User talk:Stifle/Archive 0709a

WP:Requests for adminship/Mikaey 2

Hi! Concerning this: not that it matters a lot, but his username is Mikaey. The 2 is there because it's a second nomination. And I think it's safe to assume the user is male if he signs his posts as "Matt" :) Jafeluv (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the typo; I prefer not to make gender assumptions about people where possible, so I use the gender they set in their preferences. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good principle. I personally look forward to the time when gender-neutral pronouns become commonly used in English. Jafeluv (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)

Stifle, can you please come to this article. A user is continuously adding an image grossly failing WP:NFCC (File: LadyGagaPaparazzi.jpg) to the article in return of the original image, which I believe doesnot fail WP:NFCC#8. When I nominated that file for FFD, that users probable friend or sock, nominated the original file for deletion. A speedy intervention is required. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've !voted on the FFDs. Unfortunately, the speedy keep rules state that if someone other than the nominator supports deleting a page, it can't be speedily closed on the grounds of disruption. I will keep an eye on the discussion. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and before I forget, you really shouldn't use rollback to revert anything other than the most obvious vandalism. Using it in an edit war over what image to include is bad. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of WikiAnswers.com

You removed the db tag from Causes and solutions to economic meltdown in Nigeria with the explanation of "Last time I checked, answers.com is GFDL." According to this, that is not true. While answers.com may post GFDL material from Wikipedia, it also posts material from its own in-house panel of experts, and from a WikiAnswers.com user group. They DO claim copyright on that material. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Help

stifle can you please contact me on [email removed] I believe you may be able to help me with a personal problem. Thanking you Paul Simmons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.108.253 (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

German pin maps

Hi see my proposal on the German location template talk page. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OI?

I was wondering about your vote of delete in the Cawley image as per OI. Could you elaborate, please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please point out the exact image/link to the discussion? I have contributed to many FFDs lately. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Yours was the last vote in the IfD discussion for CawleyAsKirk. In your vote to delete, you cited OI.I've read the relevant facet of policy, and I was hoping you could explain your application thereof. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I considered it to be OI as it is a fan film rather than an actual official source. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Kollel

ticket # 2009062810020167

[email removed]

Text of article june 25 10:00 est

i am just a little confused as what a OTRS tag is i also attempted to send permission for usage of the article text if anything else is required can you please posted it first on the article in questions dissctions page Thank You Waky02 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that the permission is valid for this article and you do not need to take any additional action on it. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Rights

Argh. Yes, that was supposed to be "autoreviewer"; I've fixed it. Thanks for catching that. DS (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Armagnac.jpg

You listed this image as PUI despite the fact that I provided the following: From: richard.ferriere@free.fr Subject: Re: Armagnac 3-view Date: May 4, 2009 2:28:55 AM CDT (CA) To: wzuk1@shaw.ca

Hello,

You are free yo use and modify the drawing to illustrate your paper

Regards

Richard FERRIERE

---

Mail Original -----

De: "Bill Zuk" <wzuk1@shaw.ca> À: "richard ferriere" <richard.ferriere@free.fr> Envoyé: Dimanche 3 Mai 2009 12h27:47 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne Objet: Armagnac 3-view

Dear Richard

I have just written an article on the Sud-Est (SNCASE) SE-2010 Armagnac and wanted to add a 3-view. I located one of the 3-views on the Wings 2.12 website. Using this drawing as a basis, I made a composite drawing. Is it possible to get your approval to use the original drawing on the website for the composite drawing?

