User talk:Stifle/Archive 0909a

File:Church Army Chapel pews 1965.jpg

Hi Stifle. Thank you for the information about the above. I have followed instructions and added a template on the image filepage, and information on the image discussion page as you requested. However I need to understand why the letter I sent to WP is not adequate. I can phone the Church Army archivist and ask for another letter with different wording (they are very cooperative) but the archivist is only in the office on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and it will take her at least a week to send me the letter as it has to be countersigned. That means it will take at least a fortnight to get the letter. I need you to do the following:

• Please kindly send me the exact wording required for the letter, as I have already had two attempts to get a correct letter written by the Church Army, and on the first occasion they forgot to use the name "Wikipedia".
• Please kindly allow me at least a fornight to get the letter from the Church Army. They are a charity and many of their workers are voluntary, so I must be patient and give them time, and must also pay another donation to get them to do this. I am a retired person in poor health and cannot afford to keep sending £10 donations. Therefore I have to help them get the letter right this time. It's no good dictating it on the phone as they write it down wrongly. I will have to post them a letter by snailmail.

I must get this right as the image is very important to make sense of the current completeness of the building. Meanwhile although as you can see I am doing my best to fulfil your requests, I still do not understand what is wrong with the Church Army's permission letter that I have sent to WP, since it clearly gives permission to use the image in the article. --Storye book (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Update: I have received this link from WP by email - Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries - is this my only option? Does it mean that the Church Army's letter used unacceptable wording?--Storye book (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

    The letter from the church said we had permission to use the image on Wikipedia only. As Graeme Bartlett already specifically told you at File talk:Church Army Chapel pews 1965.jpg, that isn't enough.

    The wording of the letter doesn't matter significantly as long as it specifies that the image is released into the public domain or under any of the licenses at WP:ICT/FL. The wording at WP:CONSENT is our recommendation, but you must be sure to replace the placeholders WORK, LICENSE, DATE, and NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER with the appropriate entries.

    Rather than risking that your letter will be wrong and you will waste your money, you can send a draft of the letter as a reply to the email system; they will then tell you whether or not it will be sufficient.

    However, this image is not in danger of deletion any more, so I am not sure why you are worried. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Thank you Stifle for your careful and precise reply - it's a great help. Some templates were removed by someone from the filepage after I wrote to you and before you replied - so as you say the situation now appears to be changed. To be on the safe side I have added a Non-free historic image template for good measure, as one of the remaining tags on the image filepage appears to be asking for more licences or tags or something - not quite sure. If as you say the image is no longer in danger of deletion, I would rather let well alone and not bother the Church Army again. They have been extremely helpful with my research, and I don't want to irritate them by repeatedly asking for re-drafts of the same permissions letter, if this is no longer necessary. Thank you for your kind help and patience.--Storye book (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

      OK. I can't guarantee that the issue won't come up again without the permission letter, but it would seem unlikely to. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

    • • Thank you - I am very grateful for your kind help.--Storye book (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Blood of Angels

I have replied on the DRV page, but here's a copy for you.

Q - why this deletion of an article from nearly four months ago is being challenged only now?

A - Because two different deletions were happening here: the album article was deleted after some spillover due to sockpuppetry on the Michelle Belanger page, (that all happened prior to me editing), then the merger took place, then the who AFd'd the album Afd'd the cover and has been Afding every album by this band. It was recommended by Hammersoft to go to DRV. Also, I couldn't find the history so it was a bit confusing at first.

Also this:

Consistency and Band's Notability: I think that instead of considering the band's notability and the consistency of the discography, some of the opponents were only looking at the earlier sockpuppetry that had taken place on the Michelle Belanger page. I do not believe they were taking into consideration the added sources, the band's notability, or the disruption that pulling out the 6th album from an 11 album discography would cause. The album is unique in that it's a collaboration, and the best way to reference a collaboration between two different authors/artists is to reference that album on its own page. SilkTork and I worked to bring the album portion up to acceptable standards then merge it. But then Chzz took issue with the album cover (and has targeted other albums by the same band for deletion, making it 5 Afd's in all against Nox Arcana and their albums). It never made sense to merge the album with the author page in the first place, but I had no other choice. The cover can't stay unless the album has its own article, yet Chzz removed the article. And yet, the same excuses for removal of this album are being used to keep two other album articles by other less notable bands (see my talk below). It's a double standard. It is important to look at the BIG Picture.

