User talk:Stifle/Archive 0408b

Bigfoot
DNA evidence of an "unidentified primate" taken from Bigfoot sighting locations is not a fringe fact.

This DNA evidence was reviewed in several prominent university laboratories and citations are available to support this.

Nor is Jane Goodall a fringe authority.

Goodall is a world-renowned primatologist-- and she has stated she believes that bigfoot is real BASED ON THESE SAMPLES OF DNA EVIDENCE.

The view that bigfoot is a real animal is no longer a fringe view in the scientific community but is now a competing view with the skeptical scientific position.

Sean7phil (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Stop deluding yourself :( Stifle (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
About your result in third report, do please note that the user seems aware of 3RR. Did you intend the warning to make him aware that he was breaking rules, which seems unnecessary, or because you feel a warning would serve to end the edit-warring? Relata refero (disp.) 11:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the edit warring has already ended (the article hasn't been edited in over 11 hours) so there's nothing to stop. Blocking or protecting wouldn't serve any useful purpose. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except it ended because they'd violated 3RR and knew it.... but no self-rvs. Just wondering whether that means that they would pick it up again when they got back online. Still, you're probably right, too stale. -- Relata refero (disp.) 11:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, you're always on AN3 when I'm looking. Great job. I've noticed that it is under-policed, except for you, from about 0600 UTC till about now. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I try my best. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Image titles
Please note that the image captions which you referenced is correct - the caption lists the aircraft military serial numberDavegnz (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Templates on User Pages
Hi there.

Could you have a look at this user page please? A bot removed a protection template from it, and I've removed a few more, as the page is not protected as far as I can tell from the edit history. There are still a few templates on there, most of which I think are only supposed to be used in the Article namespace, but I'm not 100% sure, so I'd like an Admin's opinion. Cheers, -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have any non-free stuff and it's not putting his userpage into invalid categories, so I think it's all right. Silly, but all right. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

page protect
Hi! So, do I have any options with this revision war, or just see how mediation pans? Ledboots (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There really isn't much of a revert war. Consider discussing the matter on the talk page, requesting a third opinion, requesting comment, or one of the other dispute resolution options. Repeatedly requesting that the page be locked to your version won't go anywhere. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree images
Would you consider having OrphanBot orphan images in the PUI subpages that are over two weeks old? Stifle (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should the bot remove them? If the image is kept, then someone will need to put it back, while if the image is deleted, ImageRemovalBot can remove it after deletion. --Carnildo (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I forgot about ImageRemovalBot. Thanks for reminding me. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Toxic Ravine image deleted
I don't understand why my image on Toxic Ravine was deleted. It was marked as a "possibly non-free image" and there was a link to a discussion page; on the discussion page I explained why the image was free; I asked for advice on whether anything more needed to be done. No more comments were made in the discussion, and now the image has been removed. What do I need to do to get the image to stay? It is my own creation and I choose to release it to the public domain.

See the discussion here:

Please help me do the right thing here. Capmango (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will restore the image. It would help if you uploaded it on a website you control which is clearly linked to your game and stated on that page that it is a public domain image. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You should also crop the image to remove the top menu as that could be considered part of copyrighted computer software. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My sources are fine.
Who determines the quality of a source? I say my source is quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debo7 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources explains this better than I can. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted image Bedford JJL
Why did you delete Image:Bedford JJL.jpg? As stated in the, it is clearly marked copyright free on the image, I don't know what more evidence is needed that this is a free image? It dates from the 1970s so they couldn't exactly release it on a commons license, I am sure this was the accepted procedure of the time. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad. Restored. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

