off? ;) Jobjörn (Talk | contribs), your very own newbie image-fragger. 22:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That has been handled by another admin. Really this time. :) Stifle (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hola comprade! Remember me and the images I hunted? They're all deleted except these three: Image:EunansCollege.jpg, Image:Lkennya.jpg and Image:St.Eunans Cathedral Letterkenny.jpg. As you may remember, I was unable to find these pictures elsewhere on the internet, and you instructed me to assume good faith and denied the speedy deletion request. However, the noble User:Dr Zak has tracked these down! Apparently, he was not as trigger-happy as me and instead listed them as "Possible copyright violations" - to which I must say, assuming good faith is nice, but that takes it to the limit. Yet, perhaps you could delete them now as they are obviously copyright violations? Or should I tag them again? Or should I just wait and ignore them? Advice from the Wise, please. ;) Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 18:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo, they're gone. I'm going to unwatch your user page and stop disturbing you now. ;) Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 13:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jobjörn (Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Bah.

Re: [1], I'll suggest that you not be so ridiculous in the future.--SB | T 10:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being ridiculous. "Orphaned non-free" isn't a criterion for speedy deletion, WP:CSD specifically says that we need to wait five days. There may, after all, be a chance that the image is useful in an article in which case it can be kept. Remember that images, once deleted, cannot be restored like articles can. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd AFD nom for List of Battlefield 1942 mods

You may be interested in the List of Battlefield 1942 mods AFD. It has been been nominated by the same user again. Bfelite 14:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, missed it. Thanks anyway. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Speedy deletion

Hi Stifle,

Sorry about that, I recall getting an image speedied a long time ago with the same explanation, I guess the rules are different now. BTW, apparently I got one of them deleted, perhaps the admin wasn't aware. Adios! —Khoikhoi 05:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Consulting Group deletion

I would like to respectfully request your review of a page I created on the Patriot Consulting Group. Editors left me several messages detailing why they thought the page should be deleted and I addressed each and every one. This article meets the definition of a "notable company" according to the Criteria for companies and corporations found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CORP per WP:CORP, Unfortunately, the same editors that claim should be deleted because they claim it is an article about a non-notable company, the Wiki definition of notable and their definitions are in obvious conflict.

I hope a rational review of the facts will bear me out.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and for your consideration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.18.71 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 17 June 2006.

Hi there, in future please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

I do not see any way of verifying any of the claims in the article. The onus is on the person requesting the material retained to present proof of notability. A start would be to provide exact links to online versions of the articles referred to, rather than vague notions of "it was in this newspaper".

If you feel that the deletion of this article was in error, you may list it at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Density estimation

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illustration of density estimation you wrote

Delete, eXtreme original research.

Can you tell me why you said that, and what your background is in the field of statistics? Was the method altogether different from the ones explained in the published papers that were cited? Michael Hardy 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I made this comment because the material was written in the style of an academic paper, making it a secondary source at best. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.

As for my background in the field of statistics, not that I'm obliged to tell you, but as of last Friday I have a BSc in it. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me it doesn't look any more like an academic paper than lots of other Wikipedia articles, but I don't see how style makes it a secondary source, or why it's being a secondary souce would be an objection. Wikipedia is often a secondary souce, and that's what it's supposed to be. The prohibition agains original research is a prohibition against Wikipedia's being a primary source. How in the world does anything's being a secondary source amout to a reason to call it "original research"? A concrete example of kernel density estimation is certainly not original research. Michael Hardy 16:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Elvis Presley

Hi. The Elvis Presley article is in quite a state. Can you give me some feedback on the user issue and the process involved? Jkelly 01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "give you some feedback". Can you please explain what you would like me to do, possibly in small words because I'm not feeling too well at the moment? :) Stifle (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page has been collecting some complaints about User:Onefortyone's edits to Elvis Presley. I noticed that you invoked that user's ArbCom ruling at one point. I was looking for a comment from you on whether it would be appropriate to do so again. Jkelly 18:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