This is what I posted earlier on Gwen Gales's talk page: Other Stuff Exists to provide for consistency in terms of keeping a consistant and well-organized discography. The discography has been in place for several years, since 2005 I think, with new additions being added as they are released. Until now, this was not a problem. Not, until one editor who is a sockpuppet decided to attack the Michelle Belanger article. However, this falls on deaf ears. To make my point, I proded two albums recently, and the prods were removed 1 and 2, both editors claiming that the band was notable. So, if this rationale is accepted for band x and y albums, then why not in this case? Nox Arcana, is clearly notable. In fact, moreso than the ones just de-proded. Nox Arcana is sold in many countries and reached #8 on Billboard (as opposed to the other bands, one of which never charted and the other only as high as #22). Also, unlike those bands, Nox Arcana is still together and still recording albums band news. To provide consistency and organization, I propose the re-creation of the Blood of Angels album article stub (sans the re-redirect).

I hope that clears things up as to why it's going on 4 months. Ebonyskye (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• That was one question. The other was why you did not request the administrator who deleted the page to reconsider his decision before opening a DRV, despite that the deletion review page explicitly instructs you to in two separate places. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of DRV at the time the album article was deleted. I only became aware after the cover was deleted from the merged article. By that time more than one editor was involved. I was told by Hammersoft to go to DRV, so that's what I did. Ebonyskye (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#invisionfree.com.2Fforums.2FStockClassPaintball.2F

Hi Stifle! I see your note on the whitelist request page denying whitelisting of a particular forum. I would like to ask for an exception to be made in this case. A number of industry professionals post to that forum. It would be useful for making citations. C.J. (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am happy with my decision — the forum doesn't meet WP:RS. However as a courtesy I will allow another admin to assess the request also. You should post any additional information that may influence the decision to the whitelist request page as soon as possible. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Volcano Girls screenshot.jpg

I recieved a note from you stating this pic is up for deletion. On the image's page the following is given as the reason in the tag:

"This image or media has a non-free use rationale that is disputed because of the following concern: Images from music videos should be used in the article about the song, not the article about the band."

The name of the song is "Volcano Girls" and is by the band Veruca Salt. As far as I can tell this image is only being used in the song's article, and not for the band, so I'm unsure why the pic can be deleted for this reason. Thank you. Kresock (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I guess I screwed up. I've cancelled the deletion notice. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the quick response! Good day! Kresock (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

OTRS at Commons

Hi Stifle, I've left you a message on your talkpage over at Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied over there. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles

Hello Stifle, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

• PROD removed from Glogster, by User:Efrosty, with summary '(I made this article relevant by adding sources and polishing the article.)'
• PROD removed from Samuthirakani, by User:Phil Bridger, with summary '(contest prod - the sources now in the article demonstrate notability per WP:CREATIVE)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

image question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:110_in_the_shade.jpg

It was brought up that this image should not be in the article because it is not about the magazine in question. However many musical theatre articles use playbill covers to illustrate the shows logo as it is often the only one avaliable. Can you suggest what rationale i could use for this image please.Mark E (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question is answered in my FAQs. They're linked at the top of my talk page and in the editnotice. Why not check them out next time?

I don't think there is a rationale that would be valid for this image. Nothing in Wikipedia requires that an article have an image, and this particular image doesn't do anything to improve readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok sorry. I disagree though that an article about a musical shouldn't have some artwork from the show. I will find another fair use image (most likely cd cover) that I can put into the article.Mark E (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't. Unless your image is a free image, or would actually help people to understand the article, it's not permitted, per the Wikipedia policy WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

But surely having a logo for a musical in the article info box is the same as having, for arguements sake, having the dvd cover/logo of a film in the respective article about that film.Mark E (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have such a logo, it would be reasonable to use it. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:0609Departments 411 06 0.jpg

I have augmented the FUR at File:0609Departments 411 06 0.jpg. Is it now satisfactory?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That should be OK for now, although there is a small chance when I go over the images again in a few weeks that I might disagree with myself and nominate the image for FFD. If I do, I will of course warn you. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thriller title card

Hi there, you thought there was a problem with the Thriller music video title card. Title cards appear to fall under acceptable fair use via Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images.--The lorax (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

From that very page: "Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content." I am of the opinion that this image does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines, specifically WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