tfd of Template:Pp-create
Could I please request your return to Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 1? User:AzaToth has persuaded be that the template does indeed have a valid use. You !voted delete as well. If you can follow the back and forth between me and AzaToth, and are similarly persuaded, then you withdrawing your !vote would allow for the withdrawl of the TFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Open disussion after WP:RM
You performed the move of the article Sailor Moon SuperS per WP:RM today but did not close the respective talk page section. Just wanted to drop you a line, in case this wasn't intentional. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fixed now. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Lucy-marie‎ reported by User:Matt Lewis
Hi. I wasn't sure what "/dev/null" meant - so am reaching you here. I have a question and some points regarding the "nominator warned" result, and have written quite a lot. Before I take your time up with them though, can I just ask you this? Does the result have to end with someone being warned? Can you look at it again, because I am (and have) worked on this in good faith. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * /dev/null is explained at its article; I linked it wrongly at the report.
 * For the answer to your second question please read AN3. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to post what I planned to post yesterday (see above). I honestly believe that you have acted on misinformation. Unfortunately, when removing the continued debate, you have (no-doubt unwittingly) deleted the actual evidence of the mistake made on the 3RR page. (btw, I don't wish to debate on the 3RR page at all - but user:B is an interested party, so I've felt I've had to respond). Please read... --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have a question and some points regarding the "nominator warned" result.


 * What does the warning entail? I have to ask because I plan to return the old 'Voting records' back to all the articles it was removed from (although with some tweaks to them, which should totally allay any copyright fears). I've currently only had a note from the editor Coppertwig, who retracted part of it (and, incidentally, has agreed that the records are important) - I've had no actual warning. Lucy-marie did not warn me of anything (she had no right to anyway), and user:B has simply got his facts wrong re "copy and paste", and over Lucy-marie's comments (as I'm not sure if he is an admin anyway?)


 * In the edit where you gave me the warning, you twice agreed with the editor user:B's previous comment about me (his comment: "No violation (his bold) - reverting to remove a copyright violation is exempt from 3RR limitations. The text being removed was a copy/paste from [65] as Lucy-marie correctly stated in her edit summary." ). On your early decision, you responded with "And there are only three reverts anyway, four required to breach the 3RR", and in your edit-note you put "and only three reverts anyway" - again agreeing with userB's statement. Regarding the value of user:B's comment, I have 3 points to make:


 * 1) I have proven that the Voting record was not a "copy/paste", but substantially edited (by whoever originally introduced it to the article way back - it wasn't me, I just support it). Even though it is public information, it is possible it needs to be edited more - but it certainly wasn't just copied and pasted.
 * 2) user:B claimed Lucy-marie had warned me of the "copy/paste" issue - she did NOT say it was a copy/paste at all. She wrote in an edit-note "please do not add theyworkforyou.com summaries that is not what wikipedia is for”. (she calls the lists ‘summaries’ – but they are the standard key votes). Her reasons for her removing them (over a number of MPs articles) was mainly that the records were "pointless" information, due to Government ‘whips’ forcing the vote (as it happens, this isn't always true - some votes don’t have whips, and MPs sometimes go their own way anyway). She also feels the list is biased in some way (I think is just misguided here – these are all the big issue since the data was revealed).
 * 3) If you look at my Talk page and the 3RR, user:B is clearly a biased party who is pushing for the removal of the Voting records on copyright grounds (he/she has commented on it to the end on the 3RR, while also commenting on my Talk page too). He/she advocates a simplified paragraph – with no stated votes at all – so a clear bias is here. I just don't think it is fair that a 3RR should be dicated by an interested editor.

I recognise now that I shouldn't have opened the 3RR, and I have apologised for it. It is the only one I've ever made (I normally keep Talking) - and I did it because I genuinely thought it would help the fate of the other MP's articles that have been recently removed of their long-standing Voting records by Lucy-marie (and because I found that she has a sockpuppetry record that shows she can fight unreasonably). One of her edit-notes on another MP’s article was “the imfprmation is completly pointless stop edit warring and engage in discussion before this gets completly out of hand” – I stopped reverting after 1 with the other MPs and headed to 3RR. I did discuss on David Lammy – but we weren’t getting anywhere (and there were only the two of us)– and she simply kept replacing my attempted return to ‘consensus’. I also originally thought she broke the 3RR rule as I counted 4 changes (but of course she was on 3 - an issue I queried over in my report). I suppose in my mind the other MP articles were adding to the 3RR ‘tally’, as she was basically reverting to the same removal of data of each of them.

