User talk:Stifle/Archive 0209a

Susanne Schröter

Dear Stifle, sorry for contacting you with a "Newbie-Question"..(I just started with Wikipedia-editing for my Prof yesterday) I just realized in the page history of "Susanne Schröter", which I created, that you were "(removing PD template from non-image)". I am not sure (more precisely, I have no idea..) what this means, and whether I need to give a new declaration in any form that the picture is self-produced, private and not violating any intellectual property rights/copyrights, or whether "(removing PD template from non-image)" simply means that my delcaration has been accepted... *confused* Again, sorry, and thank you for your time and patience! Best, Dominik (DominikMMueller) (dominikmueller at em dot uni-frankfurt dot de) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.79.4 (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The template {{PD-self}} is only for use on images. I removed it from the article. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Silent Prey.jpg

Hi, Stifle. You wrote the following on my talk page:

Thank you for uploading Image:Silent Prey.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy.

Since that image had one of those templates at the time you wrote that, giving great detail as to why the rationale was met, I have no clue what you're on about. Please don't use boilerplate that doesn't say what you mean. I gather you want the image deleted; if so, please say why. I'd also appreciate, as a personal favor, if you not rush, since I haven't been not very active for almost a year now, and it might take me some time to hold up my end of the discussion, though I will do my best. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The rationale you added to that page did not include a purpose of use, which is a requirement. (This is the version I tagged. Another user has subsequently added the purpose correctly, so there is nothing else for you to do. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I did that. Sure wish they could make a bot that would fix these descriptions for perfectly good images, instead of tagging them for deletion. Because many perfectly good images get deleted that way... And good to see you, Mouse. Dekkappai (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm. The template added 11:18, November 14, 2008 by Sfan00 IMG didn't have a purpose of use field. However the rationale I added at the time I uploaded the image distinctly said "The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article section dealing with this video", which seems to be a fine purpose of use. So it seems that by adding the template Sfan actually made the image more likely to be deleted by someone, such as yourself, not less. Surely there is something wrong here. Oh well, thanks to Dekkappai, it's not an issue any more. Thanks, Dek. Good to see you too. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board

• National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. :) Did you get the GFDL release you were waiting for on this article? (Ticket:2009012510013359) It isn't logged that you did at the article, but I see that the creator had removed the copyvio text and edited it. I don't see a GFDL release at the website. I've blanked again pending your reply. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No reply on the ticket. If it's come due for deletion, I'd recommend deleting on the understanding that it can be restored if/when a proper release is sent in; might be worth mentioning the ticket# in the deletion log. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you object to including provisions that allow for a single non-free image as a last resort if no free images exist? I think this will help bring some of those who object to the support side of the house. At the same time, it also gives a little more ammunition because it indicates it is a last resort; if a free image exists, then those images can't be used. My efforts show that almost all college football teams (which seems to be the general genre of those who oppose), if not all, have a valid free image available. In the interests of not cluttering up the talk page any further, please just respond here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Snow (codec)

Hello. I was wondering how you came to a conclusion of "no concensus" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow (codec)? It seems all the "keep" opinions were that the editors thought it ought to be kept without any grounds in policy. -- Whpq (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's a reasonable point. I'm going to reopen it for someone else to close. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing your decision. -- Whpq (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted page Guy Thomas

Please can you leave me a copy of the text for the deleted page "Guy Thomas" this was very much under construction, specifically with links and associateions to the British underground music scene.

Regards

Super Lenton

Super lenton (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll transfer it to User:Super lenton/Guy Thomas. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just on the matter of your message and edit summary at the deleted page, you did leave the page abandoned for five days before it was deleted. I don't think it's fair to refer to me as a "hopeless administrator". Stifle (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Speedy Deletion of Thrive (website) stub article

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

• The page title is Thrive (website).
• I have read the reason for deleting the page and I feel it was incorrect because the issue had been addressed and contested before the deletion occurred (see the history and Talk pages for the article), and the article was still a work in progress with more assertions of importance to come. In addition to the sources cited by the deleted article in question and those that will be added later (restoration permitting),
• The following sources back up my claim:
  1. CNet: Thrive gives automated financial advice - points out that Thrive gives personalized, actionable financial advice, which is uncommon.
  2. Netbanker: Finovate 2008 Thrive - highlights Thrive's unique Financial Health Score, which serves as a numerical indicator of one's overall financial situation, and the ability to track one's credit score, another first for PFMs.

