User talk:Stifle/Archive 0210

A Piece of Strange
Thanks. Ccrazymann (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Spam whitelist standardised format proposal
Hi there, I've proposed a standardised format for additions to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist on the village pump. I've noticed you seem to be acting on a lot of the requests, so would appreciate your comments. Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) 19:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

About images with permission
Hi, since it was you who checked the permission of the image from theRobert Darnton article, I have a question related to permissions. I have acquired two other permissions, for Levi-Strauss and Stephen Greenblatt, but the user who checked the permissions re-uploaded both pictures, so now they aren't under my list of uploaded files. Why did he do that? Is there any reason for it? It would be nice to have them under my own list of uploaded files, so that I can keep track of my work here in Wikipedia. Thanks! Evenfiel (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you link me to the files so that I can investigate this more? Stifle (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The one you did for me, and the pictures that were re-uploaded,   and.
 * Looks like the latter two were moved to Commons so that others can use them on other Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects. You should upload free images to Commons. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Can I re-upload it to Commons, so that I can have them under my history of contributions? Evenfiel (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can if you wish; it'll appear on your Commons contributions but not here. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

image deletions
Hi Stifle, You recently deleted this image File:Albino_baby_malawi.jpg as it was available on commons. However this image was initially on wikipedia before it was "moved" to commons. The uploader on commons did not mention the original uploader, so when the wiki article was deleted, the original information was lost. The image is from flickr, ordinarily this wouldn't be a big deal. However the image was previously "all rights reserved". I requested permission from the copyright holder to add a creative commons license so that it could be uploaded to wikipedia. When he did so, I uploaded it to wikipedia, this was before the big push to move images to commons, otherwise I would have uploaded it to commons. This has happened to a few images already. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make? The license has been verified against flickr now. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With regard to licensing, it doesn't make a huge difference. But it does make a difference with regard to the history of the image. When moving images from wikipedia to commons, it is recommended to use the commons helper, because this preserves all the original information, including the original uploader and any other information. Moving images to the Commons states,
 * If the image has a revision history, make sure to upload the old revisions first. Of course, you might choose to ignore some revisions as irrelevant (for example, vandalism). You should always upload the original version the recent version is based on.
 * While licensing issues are not a problem, it is not best practice to see an image on wikipedia, and then upload it independently on to commons, without acknowledging the original wikipedia file in some way. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add whatever attribution you feel is appropriate to the Commons page. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

ACC technical issue at the moment
Stifle, there has been a bit of a glitch in creating accounts in the last half hour or so. Accounts are being created but the user is not getting access to their account. Some people are requesting accounts until they reach the limit of 6. That request you handled on ACC might have been a bit of a protest request to the technical issues. Prodego and myself both created accounts via ACC that did not register an email address for the respective users. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks for the heads-up. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Scapegoat
I strongly disagree with your "no consensus" on Scapegoat. Both myself and User:84.92.117.93 voted in favour while only Skinsmoke was opposed - his argument was that it was against Wiki naming conventions but when I checked them out it looked to support my case not his. I wrote a long reply explaining this and I also prompted Skinsmoke on his talk page that I had responded so he could in turn respond. Although he seems to have been onlne a lot in the last 2 days he seems to have voluntarily chosen not to support his case.--Penbat (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I suppose. I've moved it. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much ! --Penbat (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I did what now?
I don't see any record of what I may have allegedly done wrong, since it has been convienently erased from the record. I can't even defend myself at ANI, which I plan to try anyway.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You did a rollback of someone who blanked libellous accusations from the talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI - Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. –xenotalk 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your move
Your move of the appropriately-titled "Whataya Want From Me" to the inappropriately titled "Whataya Want from Me" is wrong-headed, in my view. However, if MOS guidelines do, in fact, overrule what the reliable sources call the song, then there are a ton more moves in order. Any works by e e cummings that employ his idiosyncratic spelling need moved or fixed. Also, k.d. lang (and other such artists) should be moved to the appropriate spelling. If MOS overrules RS, then it should apply accross the board. Unit Anode  15:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I only moved as I saw the consensus lie. You're welcome to establish consensus for other moves, or perform them if they aren't controversial. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Gary Lavergne Article
Hello Stifle, here is from WP primary sources - "Our policy: Reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material." (end Quote)

If you revisit the deleted (undone) section in Laverne's Article, you will find the sources that uphold the exposures and errors in Lavergne's Op-Ed. Just because he is a living person doesn't mean his mistakes that are documented, can't be exposed.Victor9876 (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here
You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

IRFU Flag and OI
Hello. Thank you very much for your response to Gnevin's notice (at No original research/Noticeboard) on this issue. I note that you have indicated your willingness to hear arguments for the use of an alternative to the IRFU flag with regard to OI policy. You will be pleased to know that there has been a full and robust discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union spanning many days and involving a large number of contributors, in which we made great efforts to give our reasoned interpretations of OI policy as it relates to this subject. I have recently tried to summarise the discussion here: Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion. The full discussion sits above that section. Your input will be greatly appreciated. I have posted this same message at the noticeboard as well. Please indicate if this is the correct protocol of relaying our discussion to you. If it is not, I apologise.Kwib (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for fixing that deletion log entry on the MfDd page. Not sure how that happened Fritzpoll (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagine it's that the delete tab automatically populated the wrong MFD link; mfdx may need to be tweaked. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi Stifle,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, WP:TLDR. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, it is a long message.