I acted in the best possible faith, and 100% for the benefit on Wikipedia. It seems harsh to warn me over a mistake: I regret that I failed to realise I had 3RR'd myself, as I was too focused replacing what has been in the article for some time. It seems technically harsh that my first revert is counted, but that's the rules I guess. I can see that I should have looked for help. I am inexperienced in complaining, as I normally keep Talking, as I have said. Although I’ve said a lot about the “edit war”, for me this is less about the issue of right or wrong – my question is: does the result have to end in warning someone? If we have an equal footing we can carry on debating - at the moment I feel compromised by the warning. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't feel "compromised by the warning". It is only letting you know of the relevant Wikipedia rule.
 * However, there really wasn't any 3RR violation. There would have had to be more than three reverts to break the rule. I strongly recommend you just carry on and leave this behind. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just wanted to thank you for userfying those deleted pages for me. No need to respond, just letting you know you're appreciated! vasi (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

reply
WP:AGF. I am going to assume you did not intend this comment to seem like a slight.

About six months ago you expressed some very serious concerns about my motives. I spent some time on my reply, and you offered what I saw as a meaningful apology -- restoring us to mutual trust.

I am going to assume that you continue to respect my judgment, motives, and right to express my opinion.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. I did not intend that at all, and simply wanted to save you the trouble of writing a refutation to my point on DRV because I would not take it up. I have reviewed the arguments prior to stating my opinion and don't intend to change it. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

'Micronation' nonsense
This material really needs at least a fantasy health warning, preferably deletion. It should be considered fro deletion under the W{: hoax criterion (a form of vandalism).

One man and his fantasy website, how does this make a wiki entry? Because it's repeated elsewhere? Still fantasy.

88.109.209.20 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. However, it's not a speedy deletion candidate. Proposed deletion and Articles for deletion are proper venues. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
Is Moldova considered to be in the Balkans here? Cause it doesn't appear to be on that map and, from what I've heard, Moldova is almost everytime included in the geopolitical region of Eastern Europe. Also, if I restore the version I consider to be the right one, but this restoration would normaly constitute a breach of the 3 restoration per day rule, I'll be exempt if the editor who put the current version is blocked? (this may sound a awkward to a native English speaker. sorry)Xasha (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Moldova is considered to be in the Balkans. No, you may not make a 4th revert. Get someone else to. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you made that M error as well. The applicable ArbComm case you had in mind is probably this one. --Illythr (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, they're all the same ;) Stifle (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Image deletion
You should have considered contacting User:Aristote2 as well, who uploaded that image again. --Bolonium (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no such user. Did you typo the username? Stifle (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently unblocked User talk:Clarkerst is still puzzling
Hello Stifle. Recently you acceded to a request to lift this user's indefinite block, after I responded to his request at WP:RPP to unprotect his Talk page. Since that time he has got his account renamed to User:I Love Editing, per a request at WP:CHU. His further activities since then appear to include repeated attempts to delete his (successful) name change request from WP:CHU (for example, and later as an IP)  and to blank various warnings that people leave him on his Talk. Do you think that our hopes of his reform could have been too optimistic? EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no rule against blanking warnings. (It's considered as an acknowledgement of having read the warning.) I'd watch for a while to see if he's interested in serious contributions. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I
Hi! I thought I'd notify you of this AN/I report in connection with the warning you issued to this user, in case you wanted to comment. — Zerida  ☥   18:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your (Stifle) message dated: 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I recently tried to upload several pictures to which I have full copyright, or permission by the copyright holders (photographers) to use at my discretion! The particular photograph to which you responded: (Re:  Your message dated:  20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)) and which you ultimately deleted is a photograph taken back in 1998 by Canadian photographer Rob Dutchin (www.robdutchin.com). It is a photograph that was submitted to www.imdb.com as a main headshot for professional Canadian actor/singer Mif (Anthony J. Mifsud) by myself and which has been circulated around many other internet actor databases and fanzines over the years in the public domain! What must I do to have this photograph included on Mif's wiki article based on the above mentioned inormation??? Please and thank you!

