User talk:Stifle/Archive 0310

TV3 Medford Page
Wikipedia is being used by the television station, Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. (under the alias TV3 Medford, which the Wikipedia page is titled) to promote information that is not factual. A public access station belongs to the people who fund it, not the "non-profit" which has a temporary agreement to oversee the facility. In Medford, Massachusetts the non-profit has a long history of conflict of interest, an entrenched board of directors who refuse to hold a city wide election for the station, a board which has been audited and evaluated by a retired judge (at the request of the city). Notice how the page has many "contributions" which are self-serving rather than encyclopedia-styled information found on other Public Access TV stations. Here are some helpful links:

the report published by Medford City Hall http://www.wickedlocal.com/medford/news/x774169733

City Solicitor Mark E. Rumley's Report http://insidemedford.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/city-solicitors-report-to-mayor-mcglynn-on-medford-community-cablevision.pdf

Here are pertinent articles which should be posted on the site:

Boston Globe site:

Medford cable TV board filmed its own movies, excluded public http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/medford/2009/08/judge_says_tv3_board_must_make.html

Medford Transcript - a weekly established newspaper owned by CNC, the national Gatehouse media Judge Issues Recommendations for TV3 http://www.wickedlocal.com/medford/news/x2145957005/BREAKING-NEWS-Judge-issues-recommendations-for-TV3

Judge Issues Scathing Report on TV 3 http://insidemedford.com/2009/08/12/judge-issues-scathing-report-against-tv3/

Board member of TV 3 Speaks http://insidemedford.com/2009/08/23/tv3so-now-what/

TV3 and Community Outreach http://insidemedford.com/2009/06/10/tv3-needs-to-do-more-community-outreach/

TV3 Sues the City http://www.wickedlocal.com/medford/news/x1772954806/TV3-sues-city-for-57k-in-fees

Please watch the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV3_Medford

Wikipedia is being used by the station to promote information that is not factual.

thank you. Originalandnew (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)OriginalandnewOriginalandnew (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you're telling me this. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Weak fair use; complaint
Hi, Stifle. :) I wanted to check with you about File:Tiffany's november 1980.jpg and File:Tiffany's dance hall overview.jpg. After a question on my talk page about them, I see that we not only have an incredibly weak fair use (the images aren't even in the article, but in a footnote), but the image host (not copyright holder) has objected. Is DfU the best approach here? Or is there a more expedited process? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * DFU is as quick as it gets unless you want to go for deleting per WP:ROUGE =] Stifle (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oooh, no. I'm afraid I lack the required rakishness for the role. :) I'll stick with DFU! Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

