User talk:Stifle/Archive 0706b

This is an archive. Please post new messages at User talk:Stifle.

SMS.ac

You wrote "The site allows members to easily send spam SMS and email messages." That is an extremely bold claim which, if false, could subject you to legal action for libel. You may want to consider making a claim that you know 100% to be true and defensible in court. I would recommend something like "The site allows members to easily send SMS and email messages that some ciritics have characterized as 'spam'. (exact reference, exact reference, etc.)"--Jimbo Wales 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Jimbo left me a message. Stifle (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Err... anyway, yes, it was not exactly safe. How's this? Stifle (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry, but info about me

sorry, i didnt know what to do, i was told about the page, i read it, i relised it was about me, and i deleted the content —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.18.86.239 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

You should not blank pages, for the reasons I have already described. If you want a page to be deleted, see Wikipedia:Deletion process for how to proceed. Stifle (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

biography moved to my user space

Hello,

Many thanks for the help in getting me acquainted with Wikipedia!!! I did jump right in and made a few mistakes.

I did, however, intend the article on myself to be placed as a link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrologers

I am widely recognized throughout the astrological community as an authority in various areas, and I have over 30 years of noteworthy professional achievements, and am a friend and colleague of many of the other astrologers listed on this page. I think the biography that I wrote is appropriately written and professional, but correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you for moving this article to my user space as well because I need this too.

If the above is agreeable, you can leave the bio in my user space as well as a Wikipedia article.

If the article is still not acceptable, that's OK with me. I am not a person who seeks the limelight; I just feel that it is important to contribute to Wikipedia, a marvelous and impressive tool which I have used numerous times when researching a variety of topics.

DavidCochrane 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. If you can provide verifiability for your article and the claims of wide recognition, in the form of reliable sources, then go ahead and recreate it. Stifle (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Eng

Why did you think this article did not warrant speedy deletion? (see [[1]]) WP:CSD specifically states "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request.", and as explained there, "the page's only substantial content was added by its author". —Centrx→talk • 07:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Because there were two users involved in adding substantial content, being User:Janifour and User:65.92.215.153, CSD:G7 doesn't apply. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Janifour is the original author, who blanked the page[2]. User:65.92.215.153's edits[3] only move text around and put some into an infobox. He also changed a digit each of two numbers, increasing her birthdate and bust size, and added a link to an apparently pornographic website that was later deleted as it ought to have been. This user contributed no substantial content to the text. —Centrx→talk • 08:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Was it also mistakenly created? Stifle (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request.", which is what the author did. "Mistakenly created" is so that clearly legitimate encyclopedia articles are not created and then long after asked to be deleted, so that, for example a prolific user does not get angry and ask that all his contributions be deleted. This article does not approach that level and is going to be deleted anyway, and it was blanked 3 weeks after creation. This criterion was specifically created for the sort newbie-created mistake, and that is what it is used for. It does not only apply to, say, mispelling Talk:Bed/Archiive3. Note that this article also could be interpreted to qualify under A7, Unremarkable person, in that it does not assert any importance or notability in that being a hired, run-of-the-mill model on a magazine cover a couple of times is not actually notable. An extreme analogy of this would be an article that states "Bob is the lord of the universe" or "Bob is notable because he manages the Safeway in Oklahoma City". Yes this asserts some notability, but what it is asserting is not actually notable in the second case or true in the first case. —Centrx→talk • 10:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your unfair indef block

The result of User:Jason Gastrich's RfA was a 1 year block. You cannot unilaterally decide to indef block. You must go through the proper channels. Furthermore, you cannot honestly put a graphic/text on Gastrich's user page that says an indef block was the decision of "administrators, Jimbo Wales, and/or the Arbitration Committee," when in fact, the decision of the Arbitration Committee was a 1 year ban. --Martian Man4 07:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I did go through the proper channels at the time, including verifying my decision on the administrators' noticeboard, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive39#Jason_Gastrich. This is a valid way to ban someone under our policies, as a user who exhausts the community's patience. What are the chances that you're his latest sock? Stifle (talk)

user Stifle NPOV violation

Your removal of sourced items to place your negative bias into the article is a violation of the NPOV policy.

The Article which was used as a source was retracted by the source and the language I used which indicated that the password was optional was included in the corrected source.

The wording you have put into the article is no longer validly sourced since the article it came from was retracted by the news source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.231.54.18 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC).

This message relates to SMS.ac, Inc. and the person who left the message may be an employee or PR agent.

I have only included well-sourced material in the article. WP:NPOV contemplates that all points of view are adequately represented, not that criticism is arbitrarily suppressed. If you find an article which states that SMS.ac is the best thing since sliced bread and everyone in the world should join it (or similar), please do add it in. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The source article you used is not valid. It was clarified and revised by the source. Read the comments at the bottom of the Talk page. You have removed a direct quote from the source material and replaced it with a fabrication.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.231.54.18 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC).

Please sign your posts on talk pages using ~~~~.

I have fabricated nothing, but in order to avoid misconstruction and unverifiable claims, I have reworded the criticisms section. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That wording is much better ... much closer to the source material.