PS I am concerned about getting blocked as your aforementioned  message indicates!!!

Mifmaster. —Preceding comment was added at 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~ at the end.
 * If you have full copyright or permission then please email the permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org quoting the exact title or URL of the image concerned.
 * Unfortunately just because an image has been "circulated around many other internet actor databases and fanzines" does not place it in the public domain. Images generally enter the public domain 70 years after the death of their creator.
 * If you require any further clarification please feel free to leave me a message at my talk page.
 * If you are concerned about being blocked then please ensure you comply with our image use policy. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"3RR warning"
Hi; if you look closely at my reverts, you'll see that they were removing BLP violations, which as I'm sure you're aware, is an exception to the 3RR. For example... this claims an actress is appearing, without a source. —TreasuryTag —t —c 18:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Saything that someone appeared or will appear in a television program is not a WP:BLP violation; we're talking about TV, not the Nuremberg Trials here.  You will surely find yourself blocked with a quickness if you continue to edit war in this particlar content dispute.  &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 19:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * HiDrNick is correct. Those edits were not BLP violations. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Generation2
I have tried to make the Generation2 (Sword Replica) not advertising. It is no more advertising than the Hanwei, or Albion or Arms and Armor pages. I looked. In factt he Hanwei is for the Hanwei Shop a retiler of Hanwei products Please look into this. Generation2 is a well known historical sword maker and I feel they need to be in the sword manufacturing section right along with these listed above.

Since the death of Hank Reinhardt Generation2 is still making swords as he wanted and this is an article that will be History.

