Jump to content

User talk:Stifle/Archive 1008d

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hi Stifle. I had raised the issue that Image:Bilicflickrphoto.jpg was a possible copyright violation at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 October 15 (Flickr page: [1]). From the ensuing discussion, it is clear that the uploader had the misconception that all images on Flickr are free, and had not asked for permission from Sergio Quiros, the owner of the picture in question. As the copyright violation is obvious, should I replace the PUI templates I had placed on the image page with {{subst:db-copyvio|url=source URL}} (or just add it to the page) for speedy deletion, or just leave things as is? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've speedied it as a copyvio. You may find {{di-no permission}} useful in this kind of situation in the future. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Riccobene1.jpg

Why did you delete this image without even notifying me beforehand? You cited your reason for deleting as "Invalid justification given for non-free image". The fair use rationale was appropriate. Also, i've checked NFCC 10c, and the image did not fail this point. Joyson Noel (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
The image was tagged by User:FairuseBot who should have notified you. Please contact Carnildo if you have a problem with FairuseBot.
The image did indeed fail NFCC10c as the rationale did not include the name of the article on which fair use is claimed for the image. It also did not include all of the necessary components specified at WP:RAT, specifically:
  1. What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage?
  2. Has the resolution been reduced from the original?
  3. What purpose does the image serve in the article?
  4. To what degree is the image replaceable by a free image?
I am going to undelete the image to give you a chance to add the necessary rationale, but it may be deleted again if you don't add the rationale or if it is determined to be insufficient. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Marliesposter.jpg

I'm confused as to why you rejected my fair use claim. The girl is missing and presumed dead by the police. Although technically she is still a "living person", this problem seems sufficient to permit fair use of the image. The article in which the picture is used makes specific reference to the poster, as well. Or is this just a problem with me filling out forms incorrectly?—Kww(talk) 11:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a reasonable fair use image, but you need to add an appropriate image tag as well. {{non-free fair use in|Marlies van der Kouwe}} will probably do it, but WP:TAGS/FU has a full list. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'll take care of it. BTW, I won't contest the prod. When I saw someone had created it, I just decided that I was better off taking care of the article than letting it turn into another Holloway mess. This happened only 300 meters from my house, so it's obviously interesting to me.—Kww(talk) 12:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation

I left another translation in your queue. I also messaged Sean an Scuab and Guliolopez so I doubt it would be a task you'd have to take on alone. Mike H. Fierce! 13:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted image

I had thought Image:RickettsCrest.jpg was tagged? The original author has not been active on WP for three years & I don't know if you are using the two-year old warning on his talk page as sufficient notice. In the future, can you please notify pages that use images you plan to delete (such as Talk:House System at the California Institute of Technology? Thanks. --Karnesky (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
I did not tag this image for deletion; FairuseBot did. It should have left a message to the uploader and placed {{deletable image-caption}} in the image's caption. Please contact Carnildo if you have a problem with FairuseBot.
While Image:RickettsCrest.jpg had an image copyright tag, it lacked a rationale explaining how that particular use of the image was valid and compliant with WP:NFCC. All non-free images on Wikipedia must have a non-free use rationale. If you like, I can undelete the image so that you can add a rationale. See WP:NFURG for guidelines on rationales. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Industry_Software_Reliability_Association

I wish to challenge the deletion of a page that you deleted.

MISRA is a not for profit organization that aims to improve the safety of software used within the automotive and other industrial sectors. We understand that Wikipedia entries are supposed to be informational - if that wasn't the case, I am more than happy to make the necessary changes. The documents that MISRA produces are not all free. However, those that aren't are sold at minimal cost and all the funds are used to produce new or revised publications.

Please consider restoring this article. Keylevel (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Keylevel

Please provide independent references for this article, i.e. references from news or other publications. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin Cassini

Hi. Could you give me a little detail on how you concluded that the AfD discussion for Martin Cassini resulted in "keep"? I nominated the article. Since only one "keep" comment was provided by a person who did not have a vested interest in the article, it seems to me that there was not enough discussion from nuetral parties to conclude it was a keep. Shouldn't this have been closed as "no concensus"? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from users with a vested interest are not usually given less weight at AFDs. Since a "no consensus" would effectively be the same result as "keep", I'm not sure I see the point of this change. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am relatively new at this AfD process so I would offer this. Simply put, a "no concensus" would allow an immediate re-listing for more input/discussion. A determination of "keep" means that it has to go through another AfD nomination. Again, what criteria did you use to conclude a "keep"? You did not post your reason. I am curious so that if I want to continue to participate in AfD, I will have a better understanding of how this works. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid that you are somewhat mistaken in the above. Hopefully the following will explain things better for you:
  • A no consensus closure is declared when the keep and delete sides are roughly even.
  • When a discussion is closed as no consensus, the article is kept; the only difference is that the community has not so much expressed a wish that the article be kept as not expressed any wish regarding the article.
  • You might be confusing "no consensus" with a relist, which happens when so few people comment that a fair decision can't be arrived at.
  • There is no mandatory time delay before an article can be renominated for AFD, irrespective of the result, although a renomination within a couple of weeks is likely to be closed as disruptive unless a good reason is given.
Reasoning or comments are usually only attached to an AFD result when it is a close call or an unusual outcome.
I hope that helps you understand the AFD process. If not, feel free to follow up. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nata g.png