You may want to check your userboxes. {{user straight}} no longer is a real userbox but a message about the move of said userbox to user space. -- Hirudo 16:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your message on my talk page

I'm sorry that I did not notice your request, however, I edited about 500 pages for that userbox alone. I don't have time to look at every page as I go through. Again, sorry. —Mi r a 01:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw's image/SD

Hi. I fully accept what you say and will follow your advice. However I would just like to explain my reasoning. The image was used to replace a company logo in the article infobox. Plus it also uses that company's logo. While people can have certain points of view regarding the ethics of companies this is not the place for it (unless unethical conduct is a fact). You must surely agree that it is at the very least unecylopedic! Regards Mark83 15:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, and this means the image should probably be deleted. However, it should not be speedily deleted, at least not for five days (after adding {{subst:orfud}}). Speedy deletions are for things that are completely uncontroversial. Thanks for your message. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Lake Square Mall‎;

Thanks for letting me know that my speedy request for East Lake Square Mall was invalid - I should have been able to work it out for myself because it wasn't one of the categories there was a specific template for! I saw you prod'd it, I'm wasn't going to AFD it yet, because I've already nominated another mall for deletion, and if that one is a keep or no consensus then this one would probalby be acceptable too, so I'll wait and see. Thanks. Inner Earth 22:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Letting you know that I've AFD'd Greengate Mall, an article in a similar vein, to check community consensus on otherwise n-n malls which are here becasue they are dead. The prod was removed from East Lake Square Mall (by someone from WP:MALLS who seems to think that the existance of a project automatically makes dead malls notable), but if Greengate Mall is deleted I'll go ahead and AFD a bunch including East Lake Square Mall. Inner Earth 13:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For comprimse purposes and the fact that the there's a strong sense for deleting "dead mall" pages, I merged the mall article to East Lake-Orient Park, Florida for protection purposes. --Moreau36 16:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My (Mtz206) RfA

Thank you for voting at my RFA. My Request was successful with 41 supports, 12 opposes and 5 neutrals, and even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. As an admin, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in the project namespace. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. -- mtz206 (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ad

For the Al-Waha and Al Fakher, how do they read like ads? What can be changed? Nsterui 20:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know. Please try asking the person who tagged it. Stifle (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Copyvio notices

When you remove a tag speeedy delete by reason of copyvio [2] , please list as a normal copyvio. Although a source is needed to fulfill the speedy delete criteria, the lack of one does not make it any less of a copyright infringment. Thanks. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. A source is also needed to list an article as a copyvio, without one how do we know that it's a copyvio? Stifle (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It good to supply a source if you have one but it is not required. If we are violating someone's copyright that is a problem. It is possible to recognize something is copyrighted material without knowing where it came from as everything produced in the US since 1923 (printed, recorded, broadcast, etc) is automactically granted copyright. Most all other countries have been automactically granting copyright even longer than that. The variations come in on when copyright expires. However any song recorded in 1987 will be under copyright, that is not even a boderline case. In case if some claims they suspect an article is a copyright violation it should listed as such so at least other people can do some research into it, rather than just have the tag removed and let it slip through the cracks.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial image

I posted the file cinqueterre.jpg that I found on flickr because it seems like the photo is listed with a Creative Commons license (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=171751692&size=o) that allows for this. Now that I look more closely it is a 2.0 license, which seems less restrictive than 2.5. No big deal if the photo needs to come down (I just liked it), but if there is some more attribution I need to add or something let me know. Thanks

Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0

You are free:

   * to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
   * to make derivative works

Under the following conditions: by Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. nc Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

   * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
   * Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above.