Here are the two (illustrations omitted): Original:

My composite:

Bill ... in my other life, a meek and mild librarian... Zuk

FWiW, another admin then got involved, still did not read the information provided and image removal bots did the rest. Now what? quite distressing after researching and illustrating a quite obscure subject... Bzuk (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

• Permissions need to be sent into permissions-en@wikimedia.org rather than posting them on the wiki. However, the above permission isn't sufficient for use here; images on Wikipedia need to be free for anyone to use. See WP:CONSENT for a good templated email. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The altered drawing is certainly significantly different from the original and I certainly will and have released it as a PD image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia:CiterSquad

Up an running :) Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Very good. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No consensus closures

Your comment at WP:DRV interested me: Non-admins simply should never be making no-consensus closures, because they are by default not unambiguous. Could you look through the other no consensus closures made by Bwilkins (talk · contribs) and see if they're all right? I'm quite against non-admin closures in general, but he seems pretty keen on them. Aditya ^α _ß 13:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I will but not right now. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#add edit-semi as a feature to "Uploader"?

To be sure what people are supporting, I made a separate subsection. You may wish to move your comment if you were supporting the expansion of uploader as well as the ability for admins to grant it. –xeno^talk 15:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You're mentioned at here

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab#Replacing comment that was removed by Peter Damian. You may wish or not wish to state your viewpoint. Good Sunday!--Caspian blue 15:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep off the Boehner article - my copyright

thank you.

Your copyright has been released by you when you submitted the article to Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No it was nominated for deletion. So I withdrew it. Has anyone tested this? Peter Damian (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't be done. We can't just ignore GFDL I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And technically it wasn't nominated for deletion, it was {{prod}}ed which is slightly different. The {{prod}} was removed and the concerns (lack of establishment of notability) addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You can request that the article be withdrawn, but Wikipedia is not under an obligation to abide by your request, considering that you gave it irrevocable permission to use the article when you submitted it. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

File:JR Fun Big.gif

The person who took File:JR Fun Big.gif to AFD, did it incorrectly so I opened the deletion review. Aervanath clossed the discussion with the outcome to delete only if the author refussed to email his permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Please undo the delete.--MahaPanta (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• That won't be possible. The author has to send in the permission, then the image will be undeleted. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That's how I understood Aervanath's closing statement at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_23. Could you atleast undelete the talk page. Even if you think undeleting the image hurts Wikipedia, there can't be any harm in leaving the discussion page for the file open.--MahaPanta (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • There is also no use that I can see in having it present. You were the only one who contributed to it; if you need your messages for some reason, I'll copy them to a subpage of yours.
    • Undeleting the image has nothing to do with hurting Wikipedia, it's because it would be a copyright violation for us to use it. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
      • You see, there's the problem, I was the only one to follow the policies, and I got screwed.
      • I was refering to the discussion page, but speaking of the image, the author gives free use of all his characters on his webpage.--MahaPanta (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
        • You selected one guideline page which stated a subset of the possible reasons for an image being speedily deleted. There are others, which are listed at WP:CSD. I have updated WP:GID accordingly.
        • Can you please provide proof of your claim about free use? Stifle (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
          • You'll suppose to discuss major changes before you make them, epecially templates that can effect multiple pages. That's why they have extra guidelines, and the image was being used in a template. The short is that every deletion guideline I've read says to discuss it first. That would prevent mistakes like this.
          • [1] --MahaPanta (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Removing an image that violates copyright is not a major change; trust me, there are dozens deleted every day.
            • That page gives permission to use an image as an avatar, on livejournal, or on a blog. Wikipedia is not any of those, and in any case images here must be free for use in any media whatsoever. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
              • It made a major change to my template.
              • You left out the "etc" which stands for "et cetera" a Latin expression meaning "and other things", "and so on", or "any whatsoever". So he did say that his characters and their images is free for use in any media whatsoever.--MahaPanta (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Unfortunately, it is not precise enough for Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 21

They're probably mostly not required, but that's not a fight I want right now. It's better they're sitting there with a fair use rationale than sitting there with incorrect licensing information. J Milburn (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Messages.