I ask to to reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClydeHollis (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, you can feel free to recreate Generation2 but you need to add citations from reliable sources to comply with the verifiability policy, and to write from a neutral point of view. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion
Hi. Thanks for your message. Is there a way to send unused and unlinked templates to WP:TFD that's as easy/automatic as db? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if it is redundant to another template, in which case use, replacing OtherTemplate with the other template's name. A seven-day waiting period is required.
 * If it is not redundant to another template, then you need to use TFD. This is because the template may be used only by substing. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out . As I've found myself working among templates, I'm guessing I'll be trying it out sooner rather than later. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
It just came to my attention that you have declared at least two photographs uploaded by me earlier and tagged recently for deletion as free. I should like to take this opportunity and thank you for your decisions which in my opinion were just decisions. After a relatively long time of being a Wikipedian, you are the only editor whom I genuinely respect. For this reason, I should like to let you know that I am now going to upload (for the second time) a photograph of Bahram Bayzai which was removed from Wikipedia about two weeks ago for no reason, whatever (I was not even warned about it). May I hereby request you to be kind enough and take this photograph under your protection? With kind regards, --BF 01:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you tell me the image name I will place it on my watchlist. I can't promise it'll be protected completely, but as long as it's demonstrably not a copyright violation it should be all right. In fact, if you tell me where the deleted image was I might be able to restore it. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The image is this one: . It is possible that something may need to be added to or removed from the existing tags, but legally everything is in order with the presence of this photograph on Winkipedia. If Wikipedia think that something more has to be done, they should contact Payvand.com (the contact address is given on the photograph page); on my request, Payvand.com gave me permission to use the photographs on the particular page to which I explicitly refer; even following the uploading of this photograph (and of other similar photographs), I wrote to them and asked them to inspect my copyright statements, and they responded by saying that they were happy with the statements. One personal note: Bahram Bayzai's parents were friends of my parents (they lived a stone's throw from us); I have not been friends with Bahram, as he is almost one generation older than I (he went to university, when I was a small child). As for my remark on my page, the truth is that I really do not know whether I will stay on Wikipedia; all depends on whether Wikipedia does something to prevent vigilantes from becoming "editors". About two weeks ago, a short Wikipedia entry that I made was tagged for deletion the moment I saved the entry. On asking the person who had done the tagging about her/his motivation, it turned out that s/he had tagged it because s/he had not been able to trace something about the subject matter of the entry through Google. This is not editorship, this is outright philistinism! One cannot edit something about which one does know nothing and for which one has to make a desperate search on Google! (I leave aside that this "editor"'s language was contemptuous; s/he wrote to me as though I were her/his schoolmate.) Furthermore, having been for so long on Wikipedia, I could not have possibly made an entry on a non-existent subject matter. In short, my personal experience is that one spends often more time to fend off vigilante "editors" than to do something useful on Wikipedia.  Incidentally, yesterday I noticed that they have unjustly removed the photograph of Vernon Scannell (which was uploaded by me), despite my repeated pleas not to do so. May I be so rude as to ask you to be kind enough and see whether the photograph can be restored? Scannell died recently and I deeply believe that he must not be defaced; some respect for the dead is not amiss. With kind regards, --BF 13:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As Bahram Bayzai is still alive, Image:Bahram Bayzai.jpg can't be used under the non-free tag you've provided. I have to put a temporary notice on it saying that it might not be usable on Wikipedia, because you have said it is not replaceable but it really is.
 * I am afraid that Wikipedia is not responsible for verifying permissions that you claim. It is your responsibility to prove that you have permission and that the image is available under a free licence. If you see the instructions at Requesting copyright permission, you may already have this. You should email the permission you received from payvand.com — it is NOT Wikipedia's responsibility to contact them — to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, quoting the URL of the image.
 * I found the image Image:Vernon Scannell.jpg. It says that it was released under a Creative Commons license but the source of the image says "Copyright, all rights reserved". Now since Vernon Scannell is deceased the image is not replaceable and it could be used under the non-free criteria. I can restore that image for you if you wish. You will need to add a non-free use rationale to it.
 * As regards your concern about Takam-Chi (film) (it really helps if you specify the names of pages you're referring to), unfortunately not everyone on Wikipedia is omniscient; at the time the page was tagged, it looked like this, having no citations or sources, which doesn't comply with the verifiability policy. Of course it was not deleted in the end, all's well that ends well I suppose.
 * I think that addresses all your concerns but feel free to get back in touch with me if you need further guidance. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Stifle, many thanks for your kind response. As I am in a hurry, I shall just mention that yes, I would greatly appreciate if you would kindly restore the photograph of Vernon Scannell. If you have time, you may wish to read the piece that Simon Jenkins wrote about him in The Guardian of 23 November 2007 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2215773,00.html); if you have not done this already, on reading the piece you will realise that it is impossible not to love this man. As for the entry that I wrote to you about, yes it was indeed the entry on Takam-Chi (film). The problem was, as I mentioned earlier, that the "editor" at issue did not leave me any time before tagging the entry for deletion; I just had saved the entry as a security measure for not loosing its contents, in the event that e.g. my Internet connection would unexpectedly fail; I was about to re-enter the file that I received a message that the entry was already tagged for deletion --- believe me, as I am not exaggerating, I had no more than 10 seconds for doing all the things that according to you would have prevented the entry from being tagged. Although the entry finally stayed, this was achieved at the expense of some of my time that I shall not be able to recover from any source; a fraction of my life was dissipated for nothing. You may be too young to appreciate, but when you reach my age, every night that you go to bed you will do that with the realisation that you may not raise from your bed the next morning, i.e. there may not be a next morning for you. With kind regards, --BF 17:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Stifle, just noticed that they have also removed the photograph of my beloved Shusha Guppy who died on 21 March. Should be most grateful if you would kindly also restore her photograph. What are these "editors" doing for God's sake? With kind regards, --BF 17:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Stifle, these butchers have also removed the photograph of Volker Heine. He is my scientific father, so please read what I had written about why I had not written to him about the photograph and asked others to do it instead. Restoring his photograph would also be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, --BF 17:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Vernon Scannell.jpg has been restored and tagged correctly.
 * For Image:Shusha Guppy.jpg, you should forward the permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I have restored the image in the meantime.
 * For Image:Volker Heine.jpg, I regret that I cannot restore this as it would be a violation of copyright. The image does not qualify for use under our fair use policy. Since Mr. Heine is alive, a photograph of him could conceivably be taken and released under a free license. I hope you understand.
 * Your images are less likely to be deleted if you tag them with a valid image copyright tag. Images taken from another website should not be tagged as GFDL or similar unless the website you took it from says that the image is released under that license. An edict from Wikipedia's founder says that permission to use an image on Wikipedia is not enough - the images must be usable by others too. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Stifle, thank you for your message. On one level I do understand the problem that you indicate with regard to the photograph of Volker Heine. On the most fundamental level, however, I regret to say that not only do I not understand you, but anybody else in your position uttering those words; in other words, this lack of understanding is not due to your statement being in some ways unintelligible. Laws are meant to protect us from excesses and arbitrariness. In the case of Volker Heine, no one will be harmed by exposing his photograph in his Wikipedia entry; he is not a pin-up figure and outside a very small and continually shrinking community, nobody knows him so that no one is likely to use his photograph for promotional purposes --- I can perfectly imagine that if he were, say, George Clooney, one might have a serious problem with what might happen with his photograph; as it happens, he is a retired professor, known only to a small group of mostly odd and odd-looking people around the world. I am certain that no young woman would consider to hang a poster of Volker Heine in her bedroom. So, why are we making a simple problem so difficult? For me it would be a simple task to just call him on the phone and ask him for a photograph of his, but, as I have written elsewhere, I do not do that because I do not wish to invoke the impression that I may be doing him a favour --- although it is unlikely, theoretically it is conceivable that he might think that I might want from him something in return; that is all. And I can assure everyone, that he will not sue me for having placed his photograph on Wikipedia. Be it as it may, I believe that we have a fundamental problem in our societies arising from this lack of trust in individuals. I could not possibly earn a penny more or a penny less by having his photograph on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter. But of course it would be very unreasonable for me to expect that you should agree with me; I am personally deeply dismayed by the way in which our societies are evolving, where a string of zeros-and-ones sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org carries more weight than my personal dignity and thousands of words that I have spent on the primacy of trust in people over such e-mails as you mentioned in your message (introducing identity cards, will further erode what is left of the significance of being simply a good citizen). In the event that you may be interested to know, those words of T.S. Eliot on my personal page speak for me when they say But no longer at ease here ....