Please consider restoring this article. Larrypaulb (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. This page has been restored and a community discussion opened to determine whether or not the page is suitable for Wikipedia. You can find that discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrive (website). Stifle (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I followed all the guidelines, why was my article deleted?

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

• The page title is Gary Spatz.
• I have read the reason for deleting the page and I feel it was incorrect because I added more substantial resources and revised the article with a neutral point of view.
• The following sources back up my claim:
• E! Entertainment Television "Young Hollywood: A-Zac"; Original Air Date:December 19, 2008.
• VH1 Episode: "VH1's 100 Greatest Kid Stars"; Original Air Date: June 13, 2005; http://www.vh1.com/shows/dyn/the_greatest/92319/episode_about.jhtml
  
• A&E's Biography: "The New Mickey Mouse Club"; http://www.biography.com/biography/bio_episode_guide.jsp?episode=279246
  
• A&E's Biography: "Justin Timberlake"; http://www.biography.com/biography/bio_episode_guide.jsp?episode=279320
  
• TV Guide Episode: "Spotlight on Dylan and Cole Sprouse"; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2omXDXjneEc
• TV Guide Episode: "Spotlight on Britney Spears"
• Extra (TV series) 2007 Episode: "Acting Coach For Young Hollywood Stars"; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOZ4mXupURY
  
• Cooper, Mary Ann. "Calling All Kids: Light, Camera, Action!" Grand Magazine, November/December Issue 2007; http://www.grandmagazine.com/
  
• Dumas, Alan. "So Your Child Wants to be a Star?" Rocky Mountain News, October 28, 1984
  
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2omXDXjneEc
• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0768709
• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0182299
• http://actorsite.com/indexold.html
• http://www.youngactorsspace.com
• http://www.aada.org/

Contact References

• Irene Dreayer – Executive Producer, “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody”
• Bonnie Liedtke – VP, Head of Youth Division, William Morris Agency
• Joe Johnston – Film Director, “October Sky”, “Jurassic Park 3”
• Judy Savage – Judy Savage Agency
• Jay Daniel – Executive Producer, “Cybill”, “The Naked Truth”
• Danny Jacobson – Executive Producer, “Mad About You”
• Danny Kallis – Executive Producer, “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody”
• Gayle Mancuso – TV Director, “Friends”, “Dharma and Greg”
• Howard Gould – Executive Producer, “The Jeff Foxworthy Show”
• Cindy Osbrink – Owner, Osbrink Talent Agency
• Bob Meyer – Executive Producer, “Roseanne”, “Cybill”
• Patty Gary Cox – Producer, “Cory in the House”
• Dava Savel – Executive Producer, “Ellen”, “That’s So Raven”
• Phil Rosenthal – Executive Producer, “Everybody Loves Raymond”

Please consider restoring this article. If there is anything I need to delete, I will.

Spectrum7 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Spectrum7

This page was deleted after a consensus of the community, reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Spatz. The arguments there were considered, but were not considered to be sufficient. If you feel that the deletion process was not correctly followed, please file a deletion review. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ziya Movahed

Just a friendly heads up on Ziya Movahed. I declined the speedy because between being a professor and claims of criticism of poetry, I can see a GF claim of importance here. However, notability isn't screamingly obvious because of the lack of English language sources. If you want to take it to AfD, be my guest. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fight songs

Hi, I came across an article which was a one liner about a college fight song plus lyrics, which lead me to the category full of college fight songs, which lead me to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs, which you closed last February. I started merging and redirecting the existing articles per that closure, but have been mass reverted has not having discussed the changes (I linked to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs in my summaries).

A) Could you have a look at my recent contrib history to see if you would agree that my edits were proper per the centralized discussion and Wikipedia policy?

B) If this issue is to be reopened, should it continue on the above centralized discussion, or does it get a "part 2"?