Hey,

I was just wondering as to what the policy is on the fake message template you have on your userpage? WP:SMI seems to show that we are not supposed to have them. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a fake message template; it says you do not have new messages and is not clickable. I don't think it's disruptive, and in any case WP:UP is only a guideline. Also, I'm going to see when that section was added to that page and establish whether consensus was gained for its addition. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

...and is it really a "simulated MediaWiki interface" anyway? Stifle (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds like a good idea. I had one simmilar to yours and It was removed so I was just asking around... It's defiantly debatable.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

As to the above, I regret filling your TP again. I do note that of late there have been few other admins taking action on the MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist page (maybe with good reason in general). I feel that I have gotten procedural justice in your leaving the matter open. In any case can you suggest any way that I could reasonably request a review of my request, in case lack of further action is due to the request being overlooked rather than rejected? Thnnk you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You could leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_June_22

OK So the lack of a discussion means if it on PUI it goes?  :(

Some images were there because I was unsure, but thought they could be salvaged, by asking the uploaders to comment. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, per the instructions at WP:PUF#Instructions: "If no objection to the image's deletion is raised, or no proof that the image is indeed free is provided, the image may be deleted without further notice after the 14-day period". Normally, images on Wikipedia are presumed to be free, but when a user raises an objection or query, the burden of proof falls back on the uploader to prove that it is free. You did the right thing; if the uploader or someone else finds proof later, the image can be restored. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, but to me that seems a little harsh. In some instances the PUI process has become semi-speedy by a backdoor as the original uploaders aren't active to read the warnings on thier talk pages. :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for helping move along the DRV regarding the Crayola crayon stamp. Cheers! -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Permission for the File

Hi mate !
I had uploaded an Image file and filled up all the details associated with that file including the Source and Author of the File and sent the permission to use the file through email where i got this reply by email containing
Title : [Ticket#2009070610022481] OTRS permission‏
Subject: "As this image is hosted on Wikimedia Commons, it requires the owner to provide a specific release under a suitably free license (such as certain Creative Commonslicenses or the GFDL), which allows anyone to use them for any purpose, including commercial usage and derivative works (subject to applicable laws). If you can supply this, then the content may be used on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that "permission to use on Wikipedia" is not adequate enough."

This is the Image File I uploaded : link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kak%C3%A122.JPG

Also there is a NOTE under the File :

An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account. However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license, or the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published. For an update on the issue, please contact the user who added this template to the page, or someone else with an OTRS account, or the OTRS noticeboard.

Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=3279961

Actually i m newbie , so i don't have any idea about this. Therefore i hope to get help from you

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowkingx (talk • contribs) 07:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

The email you sent did not prove that the copyright holder had released the image under a free license, or specify what free license that was. You need to get someone officially associated with the website to send in an email specifically releasing the image under a free license. The template at WP:CONSENT might help. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Please revert. It was reopened before because an RfC deserves more than a couple days for discussion. It is also standard to allow alterations to the proposal and counter proposals. There has been multiple people expressing interest and support, and there are many more from the page that would be interested in counter proposals. This is to give you a chance to revert yourself so we can abide by WP:CONSENSUS instead of just shutting down discussion in a manner that defies our traditions. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I decline to revert; it is abundantly clear that this proposal as-is is a non-runner. If you want to make or invite an alternative proposal, I suggest you move that page to (e.g.) Wikipedia:Automatic Adminship/old proposal and start afresh. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It will be reverted regardless if you decline or not. This is to give you a chance to abide by standards. There was no proposal to close the discussion on the proposal, so there can be no claims about consensus. Please abide by RfC standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not an RFC. Without waiving that objection, please point out the RFC standard you allege exists. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

All proposals about policies or guidelines fall under RfC. It does not have to be listed under the RfC section at WP:RFC, nor are all RfCs listed. Standard is that all of these are given 30 days of discussion unless there is a proposal to close it, and that is only accepted if there is an overwhelming agreement. So far, this has only been up for a day (to be generous). Consensus takes more than a couple days, especially with differing levels of activity at different times of the week. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please specify the policy or guideline that backs up the following assertions:

1. "All proposals about policies or guidelines fall under RfC" (WP:CENT might disagree)
2. "Standard is that all of these are given 30 days of discussion unless there is a proposal to close it"
3. "Consensus takes more than a couple days" (you will see AFDs every day closed after hours)