 * Can I take it that you understood that "none" meant "no quick-desysop threshold, just leave it to the Crats", and that you are happy with your "90%" vote for the threshold?


 * A simple "Yes" here will do if you agree with the above. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

General Tojo and libel investigation
This message has been posted on the Swedish Wikipedia by a new user. It seems suspicious, do you know anything about the alleged libel investigation?Sjö (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I will email you. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then could you please fill me in on this too? And why is it so hard to find any information about this matter? Wutsje (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Station 58
Am i doing something wrong ? Cause the image is constantly being deleted from the documentary page. It IS the documentary and its been released of any copyright Stolenimages1 (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The original copyright holder (i.e. the person who created the image) should email a permission release to permissions-commons@undefinedwikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

wp:wtut Protection

 * This was a version that was not even edited by me. And this version was made after the rfc expired.  So:
 * I did elicit comment.
 * You are reverting (mind you, at least) an edit that was not only agreed on by consensus, but was not selfwritten.174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Protecting this page for 10 days... shorter than when I left BOTH requests for comments up, before I made an edit. If I need only 10 days to wait, then why was I blocked, and why was this blocked?174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't reverted anything, or blocked anyone, or protected anything for ten days (in connection with that article). Stifle (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your last point = moot174.3.98.236 (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

FillAnyPdf
You recently deleted FillAnyPdf, and this is a request to reopen it for voting based on new information. I assume it was deleted based on the voting in the discussion. However, there was new significant information added, especially at the end, that the people who voted never saw and I believe would produce a different outcome. So, I am not even requesting automatic approval, just a chance for everyone to vote based on all the information available. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.141.52 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FillAnyPDF was deleted in September by User:NuclearWarfare. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The deletion log lists your account as deleting it at 11:44, 12 February 2010 - is this incorrect? Is the title case sensitive? Raduser101 (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, you mean FillAnyPdf/Articles for deletion/FillAnyPdf. I'm happy with my closure and it's open to you to open a request at WP:DRV. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Flagged for deletion
I just happened on User:Stifle/deletionhelp by accident; quite a funny template :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Callard, Madden & Associates
I have nominated Callard, Madden & Associates, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Callard, Madden & Associates. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Magioladitis (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Huth
Could you restore all the deleted history of Ronald Huth as he now merely passed the notability criteria. Matthew_hk  t  c  22:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question is covered by my FAQs. They're linked at the top of my talk page and in the editnotice. Why not check them out next time?
 * Done, in any case. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

AGF
I have to say I'd not have AGF'd after what is I think nine previous deletions, around 20 sockpuppets and blacklisting of the domain for relentless spamming (e.g. see User_talk:Fioranoweb). Guy (Help!) 23:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My stores of good faith are no doubt excessive. Feel free to take any valid actions with regard to the page. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy call: "Metal Gear (series)" vs. "Metal Gear"
(I trust you will, at least admin-to-admin, forgive my non-compliance with your FAQ-first request.) As a courtesy only, i inform you that:
 * a move you made, per your exemplary call of the corresponding unanimous RM, was IMJ improperly reversed
 * i have offered to those interested, in a succeeding subsection, to at least start remediation.

--Jerzy•t 05:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

On images
Hi Stifle, you were so kind to do an image review in October last year on this. Could you please check the images of the present version? I believe this time it's all unambiguous and won't take up much of your time. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Of the two remaining issues you had resolved one already and I put your quote on the page, and the other one is likely because the OTRS uses Wyastone Estate Limited instead of Nimbus Records, but Wyastone owns Nimbus Records. Would you mind commenting again? Regards Hekerui (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Opps
I think you broke DRV with your close of Super Oboma world. I'm worried I'll mess it up worse if I try to fix it... Hobit (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Tikiwont fixed it. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Helicon Arts Cooperative
Hi -- can I assume that the note you added to this blocked sockpuppet's page is the result of an OTRS ticket? You might want to look at the uploads made by the sockfarm that account is part of, which include high resolution images copyrighted by Helicon Arts Cooperative, which I'm not sure how they got access to if they are not in some way connected to that production company. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an OTRS ticket, strategic move at the moment while I wait to hear back about it. It's not strictly untrue (we do not know for sure that he's from the Helicon Arts Cooperative), but if I get further trouble back on the ticket I'll raise the point you gave. I'd appreciate if you would leave it sit for now. Stifle (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for the info. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And in case I forget later, it's 2010022310001371. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)