Hi, Can you please delete the Nata g.png image in Natasha Galkina article. The image is possibly unfree which is similar to already-deleted image of Renee Alway's final task. Which the image was a four personalities photo shoot during America's Next Top Model, Cycle 8. This image should be speedy'd, it was uploaded at CW website.

Source: http://www.cwtv.com/thecw/gen-gallery-antm-models/9/6

Thank you. 125.212.121.36 (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
Can't, I'm afraid; I'm only a sysop here at English Wikipedia and don't have deletion rights at Commons. You'll have to ask them over there. Just add {{copyvio}} to the image page. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This image is deleted by a Commons administratior Herbythyme. 121.96.122.229 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: OTRS request

The discussion stalled a month ago, and the copyright status is unclear (we only received a forwarded message that is not accurate enough). is still ongoing, User:Howcheng is the respondent of the ticket. I'll try to send a new email to the copyright holder. -- lucasbfr talk 14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for text

Could you send me the text of the Little Miss Attila entry you deleted?Scooge (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sent to you by email. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Danny Choo

Hi Stifle.

Before re-creating Danny Choo, I discussed the matter with my Admin coach, Revolving Bugbear. He advised:

"In summary, if your article is substantially different from the deleted version / addresses the reasons for deletion, you can simply recreate and it's not eligible for CSD-G4. That being said, it may be nominated for deletion again, which would necessitate another round." User talk:DOSGuy#back to work

Since the article is substantially different from when it was deleted, it should not have been deleted without nomination. Myself and others worked very hard to expand the article, provide proof of notability, and use proper sources. I added several sections, and demonstrated notability by making reference to Danny Choo's appearances on Attack of the Show, and a CNN report about him. I think if you'll review the edits, you'll agree that substantial changes were made. DOSGuy (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt it was quite similar; obviously we disagree on that much. I'll restore it to User:DOSGuy/Danny Choo and you can feel free to move it back to mainspace if you think it's suitable, with or without any changes that you think are justified, and I won't touch it again. Fair? Stifle (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that, but I worry that the same thing will happen again. It went through 37 revisions, went from 9 references to 16 references, I added information about his growing body of work to prove that he is an internet celebrity, and there are two new sections: "Speaking engagements" and "TV appearances". Perhaps there's no clear answer for this, but based on your understanding of the rules, how substantially does an article need to change before it would not qualify for speedy deletion? DOSGuy (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no clear definition of that one; I personally look for an improvement in references or, in the case of a bio, some other event that happened in the person's life since the article was deleted. Usually, though, an admin will restore the page if you point out the change. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought that was probably the case. The significant event that happened in Danny Choo's life that I felt justified re-inclusion was his three television appearances, which were new since the article's deletion in April. Do you think it would be worth re-creating the article, or will it get flagged for speedy deletion again? DOSGuy (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't spot that. My bad. I don't know whether another admin would re-delete the page in its current state; all I can say is that I personally won't. It's up to you. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Di-Sword article deletion

After getting my new article marked for speedy deletion less than 5 minutes after its creation, I added the contested template tag, which - according to the speedy deletion template - should mean I will get at least a few days to explain why. I also added the underconstruction template tag, which, on the "learn how to write articles" page (or something along that line), is said to signal editors not to delete your article yet, as it is still being worked on.

So I wake up this morning to fix my English, add more content, sections, references, and establish the context of the article in general... and it has already been deleted. I am very very disappointed (and even angered) at your utter disregard for the tags which I've placed on the page, and the explanation on the talk page for the article which says "I will tidy it up once I'm done writing"... which was supposed to be happening now.