Thanks in advance. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read - "4 Place the {{RFCpolicy}} template at the top of the talk page's discussion to further publicize your proposal." Now, will you stop this nonsense? The above is well known and easy to find. You wasted too much of my time already. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That answers #1. Without waiving #2 and #3, you don't seem to have followed items 3 and 4 of the "Making a proposal" section. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If steps have not been completed then you notify the proposer. You do not close the discussion in violation of our policies. You can be blocked for edit warring a close in violation of our policy. So, you can revert your inappropriate action or you can continue your defiance against Wikipedia. Which will you chose? You have already crossed the line. This was merely to give you the chance to return before there is any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And please note - this is not my proposal nor do I agree with it. It would not apply to me either. Also, your answer to 2 is here and Consensus taking more than a couple of days is reflected in the AfDs by having them stay for 7 days normally. SNOW only applies when there is a constant oppose - this is not applicable as been demonstrated above by multiple people supporting and even more showing interest in a discussion. RfCs are also not snow closed from what I've ever seen. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not edit-warring anything; I've changed it once and will not change it again either way. I am not engaging in "defiance against Wikipedia", nor in an "inappropriate action", nor have I "crossed the line", nor will I be "blocked for edit warring".

The page you linked says that a bot will end an RFC after 30 days. It does not provide that a user may not end one earlier.

Indeed, AFDs stay for 7 days normally (my emphasis). Without waiving the foregoing, it seems reasonable to extend that RFCs might stay for 30 days normally, and this might be an abnormal case.

I don't think any further exhortations will change my position, and I think I fully understand yours at this stage, so I don't envisage replying to any further messages on the subject. What happens to the proposal happens. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Daniel previous closed the page - hence the concern about edit warring. Now, there is a difference between 30 days and one day. There is not a unanimous consensus, so I am sure you can allow this to stay up for a week and then open a talk page thread on closing it, no? These discussions are normally closed via talk page consensus anyway. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your vote at davemeistermoab

Have a look ..did you mean to do that? (Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Nope, just realised it and reverted it as I got your message. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Auerbach

OK, restored jimfbleak (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Take a look

Hey Stifle, can you take a look at the contributions of ElPilotoDi? Uploaded a number of images failing copyright and license and continuously adding them to the articles when being told not to do so. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged most of them for various problems. I think a few of your images were caught up in it too. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is fine. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The Black Crowes - Soul Singing - Promotional Video.jpg

Hey Stifle,

Can you point me to the policy/guideline that says 'Screenshots from music videos should only be used in the article about that song'? Thanks. —Zeagler (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's derived from WP:NFCC#8. In the matter of File:The Black Crowes - Soul Singing - Promotional Video.jpg, it does not increase readers' understanding of the article about the album when they see a screenshot of a video of one of the songs on the album. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...but why nominate for speedy deletion when you can see the real solution to this problem is to move the image to Soul Singing? I haven't been here in over a week; the nomination easily could have gone unnoticed. —Zeagler (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I can't see that. I am not familiar with the subject. You can feel free to move it if appropriate. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You edited Lions (album), which contains no less than four wikilinks to Soul Singing. Please take a minute to poke around next time. Anyway, I'll take care of the image soon. —Zeagler (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Villa Paradou.jpg

I was notified that permission for the image has been send by right owner--Toontje (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That should be processed in the next few days. Stifle (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ElPilotoDi

Your input would probably be helpful here. Thank you in advance. Plastikspork (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated question, would you mind changing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle&action=edit&section=new&preload=User_talk:Stifle/preload/rep2&editintro=User_talk:Stifle/editintro leave a new message] to [{{fullurl:index.php|title=User_talk:Stifle&action=edit&section=new&preload=User_talk:Stifle/preload/rep2&editintro=User_talk:Stifle/editintro}} leave a new message] ? It makes the link work with https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/. Thanks again. Plastikspork (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to replace that with a new system soon, so it'll be moot. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)