 * As for the photograph of Bahram Bayzai, I just forwarded an e-mail to Mr Ali Moayedian from Payvand.com, asking him to send an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, indicating Payvand.com's permission for exposing this photograph on Wikipedia --- as though I were lying all along about having had this permission from them. I thank you again for your kindness. With kind regards, --BF 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I speak not of the law, but of Wikipedia's policies, developed in the hope of becoming a free encyclopedia. If you feel they should be changed, Village pump (policies) is the place to go. But when elected an administrator I agreed to enforce them. Thank you for understanding. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am already deeply grateful to you for what you have done in the course of today. With kind regards, --BF 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR Dmod - Cave Clan article
Hiya, I just noticed you blocked both User:Adam.J.W.C. and User:Dmod for 3RR violation on the Cave Clan article. I'd just like to bring your attention to that article's talk page. Myself and several other editors (Dmod included) have been discussing improvements on this article, especially in relation to removing POV content and correctly referencing sections. It became quite irritating to see Adam J.W.C carrying his own personal agendas onto the talk page, and at some points even on to the main article. For example, at one stage we were discussing whether certain "off-limits" locations should be publicly disclosed (and debating as to the relevance of these locations to the organisation's article). Adam unfortunately began to suggest that these locations should be displayed, prominently, with the reasoning that he had reported them to city councils and they would be offlimits very shortly. Background: urban exploration involves finding then exploring certain off-limits locations, ie. storm drains and abandoned buildings. Adam seems to feel that this urban exploration organisation, the Cave Clan, is unfairly taking "possession" of these locations, and is looking for any outlet to vent his frustrations - in this case, at one stage wallpapering the article with pictures of supposed "Clan vandalism". More recently, he has accused editors (who are attempting to reach consensus) of being part of the Cave Clan organisation, then using this as a basis to dismiss their concerns (for example, person X is a member of this group, so they don't want Y data displayed in the article because it would damage the group's reputation). To be completely honest, I am frustrated with this type of attitude. I have no doubt that he will (sooner or later) accuse me of running sockpuppets. I'm more than willing to prove via a CU (if it ever comes to it) that I'm not running socks. While I realise you blocked both for a 3RR vio, I feel I need to let you know this background - if only to ask what kind of action should be taken in the future to prevent things coming to this. Cheers. SMC (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the user is causing serious difficulty by his behaviour, open a request for comment. If you feel that the article is being disrupted by edit warring, open a request for protection. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't entirely sure which would be appropriate (and whether it would be serious enough for an RFC). If this type of disruption continues I'll look into opening an RFC. Cheers. SMC (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Toronto FC
I tried to add a section in the info box pertaining to the Canada cup of Soccer, but it wouldn't let me add it. I guess they won't accept me to change the system wide template for MLS teams..oh well Krayziegunts (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. Please leave new messages at the end of my talk page in future.
 * Toronto FC has been protected from editing due to edit wars. If you wish to make a non-contentious change place editprotected with details of the edit on the talk page. Otherwise you should use the protection time to discuss the content of the page there. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ok no problem, I am new to editing pages on wikipedia, so maybe I should have not tried to edit that piece since it was blocked, but thanks for the adviseKrayziegunts (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, there's nothing wrong with being bold. You probably edited the page only a few moments after I put on the protection. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can add the lil tidbit on that info box, the US based teams have the US Open Cup info on their. I believe TFC should have their main cup competion on their box too Krayziegunts (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wish to make a non-contentious change place editprotected with details of the edit on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who/Davros
Have you ever being involved in Doctor Who episodes? The only way to get the point across is to R(B)I anyone who puts in these inane rumours, as it gets beyond a joke. Hell, I've violated 3RR many times on  just to keep it at featured list quality (I don't know how the hell I hoodwinked everyone into getting it promoted). Sceptre (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen it come up increasingly on WP:RFPP lately. I've protected Doctor Who (series 4) until after Saturday's episode, which should hopefully help. But you don't get a free pass over 3RR because they're featured, good, or because he's the Doctor, or because he's a Time Lord, or because he's from the planet Gallifrey in the constellation of Kasterborous, or because he's 903 years old, or etc. Just like every other currently-running series, people are going to try and put in the most current information. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The point I'm trying to make is that it's a pain in the ass original research isn't 3RR-exempt. I doubt anyone would seriously block anyone at WP:AN3 for this sort of stuff (like episode 12's title, episode 12's villains, next year's plots, etc) anyway. Sceptre (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That much I agree with. But unfortunately I have to enforce the rules as they are, and not as I want them to be. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