deletion endorse question

By endorsing the deletion of the Blood of Angels album article, does this mean that a new article may not be re-created? As I said, a few new sources are available since the article was deleted, and other album Afd's for this band have been rejected (ie: album articles allowed to stay). For the sake of consistency I'd like to re-create the article. Ebonyskye (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Any deleted article may be recreated as long as the reason for the deletion is overcome. The exception is where an article has been deleted so many times as to cause an administrator to feel it necessary to prevent it from recreation, in which case one should make a userspace draft to bring to DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Care to take a look? I actually have been working on this draft which I posted temporarily here User:Ebonyskye/Sandbox. I think it has the same tone and notability qualifications as the other Nox Arcana albums, and I was careful to note that it was unique because it was the first collaborative work in their discography. I also added the All Music profile for the album and updated the link to Billboard. Also added that the theme was featured at Dragoncon as the "Blood of Angels" discussion panel. I'm not sure about another DRV. One editor complained that it was a waste of time to Afd an album article, and to rather discuss on the talk page. One thing I noticed is that Category:Nox Arcana albums is now missing the Blood of Angels album, so this article is really needed to make the list whole again. Ebonyskye (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would not be inclined to delete this article again per CSD:G4. I cannot guarantee that other users will share the same opinion. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. I read CSD:G4 just to check on that. So, what should I do now? Do I list yet another DRV, but show the revised article this time? Should I get an opinion from SilkTork first, (the admin who merged the album to the author page, and appears to have since reversed their opinion of the deletion in the last DRV)? I'm only concerned that if I DO re-list the article, despite that it has improved, that it may get Afd'd again and I won't have an official vote or consensus to point to and say "hey, we all agreed..." This is almost what happened 4 months back, so I really want to do this right to avoid any hassle (for everyone). Thanks. Ebonyskye (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't need a DRV, because the page is not locked. Assuming you are the only person who has worked on the draft and it doesn't use any external material beyond what was on the page in the first place, you can copy and paste it into place.

Whether you get an opinion from SilkTork or not is up to you, and there is no immediate way of preventing the article from being AFDed again. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Roy Maloy

Hello Stifle, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Roy Maloy has been removed. It was removed by Fences and windows with the following edit summary '(Deprod, plainly not a hoax, and reliable sources featuring this guy do exist.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Fences and windows before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Aaliyah

Hi Stifle, is this File:Aaliyah in blue.jpg a violation of the non-free image of living persons? The rationale I feel is not strong enough. Let me know since I will be reviewing the article for GA. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's not a violation, because she's not alive. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

File:ישראל פלג.jpg again

Don't know if you remember but back in July I asked you to check on Ticket:2009071610018913 and you speedy deleted the file for lack of permission. Now I see the file was uploaded again (just happened to notice the file link on my talk page had gone blue) and this time you just added a {{OTRS received}} template to the image (on 11 August), referencing OTRS:3344329 (I think, that's a ticket ID, I think you explained the difference between the long and short numbers at one point but I can't quite remember). I assume this means there was some ongoing correspondence at that point, it's been a while since then though. I assume the OTRS team have tools to keep track of these things, and I don't mean to nag, just wanted to check just in case it had slipped though a crack somewhere. --Sherool (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we don't currently have any way of keeping track of OTRS received tags here (I'd best add one sometime; Commons has a good model). That image is a duplicate of one on Commons, File:Israel-Peleg.jpg, so I've speedied the three different copies of it that we have here. I've also marked the Commons one for deletion.

In case it matters, the seven-digit numbers are called ticket IDs and are assigned sequentially for each email that comes in. The sixteen-digit numbers are called ticket numbers, and are formed of the date, a 1, a six-digit number representing the sequence number of that email for that day, and a check digit. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Ocean of Pearls

Hello Stifle, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Ocean of Pearls has been removed. It was removed by Fences and windows with the following edit summary '(Deprod. Has quite a lot of coverage and has won awards, will add sources and improve asap.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Fences and windows before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

File:Kylefish.PNG

Hi - Just a friendly note to let you know that I've contested your proposed deletion of the above image at File talk:Kylefish.PNG and removed the deletion tag from the file page per my rationale on the talk page. Please respond there, if necessary. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of article "Social Information Processing (Cognition)"

Hello Stifle. I really care little about this article that you deleted, which I only created in order to help clear up the obvious confusion surrounding this term, which is used to mean different things by different groups of people. But I would like to ask you to please give me a copy of the deleted article as a sub-page to my userpage, so that I can look at it again to figure out whether it is worth trying to convince someone of its usefulness. Thank you, Slatteryz (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question is answered in my FAQs. They're linked at the top of my talk page and in the editnotice. Why not check them out next time?

In accordance with Wikipedia proposed deletion policy, this article has been undeleted. It may later be nominated for deletion again unless it is improved in the meantime. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

How was File:Proof of authorization.jpg a copyvio? It was uploaded by the actual requester and was agreed at WT:PW to make a screenshot of it and upload it on here.--WillC 15:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question is answered in my FAQs. They're linked at the top of my talk page and in the editnotice. Why not check them out next time?

It displayed a copyrighted email on a copyrighted internet browser, on a website with a copyrighted layout and copyrighted user interface, including copyrighted icons of copyrighted software, and a copyrighted operating system.

