User talk:Stifle/Archive 0609a

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos
As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

JoomlaLMS deletion review answer
Hello, I'm replying on the question posted on the JoomlaLMS deletion review page.

Yes. I have posted the request on administrator Dank (talk) talk page so they can check it. But since no reply for 2-3 days I have risen the issue posting to delete debates (AfD) - seems to me now like it was a bit wrong place to post... :)

Just couldn't find the tag (showing that issue been placed on administrator page) when posting to AfD page...

Thank you.Interkrok (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

Waverly Health Center
Will you please send me the original content from the page deleted? I'd like to work from there in determining what is appropriate content for a revised page. Thank you. --Waverly312 (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, moved to User:Waverly312/Sandbox. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

ABCpdf
Hi Stifle

I understand you recently deleted an article on ABCpdf.

Could I please request that it be userfied, while I search for some reliable sources.

There are roughly 109,000 results from Google on the subject of this article to check, so a little more time would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Affinemesh94464 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, see User:Affinemesh94464/ABCpdf. Note that since this was deleted at AFD, a deletion review request will be necessary to return this to mainspace. Stifle (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Biber salçası.jpg
Hi, Stifle. I noticed you recently declined to delete File:Biber salçası.jpg, saying, "this is not replaceable; any other photograph of the item would still be copyrighted." This may be true—any other jar of this particular brand of biber salçası might be subject to copyright. But the image isn't being used to illustrate that particular brand. It's being used to illustrate biber salçası itself, which is (apparently) a generic name for a type of Turkish red pepper paste.

The situation seems to be similar to the article for ketchup. In that article, a photograph of a bottle of Heinz ketchup is shown. That photograph has been declared free and is on the Commons. If a photo of a bottle of Heinz brand ketchup can be free, then a photo of a jar of Baktat brand biber salçası should also be able to be free, so File:Biber salçası.jpg would be replaceable. On the other hand, if File:Organic Heinz Tomato Ketchup.jpg is mistakenly labeled as a free image (because, perhaps, the copyright must be held by the H. J. Heinz Company), then it would be a replaceable non-free image for the ketchup article, since it would be replaceable by a photo of a bowl of ketchup, for example. Either line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that a non-free image of a bottle of Heinz ketchup would be replaceable, and it seems to me that the same conclusion applies to File:Biber salçası.jpg.

What do you think? —Bkell (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I misconstrued the use on the article as being specific to that brand. Now deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

deleted Techinline_Remote_Desktop
Hello Stfile,

I am the author of an article about Techinline Remote Desktop which was most recently deleted by you, and I had a couple of objections about which I was hoping to touch base with you. Techinline Remote Desktop is a remote support/screen sharing service which is in the same category of professional IT tools such as GoToMeeting, Fog Creek Copilot, Teamviewer, LogMeIn Rescue, GoToAssist Express, and a number of others. If you google "remote support" or "remote support tools", you will get an idea of where it stands in this industry.

Most of the mentioned remote support tools, despite not being significantly prominent in the industry, have their personal Wikipedia artciles. If you ask a regular Wiki reader if he/she is aware of Fog Creek Copilot or Teamviewer, for example, I am confident that an overwhelming majority of people will respond that they are unaware of them. However, there are people who rely on such services, which include Techinline Remote Desktop, to do their everyday work and it is for these people that such articles are published.

When putting together my article, I have followed the strict guidelines laid out by Wikipedia and have avoided any advertising or promotion of Techinline. Furthermore, I have included numerous services which are similar to Techinline and have focused on explaining the technology and security barriers in place instead of any marketing terms. The article was written with the main goal of helping users of Techinline get familiarized with the service and its technology. I have followed the format of other mentioned tools when putting together my article.

Concerning the sources I used and which were flagged as being "not notable enough", some such as Softpedia have their own Wiki articles as well, and therefore I cannot understand the logic which was followed in accepting these sources on Wiki and then not allowing them to be used when supporting another article. I have referred to some of the other articles of remote access tools, and do not see any notable sources (often only official sources are used):

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

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

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

Why is it that some articles are allowed to stay with practically no 3rd party sources or any well-known media sources which I am sure you regard as notable? This seems extremely unfair and biased in our case. I've used practically no official sources and have relied on articles published about our service, and you have turned this down. Please let me know which IT and tech sources you personally regard as "notable enough" to be cited on Wikipedia and if possible, please show me Wiki articles which are based on such sources. I am sure the percentage of these articles will be slim.