There is currently no reference to the item where the newspaper retracted their false statements. That got removed in one of the reverts. Can you go back and find that and add it back, as it is an important source document. There may actually be two of those retractions missing. Thank you 68.231.54.18 09:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It is included, it is reference #7. If you wish to include anything else, then be bold and do so, but it is not my job to find documents supporting your point of view. The page history includes everything that has ever been included. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Stifle,

This edit is one I would like you to study, and then discuss with me. I went to the source article to try to find direct textual support for the claim that "Phone users are often billed for supposedly 'free' services that they say they never ordered." I did not find that evidence, because the article nowhere makes that claim. I did find evidence that the edit by the SMS.ac ip number was accurate and fair, i.e., it was a direct quote of the core negative statement on that matter in the article.

This is exactly the sort of sloppiness that I think Wikipedians should avoid. (The edit in question is someone else reverting to your version, but if I read the history correctly, you are the one who wrote it in the first place.) --Jimbo Wales 20:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote I took the line from was "At least a handful of consumers, however, have complained on the Internet and in the mainstream press that SMS.ac has charged them for services they never asked for, making that billing relationship into potentially its greatest liability", which is in the cited article, and I added the statement "Phone users are often billed for supposedly 'free' services that they say they never ordered." Perhaps the words "supposedly 'free'" were not the best choice here; if some other part of my edit was what you are referring to, please tell me.

The current wording (revision 63682487) is better still. As you know, it is only by working on the article that we will get it to the best version. However, as I have already erred enough to provoke two callings-on-the-carpet from yourself, as of now I will cease to edit that article entirely. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up

Really like the though process placed into this article.

I am wondering how I and/or yourself would be able to move this into a forum which would likely be a guideline (as opposed to a policy). As an admin, I am hoping you would be able to point me to the source of such instructions. --Gay Cdn 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's likely to become a guideline, although it could be moved into the Wikipedia namespace as an essay with little effort. The best place to start is the Wikipedia:Village pump. Let me know if you are going ahead with this. Stifle (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hosses

Hi Stifle. Would you take a look here? I don't know if you remember this page but an anonymous user just added something to the main page and then to the talk page saying it was a hoax and I think he's right. You wrote something to that effect early on but your comment was deleted. Anyway thought you should know.--Lo2u 00:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I expect the prod will go through; if it doesn't then AFD it. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Dog breeds that do not exist

Thank you for your contributions. However, Wikipedia prides itself on dealing with concepts that exist, and as a result there is no need to create articles for everything that does not exist to state that it does not exist. (For one thing, that would be impossible.) Please keep this in mind, as several of your recently created articles are being deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you should clearly make the distinction between a "concept" and the "reality". Otherwise you are failing in your task of correctly informing the public.--Richard Hawkins 15:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was using "concept" in the sense of "everything that might have an article".

One other thing, it is not usual to sign articles that you create, only talk page messages. See WP:SIG for more. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

response on blocked IP

Thank you. I would talk to the sysadmin, but I'm at a high school, and our internet is operated by an incompetent di'kut who doesn't care about Wikipedia, and would not do anything about it. This has happened before. Is there any chance that a system could be implemented in which logged-in users can edit, even from blocked IP's, unless their acccount has also been blocked? I've also had this problem at my public library as well as several other places. Thank you. Linkin Park Protector 14:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not have much technical knowledge, but I do know that there was recently (two or three weeks ago) an option added to prohibit anons only from editing when you block an IP. If you could specify the IPs in question, there is a possibility that the blocks could have this option added. If you need to know more about technical issues, please consult a developer. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sysop Q

Tell me, dear Stifle, what shall I do: I deleted this article, HVATOS, per AfD, with prejudice as n.n. - and now I have this image, Image:Hvatos.jpg, a PD image with no possible encyclopedic use. What do people do in this case - zap it per AfD or submit it for separate IfD process? If it had been fair-use, I would have for sure deleted it per AfD, w/o having to tag is as an orphan and waiting 7 days. Advise me please. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just speedied it as it was corrupt, but if it wasn't then it would have to be deleted by IFD.

We're debating a CSD for just this situation at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed_new_criteria_for_.22patently_worthless_media.22, so please have a look in. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry

I am sorry if I have seemed harsh.

The quote I took the line from was "At least a handful of consumers, however, have complained on the Internet and in the mainstream press that SMS.ac has charged them for services they never asked for, making that billing relationship into potentially its greatest liability", which is in the cited article, and I added the statement "Phone users are often billed for supposedly 'free' services that they say they never ordered." Perhaps the words "supposedly 'free'" were not the best choice here; if some other part of my edit was what you are referring to, please tell me.