On the image of Michael Foot
Dear Stifle, I should be most grateful if you would kindly take a look into this and this and resolve the problem. With kind regards, --BF 18:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Further to the above request, could you please also have a look here? Is tagging the image for deletion justified? --BF 18:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I made no assumption! If you read what I have written to Milburn, then you will notice that I have made the effort that I am supposed to have made (you, and Milburn, would prove me wrong if you came up with a free image, but you have not). Milburn's argument is that free images may become available in future, but nowhere have I said anything to the contrary; I have said that as soon as that becomes the case, my present copyright statement becomes invalid and the present image will have to be replaced by the available free image. We cannot predict the future and we cannot presuppose that free images will necessarily become available. In fact, going by Milburn's argument, the question arises as to the meaning of the type of copyright tag that I have used. Why has such a tag been made at all and what purpose is it supposed to serve? Kind regards, --BF 20:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC).
 * I have explained it in my writing to Milburn: searched the Internet in the time available to me (used Google image and Google web, and looked through a number of online publications pertaining to Michael Foot). Please note that if tomorrow someone, e.g. Milburn, comes up with a free image, then by all means s/he should not hesitate to replace the present image. In my understanding, this is the way Wikipedia is supposed to evolve. I have used a particular copyright tag and attached some additional remarks to it; if at some future date any of these no longer applies, then of course the associated image should be removed. Milburn has not shown that any of the statements in the copyright statement of the image at issue were false, yet on the basis of some possible future developments has both removed the image from the biography and tagged the image for deletion. He had a point if he had shown that my statements were false; all he needed to do was coming up with a free image (as I have written to him, the onus is on him to prove me wrong, not on me to prove that there are no free images anywhere to be found --- I have simply a limited amount of time to spend on Wikipedia-related issues and I have spent the reasonable amount of effort that I am supposed to have spent before undertaking to upload the image). --BF 20:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Stifle, I should be most grateful if you would let User:Milburn know that he should leave me in peace. He seems to have decided to exert undue pressure on me, and I have just left him a message here, asking him to stop making himself a nuisance to me (the issue with regard to the photograph of Ebrahim Pourdavoud was dealt with days ago by User:Feydey --- Milburn had tagged it for deletion! he seems out on a vendetta). Please just count the number of unsolicited messages that he has left on my page in response to my correspondence with you, leaving me mystified as to his purpose. Why has he decided to play the boss here? Who is he at all? Why does he feel entitled to keep writing to me that I did not understand this and that, etc.? A student from Lancaster is supposed to behave more respectfully towards those who might be older than his father! I had unequivocally told him that I would leave the matter to your judgement and did not wish to discuss the issue with regard to the photograph of Michael Foot with him any longer. Yet, he just kept writing to me! An now, tagging the image of Ebrahim Pourdavoud for deletion for good measure? --BF 02:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You might like to have a look here as well. --BF 03:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Stifle: I demand that User:Milburn be sanctioned against. See what garbage he has written on my talk page, here. Look what words he has used. Winkipedia is not a gutter that people raised in gutter would come here and insult others. Please look at the issue at hand: my only "fault" consists of having asked you to act as an arbiter, and now I have to suffer the abuse of a supposed student. Some student! --BF 14:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll need to go to WP:ANI or WP:DR if you're after sanctions; I can't impose them. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Stifle: You might like to add your comment here. People seem to be settling old score now; all the usual suspects are now turning my request for someone having used the "f***" word on my talk page against myself! Wikipedia seems to have become a place where people organise themselves into a thing resembling pack wolves, ready to attack anyone outside their pack. Incidentally, why did you remove my earlier statement on this page in which I told you about my lodging a WP:ANI; consequence is of course that now User:J Milburn is claiming that he was not warned about my action before hand. --BF 18:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because it is mandatory to notify a user when you bring them up on AN/I. Posting to someone else's talk page is not notification. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a message for J. Milburn on this very page for him to read, as he was constantly responding to me here. If the message has disappeared, I am not responsible for that. --BF 18:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Stifle: You might like to consult this page. --BF 19:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stifle, I am not going to disengage from a problem user just because they don't like me. I am not here to be liked, but nor am I here to face abuse. The user in question seems more willing (but not fully willing...) to listen to you, and has now descended into ridiculous personal comments, as you can see. It would be appreciated if you could point them to the relevant policies and let them know about their behaviour; if this continues, I am going to be forced to take the matter to ANI, despite my hatred of the noticeboards, as I refuse to be treated like this. J Milburn (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As you know, I've a lot of respect for you. Seriously, do you feel I have acted inappropriately at any point? J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I say, perhaps you could save him the trouble by repeating what I've said about the image issues and his conduct? He may listen to you. If he's not interested in following our policies and treating other users with respect, then blocking would be appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In case you are not aware, BehnamFarid has raised the matter at ANI here. You are mentioned by name several times. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted. I don't think anything I could add would reduce the drama. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Stifle, this is to let you know that the image of Michael Foot is now restored to its original state (by User:Hekerui). I am extremely glad for this, since one could have disagreed with Michael Foot's politics, but he was unquestionably a great decent man, a rare breed amongst politicians. May he rest in peace. Now, let us see what happens with Ebrahim Pourdavoud, another great man in my opinion. Kind regards, --BF 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC).
 * That's good to hear. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This proved to be premature! Please have a look into it again. Also the problem with Pourdavoud is still pending. Kind regards, --BF 22:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC).