Again, the way my article was treated and all the work I have put forward in trying to get my work published in a fair and unbiased manner is extremely upsetting. I am hoping that you can reinstate Techinline Remote Desktop based on what I have mentioned above or provide me with reasons why this cannot be done. Even the 2-week long deletion discussion had only 2 people vote that the article should be deleted, yet you proceeded to delete it immediately yesterday. I look forward to your response and assistance in this matter.

Thank you, Andrey4wiki (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You said that I should have relisted the article due to someone adding facts late on, but there were no edits to the article since 26th of May. Can you please clarify this?
 * In respect of other articles, if you feel that they are not notable enough, please nominate them for deletion (see WP:DPR for details of the deletion process).
 * Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your product, and you should write about it on your own website. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please refer to my post, nowhere did I mention that anything was added after the 26th of May. I have included only 2 official sources (Techinline website) out of 8 or 9 sources, and for some reason they were regarded as "non-notable" even though other Wiki articles have used them. Also, nowhere did I use any advertising: please check the article's sections to find any advertising whatsoever. I simply created sections about Techinline's security and connection process. This is the same format used by other products which are included in Wiki. Again, it is biased and unfair to allow similar products have their own Wiki articles (even though to an average Wiki reader they are meaningless and therefore are "non-notable" in your view) and remove Techinline. I believe there should be some consistency when approaching such matters, and therefore am asking to reinstate my article. If it requires any changes, please let me know so that I can format it properly. However, please do not ask me to remove any advertising because there is none. Thanks again.Andrey4wiki (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to your post, I'm referring to the fact that you chose the option in my message system that said "If there was a change to the article very late in the discussion and you think I should have extended the discussion to allow for that, then please leave me a message quoting the exact name of the page that I deleted."
 * Please be aware that this is Wikipedia, not Wiki.
 * I'm happy with my decision to delete the article and repeat my advice to nominate other pages for deletion if you feel they are inappropriate. You may also wish to read the essay WP:WAX. If you feel that I have not followed the deletion process correctly, please feel free to open a deletion review request. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

ACI
Hi Stifle. If you have a chance later, could you un-suspend me on ACI? Prodego suspended me due to some "issues with recent accounts" which I have discussed with Prom3th3an and he seems satisfied that I won't make the same mistakes again. One name I marked as a username vio and another I made a mistake on, but later reset. Prom3th3an went through all my accounts and these were the only two mistakes he found (almost a month ago). Anyway, thanks for your help. :) t'shael  mindmeld 20:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, I asked prodego to do this a couple of hours ago, Dont know if he has yet, but he said he would  « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Turns out he has, - Disregard.  « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Duly disregarded (-: Stifle (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Steinbeck stamp
summary states that no reason for deletion was given. Did you read the talk page and the link to the fuller discussion where very detailed reasoning was given? The DFU tag clearly states: "please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image. You can also place comments on the image talk page", which was done and is linked above for you. Please review it again before I take it to WP:IfD. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted; I think there is enough of a dispute as to the eligibility of the image that a judgment call by one admin is not fair and a full FFD is needed. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. I nomed it for deletion but I think I placed it on the wrong page at Possibly unfree files/2009 June 5 when it should more properly be listed at Files for deletion/2009 June 5. I did not quite understand the "Possibly unfree file" checkbox in the Twinkle entry window I was using. Can I chnage that or just leave it? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll have to move it to FFD, because PUF doesn't admit files that are already marked non-free. To do this:
 * Undo/rollback your edit to the file page
 * Leave a message on the PUF page saying it was listed in error and requesting it be closed
 * List it at FFD in the normal way.
 * Hope that helps. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, skip the second bit. I've closed the PUF listings. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the advise and help. ww2censor (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:RogersvilleHistoricDistrict.jpg
My apologies: I thought that this tag was one of those delete-in-seven-days-if-nothing-improves, like the ones we place on orphaned nonfree images. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, you just had the wrong tag. In general, the "delete now" tags begin {{db-, and the "delete in a while" tags are {{subst:abc}} . Stifle (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Since I became an administrator, I've not paid much attention to placing speedy deletion tags, because I obviously don't need to tag a page that needs to be speedied.  Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Military history of the peoples of the British Islands
Hi Stifle, you closed this as "no consensus". I agree with that, but I was wondering if I could get your opinion on whether there was any consensus on a rename for the article, or if not, what name seemed to have a plurality of support. Thanks, --Aervanath (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have said there's a consensus to move it anywhere; try a WP:RM. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There already is one; in fact, that's what triggered the AfD in the first place. However, I figure a decision at AfD trumps an RM, so I was hoping to dump the problem on your doorstep, so I wouldn't get the Ireland/Britain flames that'll erupt on my talk page when I close the RM.  :)  Thanks anyway, --Aervanath (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