The current wording (revision 63682487) is better still. As you know, it is only by working on the article that we will get it to the best version. However, as I have already erred enough to provoke two callings-on-the-carpet from yourself, as of now I will cease to edit that article entirely. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Notice how very different the two lines are. "A handful of customers" complaining becomes "Phone users are often billed"... this makes at least two errors... one of numbers, and one of accepting the allegations of a few customers as fact. Another major error, which you have identified yourself, is that somehow "charged for services they never asked for" becomes an implication that the services were "supposedly free". It is this kind of reaching beyond what the source tells us, in order to reach a POV conclusion, that should never happen.--Jimbo Wales 20:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've stopped editing the article because I am unable to maintain neutrality on it due to my own strong POV, and this is preferable to any other outcome. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

How do I edit the image information for uploaded photos. This in reference to the late Tara Whelan. I assume that the family photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tara_Whelan.jpg is public domain as it has appeared in countless newspapers around the country and on several television channels. The school photograph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tara_School.jpg was scanned from the front page of the Waterford Today local newspaper. It was taken in the Our Lady of Mercy secondary school, by a hired photographer who is unknown. I doubt that he would own the copyright on this, so I listed self created on that image, since I scanned it myself. Spaingy

I am sorry, but this is totally wrong. An image is in the public domain if the copyright on it has expired or if it is not eligible for copyright (which generally only applies to trivial works or works of the US federal government). These images are the copyright property of the photographer who created them. You did not create them.

Since we have the source of Image:Tara School.jpg, it is possible to make a claim of fair use, and I have done so. Take a look there and see what I have done. If you can provide an exact source for Image:Tara_Whelan.jpg, you can do the same for it. However, it is definitely not public domain.

To edit the image information for uploaded photos, just click the image or a link to it, click Edit, and add in the relevant information just as you would do for any other page. You can find a list of copyright tags at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

Finally, remember that you can only tag an image as {{PD-self}} if you are the only person to have had any creative input into its creation. Otherwise, it is copyright violation. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

David Cochrane entry added again

Thank you for the helpful information. I removed the more subjective statements from bio and kept it to the facts. I think it is appropriately written now. Let me know if there are still problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Cochrane (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for your message. Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

I looked at the article and unfortunately you don't seem to have included any references to reliable sources. Your article has verifiability problems and has been listed for deletion. You can make a comment here. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

abuse on the Wiki

To Wiki Staff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galactic_Conquest

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/8788/offensivewikizg8.jpg

screenshot image

Regards

Rachael (Known as) Pandy(A) Gamestotal.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.214.57 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC).

This page has been deleted and offensive comments removed. Is that what you wanted? Stifle (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use policy

Hiya! This edit you made to Template:Orphaned fairuse not replaced.. can you point me towards where the decision was taken to change this from seven days to two? Also, note that the categories such as Category:Orphaned fairuse images as of 12 July 2006 still say "once an image has been tagged as orphaned for more than seven days it should be deleted," not two days. —Stormie 07:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Here. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your change to the template, as the same diff you provide above also states "Images which have been uploaded before 13 July 2006 must not be immediately deleted. The editor should be alerted as to the problem with the image and will be given 7 days to comply with this policy." [emphasis mine] Pagrashtak 15:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I partially reverted so that the exact policy wording is included. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Still one problem: the new two day rule starts from notification of the uploader, not the addition of the template. If you marked an image uploaded today with the template but did not notify the uploader, the image still has a seven day grace period. Pagrashtak 15:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

>_< That was a horribly-worded policy change :( Stifle (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's seems very hard to delete an image under the new rule, unless you have it out for a particular image that you're keeping an eye on. There's also no mention at WP:CSD, which bothers me. I think the template should just state seven days for now until a better system is in place. What do you think? Pagrashtak 15:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It'll have to be that way. I've self-reverted. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted Template:Orphaned fairuse replaced also, by the way. Pagrashtak 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, Stifle! Although it seems that there is a fresh can of worms here. :-) --Stormie 03:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a T.V review site?

If we follow you line of thinking then some of the following articles should also be deleted along with robot wars. the west wing, Law & Order, 24, The Simpsons, Futurama, BBC news 24, etc etc. So please can we have rational discussion on the merits of the pages and not sweeping statements.--Lucy-marie 14:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This is disingenuous. I have not suggested that Robot Wars be deleted, merely that a number of articles on robots from the series be merged. I would not be opposed to merging all episodes of most other TV shows into one article. Please do not twist my words. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Images

I don't mean to sound like a nuisance but can you do the images for me? I don't understand. Thank you. Spaingy 16:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't, because I don't know the source of the image. You MUST MUST MUST specify EXACTLY WHERE you got the image. Throwing around "it's been on TV so it's public domain" does not work. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thanks for taking time to give your opinion on my RfA. I can work on all of the constructive criticism given before I consider RfA again. I hope to see you around Wikipedia. Thanks! Abcdefghijklm 21:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

I marked it for deleting because nothing linked to it. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. Redirects are cheap, so if there is even a remotely plausible chance it might be usable, there's no reason not to keep it. Thanks for your help cleaning up! Stifle (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

how to verify image copyright?

can you help with this? Kyleberk 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I can try. First, please note that Image:Phs.jpg is not a work of the US federal government, so it was wrong to say that it is.

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags has a list of possible tags that you can add to the image. {{logo}} looks like it might be appropriate here. Stifle (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)