Emails giving authorization to use an image or other content should be forwarded to permissions-enwikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Timewave_zero#Redirect proposal

Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero / Novelty theory, an RFC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with a Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleteing File:1980s decade portrait.png

Hey, why did you delete an possible unfree file, there sources were all listed, it just that some jerk decide it was unfree. I tried to reason with everybody, in saying that my image was NOT a copyright violation, it came from Wikipedian images put together. What is it with everyone, is it like when you see an image, you have it delete it? Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, so why do we worry so much about copyright, there is practically paranoia. If you have any way of putting that image back on, do so, because I worked very hard on that image. ZenCopain (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia may be a non-profit organization, but our aim is to create a free encyclopedia. We are intentionally very careful not to violate copyright. Casting aspersions, calling names, and making accusations is a very quick way to get people against you, even if you're right.

You cannot say that because you took half a dozen images and put them together, that the image is somehow magically in the public domain. If you could, then all newspapers, photographers, and creative artists would be out of a job. Remember that "public domain" for copyright has nothing to do with images being widely available; it refers to an image not being subject to copyright, either because the copyright has expired, it never existed in the first place, or the creator of the image has disclaimed it.

You can, if you wish, use a montage of images that are under compatible licenses. PD is compatible with anything; everything else is somewhat complicated. In the case of the image you uploaded, you used the following:

1. File:Reagan 1980 campaign.jpg
2. File:Challenger explosion.jpg
3. File:Chernobyl Disaster.jpg
4. File:Iranian in trenches 2.jpg
5. File:Live_Aid_at_JFK_Stadium,_Philadelphia,_PA.jpg
6. File:Exval.jpeg

Out of those, it turns out #4 was a copyright violation, so you can't use that now. #3 is a copyrighted image, so you can't reuse it under a free license. #5 is GFDL and CC-BY-SA, and #1, #2, and #6 are public domain as they were created by the US Federal Government.

As a result, you can use #1, #2, and #6 in any combination; you don't, strictly, have to credit them, although it's recommended. If you use #5, you have to release the resulting work under the GFDL and/or CC-BY-SA.

I hope this clarifies the issue for you, but if not, please feel free to post a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Mick LaSalle

I am not invested enough in what you do with Mick LaSalle's page to put up a fight over one small but (I think) interesting piece of information, but since the decision to eliminate any references to the name he used early in his professional career has been done without any public explanation, I will only point out the following:

1) He used his birth name professionally and changed his name after he had already published work under his birth name (e.g., [1])

2) If you google his current name together with his birth name, you will find references to the change in his name in the online archives of various Bay Area publications, notably SF Weekly and Metroactive. In other words, his name change is a matter of public record.

Given that the handling of this issue is being done away from public scrutiny, I can infer that my input in this matter is not considered relevant. I will only point out that the information about his birth name was not posted as a matter of vandalism but rather as a matter of adding information that is publicly available elsewhere on the internet and which many people in the Bay Area are aware of, since this transpired while he was a public figure. I don't know the reason for the way this issue has been handled, but I will bow out of it now and leave you to do with the matter what you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.208.62 (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm aware of the issue with this page. Including the birth name has generated OTRS tickets and I am afraid you are going to have to trust me or your choice of other OTRS user that we shouldn't be including it. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Bc7.png

Usually, I'm in strong agreement with your stance on non-free content. In this case, I think the standard we operate under allows this image. It's being used only on the article of that highway. That's typical here for a broad variety of types of articles. Please note that I have on occasion removed such shields that are not on their specific highway articles and being used decoratively, especially in infoboxes. Example: [2]. It's troubling that such uses are rampant across the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's dubious; I'm quite strict on non-free content as you will have seen. It looks like this is heading for a keep anyway, so there's no need for me to act further. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chinese classifier/archive2

I think Dabomb87 has addressed your concern (by making the images clickable; there was a template formatting error preventing them from being clickable before). Thank you for catching this problem. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• OK, struck my oppose. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much for your wave of image reviews. You may want to put Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)/archive1 on your watchlist, as the image issue there is a bit sticky. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

10k emails source.

Re [3]. According to [4] we probably get about a 100 a day. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-06t17:11z

I was counting spam too. Perhaps that wasn't realistic. Stifle (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I reply from work as we don't have Labour Day here. Hopefully yours is better. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A Weekend in the City FAC

Hi, I've replied to your comment and would appreciate a revisit. RB88 (T) 12:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think now? RB88 (T) 13:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ended up removing it in the end. Please revisit. RB88 (T) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Cyrus-green

I fully endorse that. He/she doesn't seem that talkative, so I suspect they will not be requesting an unblock. J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)