Recent change you made
Hi Stifle, you made a recent change on Herbal Magic page in response to an inquiry I made through email. Unfortunately, Eileenabc has gone back in an made the changes backs. I'm not certain what my next steps are but it seems that no matter what proper procedure is followed, this user continues to make changes back. --Luna sky (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left her a warning. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship    proposal was  started  on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the  existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working   compromise, so CDA is still largely being  floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the  RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and  Neutral, with Comments  underneath), this RfC is still essentially a  'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks. --Manuel Trujillo Berges (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC) (an:Usuario:Manuel Trujillo Berges)

Permission
This is a response to the following that was posted on wilimedia commons: I had gotten a e-mail from Stanley J. Anderson that was for permission I was woneding if you had gotten the same e-mail an if so verify it? (High Priority) JTS

Do you have the ticket number (found in the subject line)? Stifle (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The number for the ticket is 2010021610052123 Scratch that this is a new request that dosen't have a ticket. The e-mail should look like this: To permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive Copyright of the followings:


 * Cemetary.JPG
 * Holly river.JPG
 * Senior center.JPG
 * Potato knob.JPG

I agree to publish that work and future works under the free license CC by 3.0.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial Product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long  as they abide by them terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to Be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a  libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark  restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information.


 * Stanley J. Anderson
 * 764 Cleveland Road
 * Cleveland, WV 26215
 * Telephone Number: 304-493-6532
 * E-Mail: sja@mountain.net or amelia.m@frontier.com

Please don't alter this part of the comment. It would not only be appriciated,but it would help you in finding the e-mail in question. JTS


 * Thank you, but please follow up on this on Commons:COM:ON to keep things in the one place. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't because of an abusive block, I have put an unblock request that address the information below. Its on this talk page. JTS

vandalism on OTRS/Noticeboard
This is unrelated to your question, but there has been an incident where someone has been deleting relevant comments ( or questions in this case). The comment was mistaken for block evasion and I was wrongfully blocked for it. I know who did it and if you need that information or if theses comments are deleted let me know.

JTS
 * Please report this to Commons:COM:AN. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'll unblock my ip or my username whichever,I'll do just that.Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. JTS


 * Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~ at the end.
 * Please contact the administrator who blocked you. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * looks like our vandal has struck again. I reported it and it was reverted for no reason. Then he leaves the following:

''For what it is worth, the user (and all his block evading IPs) who started this thread is a user who has been indef blocked for violating copyright rules. He is now trying get OTRS to do the same. I think the best response at this time would be none at all. Tiptoety talk 22:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)''


 * The above comment is false, His best response is the absolute wrong one. The true best response would be to act on it right here right now. OTRS, as far as the Stanley J. Anderson permission e-mail is concerned, will not be engaging in copyright violations because Stanley J. Anderson is the copyright holder. Tiptoety needs to be stopped before his false comments destroys my attempts to be unblocked. JTS
 * Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~ at the end. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The e-mail that needs to be verrified is sent from amelia.m@frontier.com with subject "permission to us photographs". This permission e-mail is it own entity. Please verrify this in a timley mannor. JTS 23:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Monthly events
I had also nominated Monthly events, 2006 in the AFD. Cenarium (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Gone. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Conrad
Hi. It was a clear cut-and-paste under an implausible title and has just been recreated on the talk page of a spam username. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a sample of the text:

''Conrad is the leading multichannel supplier in the electronics sector, operating in over ten countries throughout Europe. Conrad offers over 100,000 products and services from 34 branches in Europe and via the Internet. From our distribution centres. 6.7 million packages with 120 million items are despatched every year.''