File:TFF Mad World video.jpg
I see a fair use rationale on File:TFF Mad World video.jpg. Was your tagging a mistake or are there other reasons for the tagging? Thanks, — M ETS 501 (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What's there is a fair use rationale in name only. It is incomplete (see WP:NFURG). Retagged. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of File:Apollo seal.svg
The image is from classical inscriptions, and the seal it is used on is from 1842, so the copyright is expired. That should be sufficient yes? FYI, you put the template in the wrong place, breaking the heading levels. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 15:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thanks for clarifying.
 * I added the template with Twinkle; if it's generated a bug you might want to report it to User:AzaToth. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

what do you think of this?
have a look LibStar (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'm inclined to MFD it. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have supported deletion and mentioned at least one other userspace by one of its defenders that similarly seems to mock other editors. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

File:BoshamerSteinbrenner.JPG
I forgot to put PD-self on there, although I filled out the self-created template. Do you even bother looking at what you're tagging? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I looked at it; no, you didn't put a license tag on it. Nothing in your upload said it was PD or specified a license, so I tagged it so that you'd fix it. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeh, a friendly threat to delete it. When you upload, it gives you the template that says you created it yourself. It should also include the PD-self to avoid getting this kind of hassle. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily; not everyone wants to release their images into the public domain. But all's well that ends well here. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't have ended so well if I was away for a few days and it got zapped. I could have re-uploaded it, obviously, but the upload template is flawed. You think you're done, but you're not done, and then some vulture jumps on it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I went back to the upload page to see, and although it talks about licenses, it's not very good about explaining precisely what to do, such as PD-self. I only know to do that from experience. If I were a new user, I would be perplexed, especially at getting that threatening message. Then I would have to go to your page and ask for an explanation, and you would explain about PD-self. That does not strike me as a very efficient process. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, item #4 at Special:Upload says "Provide copyright information for the upload, either from the dropdown menu or from the lists at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags". I guess we could put that in 32pt font, red, and blinking...? (-: Stifle (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you'd have had seven days plus the deletion backlog (currently three days). Stifle (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the link that appears when you click "Upload", it's this one: Upload. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but if you click "own work", you end up at a page which also says you have to release your work under a free license. Perhaps I can try to amend that text to make it clearer that you have to choose something from the dropdown. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any dropdown, I just see a whole bunch of items described, none of which is "PD-self". As I recall, when I first uploaded an image, I had to go ask someone what to use because the descriptions made no sense, and to me they still don't. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Image:Civ 3 Tech Tree Era1.png
I have added

If you disagree, I expect you to explain why and allow reasonable time for a response. I have posted this on your Talk page because, if the file is deleted, there will be no record of the objection. Since this message appears on your Talk page, from which you are free to delete messages, I will also copy it to my Talk page, from which you are not free to delete messages. --Philcha (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. This is replaceable by a generic tech tree that someone could create for a theoretical game. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re "This is replaceable by a generic tech tree that someone could create for a theoretical game", that would be WP:OR, so its use in an article would be subject to removal, then the image would be an orphan, ... --Philcha (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW you've repeated that comment on the file descr page - should it not be on the file's Talk page? --Philcha (talk)
 * I'm not sure about that. We'll leave it to the closing admin to decide. Since your comment is on the file description page, I have added mine to the same place. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisting and Spamming
Hi there,

Thanks for your recent message left on the whitelist page (sites to unblock) about Nochex.com and for allowing certain links. As you rightly said I was only removing comments from our Wiki page which were either untrue or biased. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#nochex.com). There is one person who seems intent on writing untrue statements on Wikipedia about us and every time I amend something he is editing it immediately - I have no idea why or who he is but what he says is factually incorrect.