I hope in the future you think twice before deleting pages, especially pages which have been tagged with tags that are meant to delay their impending deletion by a little. ショグン (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
I appreciate you may be disappointed about your article being deleted, but please remember to be civil.
The {{hangon}} tag says "The person placing this notice intends to dispute the speedy deletion of this article on this page's talk page, and requests that this page not be deleted in the meantime. Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon. This template should not be removed from a page still marked with a speedy deletion template." The {{underconstruction}} tag says "Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days." I have added italics to the important parts of those messages. Hopefully you will understand that if there was a blanket prohibition on articles bearing those tags being deleted, there could not possibly be any quality standards maintained on Wikipedia.
If you know when creating an article that you are likely not to be able to bring it to a minimum standard straight away, consider creating a subpage in your userspace and moving it to the main namespace when it is ready. I have restored Di-Sword to such a page, which you'll find at User:ショグン/Di-Sword, and you can move it back to the main namespace when it is complete. To reduce the risk of it being deleted again, make sure you add citations from reliable sources which will ensure that the article is verifiable. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Captions of CSD images

I've never before seen the speedy-deletion message substituted as a caption for an image. You've now done it at Sarah Palin and other places. Because I disagree, I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Deletion notice in photo caption?. (I suggest you comment there, with no need to duplicate your comment on my talk page.) JamesMLane t c 15:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


Deletion review for Zeitgeist: Addendum

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zeitgeist: Addendum. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Per previous discussion here Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Stifle. I remove the backlog notice from WP:CP. It seems to be pretty current to me--there are only five issues in older consolidated, and all of them have action being taken. The only day that's current review is October 12th, and it only has four listings, which is a bit of cake, really. :) Since we knocked down the 20 or so days worth of backlog in May ([2]), we've been managing to keep on top of things. Knock wood. :) Some days I even have time to work into the pending of the "new listings". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. There was a backlog template at Category:Possible copyright violations, which I was moving over.
If you run out of CP backlog, try WP:PUI :) Stifle (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Oooh. images. scary. :) I know WP:NFC is overloaded, too. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
PS. Please pretend I said WP:NFCR. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

When I read the page, I thought it's about a club or something. I'll try to find a correct category. Thanks for the note. Dekisugi (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Another OTRS for you

Unfortunately not (the conversation stalled). However IBM's PR has no problem with us using it. I'd treat this as non free and needing a FUR. -- lucasbfr talk 12:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. FYI it's going to be deleted because of NFCC8. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

MISRA C++ Deletion

Hi Stifle,

I do not know the page which was deleted (and cannot judge the arguments, thus), but certainly MISRA C++ is an important thing for software development for safety-critical applications and will have much impact on the certification practice, not only in the automotive sector. For instance, in the railway domain, MISRA C (which is much older) is viewed as an appropriate sublanguage of C. So there should be an article on MISRA C++. I would also be very interested in seeing previous versions of the article and would be grateful if you could send me some. If registered to Wikipedia just to make these comments.

Yours,

Hardi Hungar (hungar@offis.de, siegbert-2 on wikipedia) Siegbert-2 (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you chose the wrong entry in my message wizard — you should have chosen the section for Articles for deletion. MISRA C++ was deleted due to a community consensus formed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MISRA C++. I will email the article to you if you set an email address and confirm it (see Special:Preferences). Stifle (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Looks like it (Articles of job satisfaction) was a copyvio so it got deleted already, but thanks for the note. --The Firewall 13:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:US-airport

Hi, Stifle. The change you just granted to the protected template was based on a campaign that's been going on almost exclusively by single use accounts and meat puppets that have been trying to get their new/commercial web sites in the template. Touchdown Turnaround (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I figured that. Is there anything else I need to do? Stifle (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The sites that got removed are staples of the aviation community and they've been on WP for quite a while. AirNav, FlightAware, FAA, etc, should still be listed. You can read the talk page for months of drama with users trying to get additional sites added. I'm not sure why removing the existing ones is the solution they're proposing now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Touchdown Turnaround (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, reverting. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This edit causes the accessdate to be red linked (see, for example, this). Please reply to this. Thanks! -- Suntag ☼ 15:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ein Bokek article

I wish to challenge the deletion of a page that you deleted.

  • The page title is Ein Bokek.
  • I have read the reason for deleting the page and I feel it was incorrect because the article was deletes as if it is about person, company or club, while it is in fact about geographic location, small town on the shore of Dead Sea.
  • The following sources back up my claim:
  • [3]

Please consider restoring this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maksiml (talk • contribs) 18:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
Thank you. This article has now been restored. Please expand it, including citations from reliable sources, otherwise it may be nominated for deletion again. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lithuania Charts Company

You forgot to delete the other two articles that were bundled into this afd. I tagged them {{db-afd}}. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle/Archive_1008d&oldid=1139372616"