Steveray00 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, non-commercial images are not allowed on Wikipedia. See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html and criteria for speedy deletion. Sorry. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My (Winhunter) RFA

My WP namespace edits have risen to above 400 since my nomination. Would you reconsider my suitability as an admin in my RFA? Thanks. --WinHunter ^(talk) 05:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the RFA page. Stifle (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image

Thanks for uploading Image:Tony Forsythe.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

Is now on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fruit_Machine_%28film%29

           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderland_%281988_movie%29
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Forsyth

Thanks; still learning.

trezjr Trezjr 15:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem

Hey, you left a message on my talk page saying that an image I had reverted to as a picture on the Saraswati page wasn't really in line with the Wikipedia copyright policy. And since I have no knowledge of or connection to that picture, I guess the image should be removed. ~ magbatz 00:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. You do not need to take any action in this case and the image will be deleted at the end of the month. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:CSD

A discussion on the use of headers for the page Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is currently being discussed at Category_talk:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Category_Header_Information. Your input would be welcome. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Scheme page - vandalism?

The page below is the one in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_scheme

There is a recent attempt to make this article more inline with Wikipedia guidelines - more neutral. However, one of the other editors (Carnildo)keeps on reverting back to the original - without discussing on the Talk page. This whole article is complex, having been altered many times to create a negative 'feel' to the page. The most recent user to attempt to bring this article inline with guidelines seems to me to be a neutral party - yet his work is being vandalised. Can you or someone else please examine and perhaps intervene?

Cybertrax) 26 June 2006

Thanks for your message. In future, please add new messages at the bottom of my talk page, because otherwise I will generally miss them.

I don't see anything wrong with Carnildo's version of the page. It is certainly not vandalism, and calling it such may be considered incivil. If you still think that his edits are inappropriate, feel free to seek a third opinion. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for misplacement of message before.

I wouldnt call it Carnildos version exactly, as it has been altered by many people over the times. However, anytime anybody tries to change it from a negative slant to a neutral slan, the page is reverted back without discussion - sometimes by Carnildo.

As others HAVE mentioned on the discussion page, many of the statements on the main page are either taken out of context, are incomplete giving the wrong impression or are factually incorrect. Many of the contributors are members of matrixwatch.org, a site dedicated o destroying matrix sites and schemes - this means they are biased against them and this sometimes shows in the writing style. An example of this would be where I tried to place a statement showing how matrix sites operated within the law. This was derided by others, deleted and an opposite arguement was placed in its place. Any further attempt to correct this was always deleted. The discussion page has had many heated debates on it, with no final outcome. There are two opposing views, and the only one that seems to be 'allowed' to be shown on this particular page is the negative one - the 'anti-matrix' one.

This is why I asked for a 3rd party to view and possibly intervene. I note that you have already done some work on this article, which I am thankful for. I would also like to point out that the legal aspects are also shown in the cyberama.net page shown as an external link. Maybe this might be used as a reference?

Feel free to shorten/delete this after you have read it - I know its rather lengthy!

Cybertrax) 26 June 2006

Thanks again for your message.

I'm sorry, but I am unable to help in your content dispute. I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to express a good opinion on it, and I do not think it would be of any help either. May I recommend making a listing at WP:RFC or WP:3O? WP:TINMC may also be able to help. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image: fac2577.jpg

Hey, just a temporary note to say thanks for pointing me in the right direction re: copyright tags (in this case "Albumcover"). Everything's sorted now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnny Sumner (talk • contribs) 15:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Horace Tuck

Hi I wrote the Horace Tuck page. The image of the painting is mine - I own the painting and I took the photograph of it. I just didn't really know which copyright box to use. Also, someone removed the reference to the book about this artist - yet I was told I had to give references. So why did that happen? Thanks! Lizzybeth --Lizzybeth 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, owning the physical painting and taking a photograph of it does not necessarily entitle you to upload it to Wikipedia or perform other copyright-restricted works. If you own the copyright on the painting, either due to you creating it or inheriting or purchasing the copyright somehow, then it is OK and you just need to make a note of that, ideally with some proof, on the image page.

I don't know about the reference issue, you will need to be more specific. Please go to the history of the page in question, click the radio button right next to the edit where it was removed, and then the button immediately below and to the left of that, then click show changes. Then please give me the URL (web address) of the page that this takes you to. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified deletion of the derogatory term "Chinese Pig"

I shall appreciate if you could assist in the unjustified administrator deletion of the racist term "Chinese Pig". The article provides valuable information on a the slur. It is particularly useful for Chinese students who are racially abused and needs information about the term.