Anyway, I just wondered if you could help me on the blacklisting issue as I do not really understand it. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November_2008#MattSEO_and_Nochex_spam_on_Wikipedia as quoted in your comment) I see that we and a number of other related sites are also on this spam domains list. I am relatively new to Nochex and have not been involved in previous activity and equally do not know a huge amount about how Wikipedia works but what I don't understand is what this list means, and when you say we have had warnings - who to / where?

I just want to identify how we would end up on such a list and what we have done in terms of spamming. Bearing in mind we have thousands of merchants who all have links to us on their site - I just cant imagine how we have spammed people.... but then again I have no idea what could be classed as spamming really. We never send spam, all emails we send are 'opted in' newsletters and emails to people who have purchased something through Nochex (a payment confirmation email) which too is an opt in in our terms. Is the spam issue something wider then just email we send out direct?

I do recognise some of the listed related domains, and one of the IP's is ours but I cant understand what has happened. The Directors here are keen to know, and to take action to remedy the situation, so if you could help me understand what we have done wrong I will happily investigate and rectify.

I eagerly await your reply, and thank you in advance for you time.

Many thanks

Ssh85 (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Spam in this context refers to people adding links to sites to Wikipedia articles. A link to nochex.com was added to merchant account and merchant account provider by the IP address 217.36.212.109 last year, and it was also linked from CQout by User:Dstymon. I'm sure you'll agree that nochex is not directly related to any of those topics, but might be sought-out by users with an interest in them. In the interest of neutrality, we try to minimise the number of external links on Wikipedia.
 * Does that clarify things for you? Stifle (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI
FYI, WP:ANI. -- auburn pilot  talk  16:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've unprotected and commented there. I'll keep an eye on it to make sure G4 isn't an issue if it gets unredirected. –xenotalk 23:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted, and thank you for the message. I don't think me posting there is going to accomplish anything for now. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

ACC Interface Access Suspension
I was suspended from the ACC interface for bypassing the reservation system, closing reserved requests by others without discussing it with the person who has the hold. I was unaware this was considered considered bad behavior in the cases in question - the reservations were several hours old, and the requests relatively simple, so I thought it would be okay to close them out behalf of the other users. One user had created the account but simply forgot to close the out request. I now understand that this is not considered acceptable and will refrain from such behavior in the future. I would like to request reinstatement of my access to the tool. My sincere apologies, and thank you for your understanding. Vicenarian (T · C) 04:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, done. But be aware that your actions on the system will attract more attention now. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Stifle, I applaud you to re suspend Vicenarian for at least a day or two, Not only did he break the reservation of another user, but he also did it on a request where the IP was blocked as a massive vandal IP. The request concerned was one that was being left while NW contacted the checkuser who blocked the IP. This is not only a total disregard of the reservation system but also the fact that the IP behind the request was blocked. This user needs some time to read the guide, he is lucky not to be suspended for a month (if only it was Prodego). I note that in total he was only suspended for just over an hour by the time you unsuspended him, I doubt he has read the guide even.  « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll watch his logs for the next couple of weeks (I'm sure you will too). The suspension is supposed to be preventative and not punitive, so if he says he now knows what he's doing, I'll WP:AGF and accept that. OverlordQ specifically invited him to contact another tool admin to be reinstated; he could have suggested discussion with him first if he had not meant anyone to reverse the decision. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, yeah he knows what hes doing when he doesnt even know that he fucked up not once, but twice. Good one stifle.  « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reinstating me, Stifle. I will endeavor to be much more careful in the future. Promethean, I'm a newbie over at ACC, so please don't bite. I have, in fact, read the guide and I am doing the best job I can. We all make mistakes, we learn from them, and we (hopefully) do better next time. I would appreciate a little more understanding. Thank you Vicenarian  (T · C) 11:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please understand my annoyance, You not only handled a reserved request that was in extensive investigation (which now has been wasted) but also made an account for a blocked IP. Unfortunately my patience for newbies runs thin as things such as this occur all too often despite measures to get people to read the guide that we spend allot of time maintaining.  « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize again for the error and assure you it will not be repeated. Vicenarian  (T · C) 13:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) While I will endeavor to be extra careful, please do let me know if you find any of my further actions questionable. A simple note on my talk page is all I ask. Thank you. Vicenarian (T · C) 13:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, I would be very grateful if you would take your dispute elsewhere insofar as it does not involve me. Stifle (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, didn't mean to clog up your talk page. No dispute. I'll be more careful. Vicenarian  (T · C) 16:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Engimaman's RFA Q16
I just saw Engimaman's RFA and noticed you were behind question 16. I wish to ask that you retract that question as it is not relevant to Engimaman's ability to be an admin or judgement and is without doubt an infringement on his privacy. I also think that you are well aware that if he doesn't answer that question that it will wreak of guilt and cover up, thus its not an optional question at all. Thankyou  « l | ?romethean ™ | l »   (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it's any different from people asking about content contributions, previous usernames, or age. To me, it is genuinely an optional question (and that's why I placed what I did in the header), and if there is no answer I intend to support.
 * Because of your concern about the question, I have added a section at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 3 where if four more editors oppose than support the question, I will consider it inappropriate and immediately withdraw it or permit its withdrawal. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