Thanks, NJGW (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that there was no consensus that every single fight song should have an article, but neither was there any that every single one should be merged. The WP:BRD system should work well enough here, but if not, try opening a discussion on the article talk page.

If, other than infoboxes and lyrics, there is just a line or two about the song in its article, it is definitely a merge/redirect.

I would also encourage removing the lyrics from all articles, as there is a definite consensus to do that. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There are now 3 editors actively disputing the Centralized discussion (if Cards4life is still disputing). Two are demanding that every redirect have a merger discussion. Note, in some cases the removal of lyrics is even being questioned. Does this call for another centralized discussion, or should I go to some noticeboard?

I guess if people threw tantrums when dates were unlinked, I should have seen this coming. NJGW (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus for the removal of lyrics, so I would stand my ground on that one. I don't know if another centralized discussion will generate anything other than a talk shop, but if you want to start one, archive the existing one and restart it. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Now it seems people are being adamant about even the lyrics, and that one-line articles need a merger discussion, and even that it is required to disprove notability rather than visa-versa. One even reverted you saying "article author here...". While I feel confidant that current guidelines and policy have this covered, it seems to me that the best centralized way achieve this without rehashing the same exact conversations 100 times is to create a guideline (it might take just as long as dealing with the 'owners' of each individual article on a case-by-case basis). In your experience, do you think this is a productive route? Or is there a (better) way to create a centralized RFC to support the consensus already created by the centralized discussion? NJGW (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a loss, to be honest. The previous discussion suggested that a guideline wouldn't be necessary, but it's probably a good idea to go for one. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Sporting groups/Fight songs, perhaps. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, before that, let's see about WP:AN. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks like I helped make that AN thread way too long for most people to read. CrazyPaco and I worked out a table that lists both sides' main points, but no one is commenting on it, and now that we're on a similar page I think we might be on the wrong board anyway. I want to copy the table somewhere else for comment and consensus, but I'm not sure where the most appropriate place would be... what do you think? NJGW (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know. In fact, I'd rather stay well clear of this debate. Sorry I can't be any more help. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Mr._Krabs.jpg

I'm curious as to your standard of evidence. The image is clearly a screenshot from a Spongebob Squarepants, and "Mr Krabs" is the name of a character in Spongebob Squarepants. What do I need to say to persuade you that the image is speediable as a copyright violation?—Kww(talk) 12:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with children's cartoons, and not having seen your edit summary there was no way for me to connect it with Spongebob Squarepants. Deleted now. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"List of DVDs Protected by ARccoS"

The page "List of DVDs Protected by ARccoS" shows aas being deleted by you on April 28, 2008 due to (R1: Redirect to a nonexistent or deleted page)

What was the page that was deleted or nonexistent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.125.252.181 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

While I notice that you used my message wizard, you chose the option for "other message" when there was a clear category ("deleted page") that you could have used. Please try to choose the correct category in future.

This page was a redirect to List of DVDs protected by ARccoS, which was deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DVDs protected by ARccoS. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

ExperVision DRV

There have been several changes to the draft article, including the addition of several references, I was wondering if you would mind re-examining your position in light of these changes. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I still endorse my deletion but of course have no objection to a new article being created. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Mafaism7a-web.jpg

Belated reply. (My apologies for my tardiness, and my thanks for your help.) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystical expressionism

A few hours before you deleted the page, someone moved it, so that all you deleted was the redirect. I don't know what standard procedure is in these cases, but I assume that the page should still be deleted considering that the consensus was there (and nothing has changed since the move).