The administrator claims that the term needs to be extensively referenced, but the fact is that the term is already sufficiently referenced by credible sources. Other similar articles like "Nigger" and "Coolie" are in Wikipedia.

Please be kind to help me revert the carefully written article. The assistance rendered would be appreciated.

(Sorry about the standard of my English because it is my second language and I am from Hong Kong.)

Henry Chung. My Email is: chungkwoksum@gmail.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chinese_Pig --Chungkwok 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Henry, thanks for your message.

Chinese Pig was deleted at Articles for deletion because nobody voted to keep it except for you, whereas 4 people said it should be deleted. This is a sufficient consensus to delete an article.

If you feel the closing administrator made a mistake of some sort, please feel free to make a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

I personally probably would not have deleted the article, but cleaned it up and kept it, however it is no longer an open discussion. Stifle (talk) (汤母思) 09:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning P-1000

I am vexed to learn that my article on the P-1000 was deleted per CSD:G4. I was unaware of the existence of any prior article by that name, and any similarity between the two editions is most likely due to there being a very limited amount of sources of information on the vehicle (all of which I quoted as references).

I am unconvinced by the arguments presented in the original AFD for the first edition and request that if they are to be taken as law, then the similarly poorly-referenced P-1500 be deleted with extreme prejudice. --Agamemnon2 05:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that. It seems to be that the consensus is that both are equally dubious and should be expunged. --Agamemnon2 05:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You killed him u bastard

You shall burn i hell u destroyed the Unquestioned Goat. He will get u in your dreams Thank you Ghersher association !!! Δ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark606800 (talk • contribs) .

Um... what? Stifle (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

An image or media file that you uploaded, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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) 10:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You provide no reason as to why you are deleting my shit. So, Why? Dfrg.msc 07:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true for:

   * Image:WP MTG FInal!.jpg  (talk | delete)

   Uploaded by Dfrg.msc (notify). UE- Stifle (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

   * Image:NPOV 2.jpg (talk | delete)

   Uploaded by Dfrg.msc (notify). UE- Stifle (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

   * Image:Brass Monkey.jpg (talk | delete)

   Uploaded by Dfrg.msc (notify). UE- Stifle (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

   * Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg (talk | delete)

   Uploaded by Dfrg.msc (notify). UE- Stifle (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dfrg.msc 07:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it is not "your" stuff. Please see WP:OWN.

Secondly, I have provided a reason. If you look at the top of WP:IFD, you will see:

Some people use the following abbreviations:

...

UE (unencyclopedic) - The image doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia.

In other words, I have nominated the images for deletion on the grounds that they do not seem likely to be useful in an encyclopedia. If you think otherwise, please make your case by editing the section where they are listed and adding ** followed by your reason for keeping them and ending with ~~~~. Please in particular explain how they will be used in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Oliver Knox

I was worried this might happen. Oliver Knox has nothing to do with the current article called Chronicles of America, and should not redirect there, or exist at all. Oliver Knox is a character in a nn fantasy by Stephen Ward called Chronicles of America. He (OK) originally had a short article to himself, which was changed to a redirect to the fantasy. I nominated Chronicles of America at AfD. During the AfD process, the article Chronicles of America was changed to describe a 1920s series of history books. At the conclusion of the AfD, all mention of the fantasy was removed (have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronicles of America). So, we now have the situation where a character in a nn fictional book has a page which redirects to an article about history books. It is that which I was trying to rectify through the CSD process. Mr Stephen 15:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you need to nominate the redirect for deletion through WP:RFD. Redirects can only be speedily deleted if:

The target is nonexistent
The redirect is from article space to main space
The redirect is from a typo that is very unlikely

I agree that the redirect should probably be deleted, just not through speedy deletion. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message about speedy deletion

sorry fro making the article Peter McGuinness what can I write about Irish Railfan 09:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of possibilities at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Don't forget to sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of them. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]