issue
You deleted the entire geography of republika srpska krajina. Why then has the content of the page not been put into the page of republika srpska krajina? You seem to ignore the population geography and political geography which have absolutely NOTHING to do with modern day croatia. This was a VERY distinct region, and the geography page talked about this. Therefore that warrants keeping this where it was, not eliminating it, it's content, census data, population estimates, settlements, etc... (LAz17 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).
 * I can't find a page by that name that has ever existed. Can you please specify the exact name (capitalization is important), or link to the deletion log or discussion? Stifle (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towns_in_the_Former_RSK
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geography_of_the_Former_Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina (LAz17 (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).
 * Thank you. That article was not deleted, but redirected. You can find the content here if you wish to merge it to Republic of Serbian Krajina or any other article. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilaterals
Is there a way that it can formally be made that any new DRVs, renominations, etc. be blockable? There are open at least three DRVs and probably more AfDs for ones that closed as either keep or delete, but while in both cases "no consensus" closes could be reasonable, the closing admins were not participants in many of these discussions and so could reasonably be considered neutral? This discussing the same articles over and over in deletion discussion is getting out of hand. I do not know if we need an admin board, RfC, ArbCom or what, but the exchanges in the discussions are getting meaner and meaner and so long as we keep having renominations, DRVs, etc. I aboslutely do not see anyway the participants will come to any understanding. Instead, if it is closed as keep by anyone, not just Docu, it is brought back to AfD a month later or DRV that day and to be fair the same more or less for those closed as delete. If neutral admins or arbcom do not intervene, I only foresee the summer being flooded by more repeat discussion and more animosity among the participants in these discussions that interferes with our ability to actually improve content and diminishes any collegial atmosphere. If there are any 'sides' to this debate, I cannot see how such a likely trend really helps either "side". If Wikipedia does not have a deadline, then instead of having AfDs and DRVs over the same articles again and again, we should be focusing on improving those we can then see what we cannot and perhaps having a centralized discussion on a guideline. We cannot simultaneously improve articles, argue in AfDs and DRVs, and build a guideline. Instead, we are seeing expansive dispute escalation in multiple venues. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely that this is not useful. There should also be no new articles created, in order to maintain equality. I suppose it could start at AN. Stifle (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am about to go to bed (I operate on UTC), so I will think about this more and look at it tomorrow. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said in the DRV, I personally have no intentions of creating any new bilateral relations articles any time soon and certainly not starting any new deletion discussions (note I did not start any DRVs for these). We have to put a hold on these now, before things get even worse. Such disputes as these make me seriously wonder if Wikipedia can work, i.e. when opposing viewpoints are so harsh that neither "side" wants to give in. We should have checks and balances. My personal concern with these like many AfDs is on one hand, I actually appreciate that some scrutinize sources and challenge us to find better ones, but where I take issue is when even better ones are presented, it becomes about winning the debate rather than acknowleging improvement. I suppose it would be like if I gave someone a failing grade and said resubmit the paper and they made the changes I asked for but still failed them again anyway, because I want to save face or something. Put another way, I am finding dealing with some accounts that there is no convincing them, because they have predetermined made up their minds that the given subject is "not notable" and so will argue against it, no matter what develops, which is of course ridiculous. Even I have changed stances in an AfD I said to delete when new sources came about. It should not be about winning debates, but about doing what we can to improve content. We cannot have reasonable discussions among editors if any come to the discussion determined to "win" no matter what and are thus closed off from any arguments or evidence to counter their opinions. Plus, to be blunt, there are times where I feel like "Who are you that I have to convince you of anything?" when discussing with some accounts that do limited article improvement work. I realize of course that being "A Nobody" does not exactly reveal my own qualifications (aside from to the couple of editors who know my real identity and have an idea of my expertise on certain areas), but when discussing with unknown people, it is hard not to think, "I have no idea if this other editor has any legitimate knowledge of the subject on hand, so why would I possibly have to seek his/her approval?" Anyway, though, we definitely need to do something to prevent these disputes from going further and at least a temporary moratorium on renominations and DRVs would help. Someone proposed that already, but the nominations just kept coming. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree also. See my ping below. and see a recent comment on my talk p. from someone who seems to disagree with this. DGG (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this really has anything much to say about relations. The lead is the standard directory of consulates. In the history, the first paragraph is about a prominent Estonian who happened to kill himself in Luxembourg, the second is about Estonian foreign policy, and the third and fourth are about Luxembourg without mention of Estonia. As regards the status of relations, it's more or less statistics only, and the bilateral agreements are nearly all between several different countries.
 * This matter may be superseded by, or subsumed into, a more wide-ranging discussion (see above and below). Stifle (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ping on International Relations
See my talk page. I apologize for some of what I said, and agree with your proposal. See a recent comment there. I await your action. My temporary email is DGGwikipedia at gmail DGG (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. I am going to post AN about this, but it may not be for some few hours yet. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Undelete request
Hi Stifle, on 27 May you deleted File:DCameron320wi.jpg, a picture showing an unflattering likeness of David Cameron. In the picture, Cameron had an unfortunate facial expression, and his head was centred on a blurry round object in the background, which made it look like he had a halo. user:Sam Blacketer deleted this attack picture on 15 May, with the humorous edit summary "Undid revision 290191421 by New Canadian (talk): Revert choice of picture to one not carrying saintly overtones." Unfortunately, Sam Blacketer's actions have caught the attention of the international press who is roundly misunderstanding and misrepresenting what Sam Blacketer did here: "Mr Boothroyd, a member of Westminster Council, called himself 'Sam Blacketer' when he swapped a picture of Mr Cameron for one 'not carrying saintly overtones'". There are quite a few news articles in that vein: A log of publicly available page edits exposes several changes to Tory leader David Cameron's Wikipedia entry by Mr Boothroyd under the alias of Sam Blacketer, including changing the picture to one "not carrying saintly overtones".

