User talk:Stifle/Archive 0609c

Cricinfo and CricketArchive

Replied YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OWH FAC

We have replied to your concerns regarding citation consistency here. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks, María (habla conmigo) 14:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied over there. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Traub

How do you figure that as "no consensus"? 6 Deletes (including nom), 1 clean keep, 1 keep (by an activist involved in the case, soapboxing even in the AFD), and 1 double vote keep/delete by the person who created the page, as an admitted content fork. This is "no consensus"? Disembrangler (talk) 21:59, 18 June 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?

AFD isn't a vote, and the keep side raised several reasonable references and arguments. Even if it was, one of the deletes is an IP, another is weak (counting as half); that leaves 4½ deletes and 3 keeps. There is nothing stopping you from merging this if you want. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I know it isn't a vote, but the arguments seemed clearly on the delete side (notably that it was a deliberate content fork and no coverage specifically on the subject). I did try to follow your wizard, I ended up here User talk:Stifle/wizard/AFD, which didn't seem very helpful. Disembrangler (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The last line there, which says "I consider all my AFD closures carefully before coming to a decision, and as such, if you are not happy with a decision, please make a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review", would have addressed your issue, I think. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so I went to DRV, and saw this: "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look.". I guess you're trying to exempt yourself from that guidance, fine; but maybe you should be (even) more explicit about it. Disembrangler (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo-Me International

Thank you for your note on the above on my talk page. I am interested that you feel I should take more care in my reverts. I reverted a user (who may well have a vested interest looking at the user name) who had made changes with no explanation to longstanding info on the page. The page that now exists is an emasculated version of what existed previously all of which was sourced unless I am missing something? For example the Reuters external link now refers to nothing, the Dec 2007 profits link is broken and I will now correct it. Regards.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 08:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that the edits weren't very good, but the revert did re-add some unsourced negative information, which led to an OTRS complaint. Thanks for the reply. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply, what I am trying to understand is what was unsourced and negative?Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 08:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Referring to this diff, the statement about the London Underground contract, which was sourced only to a blog, the reference to internal conflict, and (to an extent) the section about Serge Crasnianski were all, to some degree, unsourced and negative. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am now appealing for your assistance. I had updated the article with properly sourced material as I always endeavour to do. It has now immediately been removed with no explanation by this same editor. I am concerned that this is Photo-Me themselves just trying to ensure that the article is as they wish it to be and not reflecting the real situation. I would value your opinion and will not revert anything until I hear from you. ThanksPaste _{Let’s have a chat.} 10:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted and COI warning left. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 10:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe

Thanks for fixing that move. You forgot to move the talk page though... Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this is fixed now. Stifle (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#astore.amazon.com/onthemargins-20/detail/0029347807

Hello, Stifle. On the above, I'd welcome any additional thoughts there per my comment of several days ago. If you're on vacation, well — enjoy. Thank you for your consideration in any case. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied over there. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Help or stand aside

If you'd like to help, that would be great. Otherwise, I have no use for hectoring comments. Jehochman ^Talk 12:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Knock knock

Greetings, Stifle. Are you available to help an OTRS newbie? If so, drop me a line on my user talk page at the OTRS wiki. Thanks! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, replied over there. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Abdomenizer

I remember the TV adverts,[1] it was quite a late eighties/nineties phenomenon, it even made it into the Onion.[2] You might be amused by this tale:[3]. Here's someone sledding with one:[4]. I found a brief mention in the LA Times:[5], it gets mentioned in passing a lot:[6]. Not sure I can rescue it though! Fences&Windows 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do if you can. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Alex Goddard

Hmm, an OTRS ticket can get an entirely unreferenced article about a living person restored now, in flagrant breach of Wikipedia policy. Fine, will list at AfD. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can contest a PROD. Due to the confidentiality of OTRS I can't provide any further details, but you will have to trust me (or your choice of other OTRS user) that Ticket:2009062310024207 justifies the matter. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My problem is not with the PROD being contested, it is with your restoration of an unsourced biography of a living person, despite WP:V and WP:BLP. No matter what the OTRS request was, it surely cannot justify blatant policy breaches. As a result, the article has to go to AfD for a deletion discussion, where the subject will no doubt be discussed in less than glowing terms like "non-notable" How this can be considered appropriate is a mystery to me. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The details of the OTRS ticket actually do make a difference. I'm afraid I can't elaborate further, but please feel free to ask another OTRS user to verify this. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Dukeries College‎

I see you declined this move delete. Could you expand on why on it's talk page? The need for the move is described there.--RadioFan (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see the talk page comment. It's deleted now. For future use, try {{db-move|page to be moved here|reason for move}}. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

veritee

Hi, I just made research about Migros and yes seems the product is available at Migros: have a look here on the online sales platform at Migros http://www.leshop.ch , also i know that the product is available at Manor the leading food store in switzerland and also one can find this at Sun Store the largest drug / pharma store in Switzerland... I have seen it in London at Harrods! --Netquantum (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

hi thks for the good comments, i have not opposed the article revision (though i belive that ist much inferior) and would like to know if we can work together and devellop an article that makes sense! at this point it would be appropriate and remove the delete notice and start from there ! my understanding is that you are qualified for this !!!