:(
I don't understand why you're picking on me! I didn't do anything wrong but you keep yelling at me and calling me names and Penelopism is not pointless it's awesome and you're making me cry because Penelopism is very important to me and my cousin, Jessica, and I are Penelopists and my cousin died in a car crash so now all I have left to remember her is Penelopism and how much she loved it and how loyal she was to Penelope so I wanted to make a page about it because I wanted the page to be somewhat a memorial to her and now I'm crying because you've crushed me inside... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejequeso (talk • contribs)

12:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. Please sign your messages in future by typing ~ at the end.
 * I'm glad to hear that your made-up religion has managed to make it to three members for a while. Perhaps you should create a website at one of the many free web hosts on the Internet about it; Wikipedia is not a free host. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was reverting blatant vandalism. The Three Revert Rule specifically provides for that.  I don't have to discuss reverting blanking of the article or replacement of it with chat.  Read the policy and don't template the regulars. Dethme0w (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with or follow WP:DTTR.
 * This revert wasn't a revert of blatant vandalism. Some others were. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Central Rebel Mascot.gif
Is there any way that I can get you to un-delete this image? I understand that there was a question about the image some time ago, but I almost immediately corrected the licensing info, complete with a release from the source website allowing the image to be in the public domain. Sf46 (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I was cleaning out Category:Images with unknown source for deletion in dispute and I deleted a couple that should have been kept. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sf46 (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)