El spammo. :) Off to block the latest spammer as well.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, user blocked. The name is User:Conraduk and I had to delete the user page for the same copyvio/spam. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds more like a G11 than a G12 then, but once there's a valid reason it's all good. Stifle (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent AfD closure
You closed the AfD at Articles for deletion/Syed Anisul Hussain as "delete". I had tried to simultaneously nominate the almost identical article Syed Anisul Husnain, but either you missed it when performing the actual deletions, or I didn't make my intent clear enough. In the first case, please delete it as well; in the second, should I just initiate a separate AfD? Huon (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just missed it and have deleted it now; in future, you should just tag the page as db-afd. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris Mathews
Bullpucky. He had been warned three times before. I was the fourth person to revert him and issue a warning. Mine just happened to be a v-4 warning. Woogee (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And if it hadn't been a redirect already, it would have been a clear db-bio. You revert, I'll take it afd.  Woogee (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't hurt to give someone a more specific warning — the user is editing in good faith, clearly hasn't a clue what an nn-bio is, and threatening him with blocks is exactly what WP:BITE asks people not to do. Stifle (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

you owe me a share of your paycheck

 * No problem. You can have half it. Unfortunately, half of nothing is... :) Stifle (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

enforcement at Falun Gong articles
See my note at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. The article probation was replaced with standard discretionary sanctions. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry...
...to bring this up again, but you've been mentioned by name in another ANI thread. It's probably not going anywhere, but I thought you may want to know. J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

DSM issues
Hi, Stifle. I've responded at Wikipedia_talk:COPYCLEAN but wanted to ask if you'd like me to take over this ticket. This one may be a bit slow in resolving, and I'd be happy to, if so. If not, carry on. :D I'll focus on the Wiki side of things. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an entirely sensible idea. It's your specialty after all (-: Stifle (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more that OTRS in general would suffer if you had to slow down for one ticket; I still think the whole thing would fall apart if not for you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're too kind :) Stifle (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that one turned out to be not quite so involved. I tagged everything and contacted Mike about it, and he told me to forward it to him and legal. Not sure how it's going to resolve, but I guess we'll find out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as well. At last count I've closed 258 permissions tickets in the last 7 days... I need to get out more. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Justinehunt
We edit-conflicted - I was working out a form of words to add to the standard block notice. I've replaced your notice with mine, since it was me who actually blocked the user. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. There's a brouhaha about this on OTRS, but the lack of communication from the user isn't helping one bit. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding article sanctions
Regarding my AE case, I've since left my response, and I'm just wondering how are the FLG article sanctions relevant to the articles on the Chinese government? And why was an article block suggestion given to me, while Dilip, who had had a long history of more outrageous behavior, wasn't given such?--PCPP (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Items 5-6 are relevant to you. As for Dilip, there is a proposal on ANI that he be banned indefinitely. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE case regarding Wispanow and Scientology in Germany
In response to your edit here, I myself would support closing this case with a warning, if it were specific enough. There was a long interval of time during which Wispanow did not respond. Now that he has answered, it is evident that he does not understand the problem with his editing. You would be doing a favor for any future admins who may encounter this problem if you could warn Wispanow very specifically about the type of behavior that must not continue. One way to get the specifics would be another round of commentary at WP:AE, but that would be stressful and would take time. If I can provide any actual info from my own review of the case that might help, let me know. Otherwise, close the case in whatever way you think best.

Wispanow is not a 'classic' Scientology edit warrior (i.e. pro or con Scientology), he has a rather eccentric viewpoint in which he considers that it's offending the national honor of Germany to report in our article some of the things that the government has done, or to report what reliable sources have had to say about German public opinion. He doesn't seem to realize that it is POV editing for him to try to defend the national honor of Germany, since his complaints about 'racism' are merely his own personal opinion. Germany may not actually need such self-appointed defenders. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think that Wispanow may be amplifying his statement on Sunday. Since the value of this thread might be measured by whether Wispanow can avoid the problem in the future, waiting for his further response could be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SilkTork has offered to mediate; I'm supporting that. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving forward, I've outlined one of the contentious points at issue here: Talk:Scientology_in_Germany. SilkTork and Wispanow have been advised of the thread, and your input is obviously welcome as well. -- JN 466  11:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)