If this is not acceptable, then please tell me so I can renominate the article, as I still don't believe it's notable. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 00:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted it. Thanks for the message. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who moved it. I thought there was a good reason but, looking back at it again, I think I must have left my brain somewhere else because the move makes no sense, especially since there was an ongoing AFD. My profuse apologies. In the future, I will try harder to make sure my brain is with me when I am editing Wikipedia. --Richard (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Article's Notability

Hi Stifle, please check this article: Sexiest Woman Alive, the article do not meet notability for Wikipedia inclusion. The award is non-notable web content based on WP:WEB and has few Google News hits. It only exists in one website, aside from the fact that it's another version of the annual Esquire Magazine award e.g. [here] and [here]. Global Beauties selection is based on a poll, participated by the visitors of the website, chosen from beauty pageant contestants while the Esquire selection is chosen by the editors from among Hollywood actresses. What do you think? If you think the same thing, please nominate the article for deletion.--Ped Admi (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated it, but you could have done so if you preferred. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for quick action on the article i nominated for deletion. its appreciated. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 21:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Northern Cyprus media

Ah, I tagged the talk pages he'd created, even if they were attached to an existing template, hence, for example Category talk:Northern Cyprus media - apologies if that was the wrong thing to do, but as they were new pages he'd created I thought it best to get them all. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OK; you can just blank any irrelevant parts of that page. It looks like Cheapfriends has been indefblocked anyhow. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was just concerned about removing someone elses words on a talk page, even if they are a vandal. Looks like I have a new one already in User:IntensityOfTheLight. Thanks. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

adoption

Hi, I know you're not in the program, but I was wondering if you'd be willing to adopt me. -Zeus- [t|c] 22:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I wouldn't be able to give enough time to you for that. Stifle (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion/Redirect of Fischerfaces

I do not think Fischerface should have been deleted and redirected to Facial recognition system. It appears that the page was a copyvio and then was redirected entirely due to arguments that is too specialized and belongs in a specialist journal and not a general encyclopedia. The sole argument appears to be this:

"Delete. Topic belongs in a specialist journal, not a general encyclopedia. Previous information has already been removed as a copyvio; pointless to replace it when generic information on facial recognition software will suffice. Stretch 06:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)"

I disagree with the first point, as Eigenface is a wonderfully written and detailed exposition of the Eigenface method of facial recognition, which is what Fischerface could become if allowed. There may not have been much available on the topic in 2006, but now there's plenty of content about Fischerface at places like this [1]. The argument that the page should be deleted as previous information was copyvio is nonsense - delete the violating text, not the article. Finally, I do not agree that general information on facial recognition software will suffice. I want to read an intro to the algorithm so I can see why its "competitive" (according to the Facial recognition system page) to Eigenface,etc. Please consider reopening this article/deleting it or whatever is necessary so it shows up on the non-existent articles list and people can start working on it (like me). Meowist (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any record of Fischerface or Fischerfaces ever existing. Can you please tell me the exact name of the page, or the username of the user who created it? Stifle (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you delete the page

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

• The page title is AMIN Worldwide.
• I have read the reason for deleting the page and I feel it was incorrect because I re-wrote it, looking at other trade association descriptions and removed any blatant advertising - I'm a newbie, but I've spent so much time trying to list this association and it keeps getting deleted. Is there some advice, practice steps (beside the sandbox) I can follow?
• The following sources back up my claim:
  1. SOURCE 1
  2. SOURCE 2

Please consider restoring this article. Adgal (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was never any page with that name. Please give the correct name, and also please provide citations to reliable sources as required by the verifiability policy. See also Wikipedia:Your first article. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted image of The Wave

I'm not being funny or anything, i provided sources, details, descriptions and tags on the wave hq pic & YOU WRONGLY DELETED IT.Jonny7003 (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, rather than jumping to the "other reason" selection in my message wizard, please try to choose a topic that is relevant to your message.

File:Thewavetowers.jpg was deleted because you said that it was a fair use image, and fair use images of buildings which are still standing are not permitted on Wikipedia. Slapping random terms such as "public domain", "fair use", "acceptable", and "legal" on the image doesn't make it acceptable.

Can you please explain where you got the image? Stifle (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if i was a bit harsh on the comment. I took the photo and it's on The Wave website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny7003 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. What you need to do is get someone with an email address ending in @thewave.co.uk to send in a notice to permissions-en@wikimedia.org saying "We own the copyright to the image File:Thewavetowers.jpg and release it to the public domain". (Or under any of the licenses at WP:ICT/FL.) Thanks for your help. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Link - http://www.thewave.co.uk/gallery.php?gallery=192