--Netquantum (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stifle. You have new messages at Ilamb94's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For other issues please press 5 now...

You have a very advanced directory system for leaving comments. Makes me feel silly for just wanting to stop by to give you a hard time for your "does Migros carry it" notability criteria. Have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Migros question was a tiebreaker. I thought the product was borderline notable, so that was going to be the final decider. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Micronation Atlantium

In Atlantium there are 22 non-free images with fair use rationales and 3 postage stamp images with no rationale. I can easily tag the stamps as missing a rational but what to do with the large number of other images? Seems to me that even if all had rationales they fail WP:NFCC#3. Should we nominate them all or notify the uploader there is a problem that needs fixing. Wirtland just provided OTRS with confirmation that their images are PD and I know that editor Witizen is in touch with the Atlantium folks and they might do the same. ww2censor (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If they were all uploaded by the same person, then perhaps discuss it with that person first and explain the NFCC#3a rules. If that doesn't work, nominate the superfluous ones for FFD.

Bear in mind that the owner of an image who uploads it here must use a free license and cannot upload it as fair use.

I would be inclined to nominate the article for AFD, but it's been there four times before and so it's unlikely to get anywhere. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Afd

Just a few points:

(1) Apologies, I missed your June 18 admonition to remove from the original deletion log when relisting.

(2) Re "[n]ot relist[ing] AFDs that you started or commented in," I wasn't sure whether doing so was appropriate or not. So I asked an uninvolved admin before relisting it. [7] He said it was fine. [8]

(3) Re "[o]nly relist[ing] for a second time when there's been pretty much no contribution to the discussion, I felt that condition obtained on both occaisions that I relisted it. We want to see (and WP:RELIST emphasizes the point) arguments that are based on or supported by policy without transgressing WP:GAME, but nothing has been advanced in favor of keeping the article except thinly-disguised WP:ILIKEIT and undisguised WP:ILIKEIT. The recent contributions by JezHotwells, apparently arguing that the mentions of Bristol Indymedia at [9], [10], and [11] support notability, have to be seen to be believed. That kind of stonewalling (explicitly forbidden by WP:GAME) by the article's partisans has once again kept the article on life support.

We are told that "while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." (WP:AFD). That is difficult to believe when the deletion of even the most patently non-notable article can be thwarted by the kind of spurious, gossamer nonsense advanced against this nomination.

Still, as you point out, WP:RELIST suggests that "[i]f further discussion is unlikely to bring consensus, then the discussion should simply be closed." I doubt that having gone thusfar, the article's defenders are going to start thinking like Wikipedians rather than Indymedians, and for reasons that are unclear, it does not appear that more reasonable voices have been willing to weigh in. I must therefore accept the closing as well-taken. I suppose an attempt to merge Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia is next, and when that is thwarted by the article's fans, we'll try AfD again in a few months.

None of the above, to be clear, is to express any frustration with you; indeed, since you have a user box proclaiming yourself a deletionist, I suspect you may well sympathize with my position. ("Deletionism is a philosophy ... that favors clear and relatively rigorous standards for accepting articles, templates or other pages to the encyclopedia" Amen! [12]). But I am very frustrated with Wikipedia, which has once again demonstrated that its rules, standards, and processes are dysfunctional. In my view, this article's continued existence is emblematic of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. It should not be so difficult, should not require such sustained effort, to pull bad apples out of the barrel.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; I agree that the article is very unlikely to be appropriate, but Wikipedia content is decided by consensus rather than peer review, and one must work within those constraints. I entirely sympathize with you on the matter. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Developing an article draft

Hi, Stifle. I need your advice. Tell me: Is it wrong to use a User Sandbox to develop a draft for an article? Fleet Command (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Typically yes, but if it's spam or a copyvio, it may get speedy-deleted, and if it's left alone for a while, it can get MFDed. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Indymedia (2nd nomination)

Heya Stifle, I think this should probably have been "keep" (given that "merge" is a keep outcome and the only "delete" was the nominator).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The arguments were on the weak side in my opinion. In any case, the results are functionally identical. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish they were... it's custom and practice that a "no consensus" can be renominated almost immediately. But it's certainly not a big enough deal to argue with you about.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Whoops, which one did I subst? I usually don't. And you sure make it hard to contact you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

heh, just click the Breadcrumb at the wizard and you'll get to the talk page. –xeno^talk 22:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You substed the db-copyvio on Father Casey's. Stifle (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Stifle.27s_Talk_page

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Stifle.27s_Talk_page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Father Casey's

Why did you feel that Father Casey's needs to go through several days of copyright meandering, rather than a speedy deletion? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Because we got an OTRS ticket about it, which I inadvertently failed to mention. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly lost here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering

Was that comment aimed at me? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I should have added more smileys to the end (I was trying to say it in a frustrated-but-amicable-and-I-was-going-to-support-anyway tone). Please accept my apologies if you were offended, and feel free to redact it or change to a support and cite this diff as my permission to. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind, I just noticed it and was wondering. I know I get my share of flak anyhow :) Cheers, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		This for your excellent userspace design. Several times I've needed to contact you and your wizard took care of it perfectly. ThemFromSpace 02:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Stifle (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Youth United

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Youth United. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Maihunggogoi (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DRV

Well handled, thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you too. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Kampania Przeciw Homofobii image deletion

Hi, I was away from wikipedia for several months. Now I noticed a picture I uploaded to the article Kampania Przeciw Homofobii was deleted by you in Januray - as it was suspected to be unfree. I am a member of the organisation, of which this article talks about. We own this imege, it was shot on our photo-session, and we have rights to use it in any way we see fit. Could you advise me in which category should I put the photo, so it doesn't et deleted again? Thank you. Boyau (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than immediately jumping to the "some other reason" option, please try to choose the correct and relevant option next time, as it tends to help resolve your issue faster.

File:Kampania Przeciw Homofobii Ad sesssion.jpg was deleted because there was no proof that the copyright owner, Rarapi Agency/Kampania Przeciw Homofobii, chose to release this image. To verify this, the copyright holder or its agent should send the email indicated at WP:CONSENT to permissions-en@wikimedia.org quoting the specific file name. If this is verified, the image may be undeleted. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Boyau (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Licensing

Hi! Welcome. You're back. :) Which is good timing, because I wanted to contact you about a note you left at Talk:Camp Living Water. As I understand it, if the copyright holder is also the Wikipedia contributor, text must be co-licensed under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. Only if the imported text is co-authored or authored by somebody else is CC-BY-SA sufficient. So I interpret the terms: "Therefore, for any text you hold the copyright to, by submitting it, you agree to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 (Unported). For compatibility reasons, you are also required to license it under the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).... If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. You do not need to ensure or guarantee that the imported text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License." Do you read that differently?

I've got a query about the matter at the Cafe, but in the usual "slow as molasses" way of things, I haven't got a response yet. That was the interpretation of the terms put forth at village pump when we were updating various policy pages, anyway. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think those terms need to be changed, because if the history of the article contains non-GFDLed material, then authors can't license text their edits under the GFDL. I agree with your reading, but it's functionally invalid. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, a person can always license their original content that way. Whatever portions of the article and their edits do not directly incorporate CC-BY-SA-only content would remain GFDL eligible. It's a question of exactly how fine grained one wants to get about these things, and the Terms were basically written to allow maximum potential reuse. In particular, if an article contains only one section that has CC-BY-SA-only text, then one should be able to remove that section and get an GFDL document even if those other sections were edited after the CC-BY-SA-only content was initially added. Dragons flight (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's questionable, since CC-BY-SA requires any work that incorporates CC-BY-SA content to be rereleased only under CC-BY-SA. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't prohibit it (or portions of it) from also being released under the GFDL, which is the point here. Dragons flight (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's correct. The CC-BY-SA license exempts "collections" from ShareAlike, where a collection includes "one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole". This permits, for example, a copyrighted or GFDLed image to be displayed alongside CC-BY-SA text, or a CC-BY-SA story to be included in an otherwise copyrighted anthology. Sections of an article are unlikely to constitute separate and independent works. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not the text of CC-BY-SA that is relevant but rather than nature of copyright licensing. As a copyright holder, you can license a work under multiple, mutually incompatible licenses. That is your right. As a wiki contributor, you are expected to license all original content CC-BY-SA / GFDL. (And in particular, you can offer that dual licensing even if your original content is being being added to a CC-BY-SA-only work.) The resulting work comprised of your original content + previously published content would then be either CC-BY-SA-only or CC-BY-SA / GFDL depending on the licensing on the prior content. However, if you remove the previously published CC-BY-SA-only bits (and any work immediately derived from it), then all original content by Wikipedians would still have been dual licensed and the resulting work can again be regarded as dual licensed. Dragons flight (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess we're not going to agree on this. I'll defer to Mike Godwin or whatever WMF-type comes up with a ruling on it. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Hsu Deletion

Where is the AFD, and which article is it for, as neither Andrew Hsu nor Andrew D Hsu exist atm. GedUK  19:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, meant DRV. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right. Ta. GedUK  12:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Maria Sharapova career history article

Surprised that you deleted this article given the stated opposition (i.e., keep or merge). In any event, because the article you deleted has important information that needs to be merged, please restore it as a redirect, as you offered to do here. Chidel (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Eutelsat satellite fleet 2008.jpg may be deleted & File:Tooway satellite modem.jpg may be deleted

Hello,

Please consider the e-mails sent from [email removed for privacy] to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on the 25th of May and the 30th of June 2009 for the authorization of the following files:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eutelsat_satellite_fleet_2008.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tooway_satellite_modem.jpg

Thank you for considering the authorization requests and not removing these files from Commons.

Regards,

Alexandre Brunelle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axlsite (talk • contribs) 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is done. Next time, please make sure you mention the ticket number (in the subject of the email reply you receive) to help me to find the emails. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)