I would like to write a Wikinews article explaining that these attacks on Sam Blacketer are misrepresenting his actions, and I would like to use the original image which Sam removed as an illustration. No words will be able to explain it as well as this picture, which has now been commented on as far away as Italy and New Zealand. (For reference, here is the Italian news article, in its Babelfish translation. The Italian publication actually shows the picture that Sam Blacketer restored, but says in the text that he is the one accused of trying to replace it with an "anything but thrilling image".) Is it possible to undelete the picture, perhaps under a fair use reasoning, since it has become a topic of media interest?

For further background on what is wrong with the media reporting about Sam's actions see the comments at Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Blacketer_controversy. Cheers,  JN 466  08:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The image has no source or license details whatsoever. As a result, I don't think it would meet n:WN:FU. Sorry. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am having a look if I can find the picture online. So far, the only one I have found is this (from a veeeeery slow-loading blog – not an exact match, but clearly taken at the same event, and with the same "halo" effect. Would there be an acceptable rationale for uploading this, or the original if I do manage to find it on some similar site? Cheers,  JN 466  10:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I put it through tineye.com and didn't find any match. That image wouldn't have a valid rationale for use on Wikipedia, but might fall into the "non-free historical image" category at Wikinews. I don't know how strict WN is on fair use though; you'd need to ask over there. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Are you saying you put the original image (i.e. the one you deleted) through tineye, and there isn't a match of it online, or did you use the version I linked above? Another thought -- was the image originally uploaded by an established user?  JN 466  10:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I put the deleted image through tineye, and there is no match online. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you mind e-mailing me the deleted image? I won't upload the image to Wikipedia or Commons again, but having it would enable me to demonstrate its similarity to the picture that we do have an online location for, and I can then take further steps at wikinews. I have sent you an e-mail. Best,  JN 466  14:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's after getting undeleted. Better take it while you can. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I have just done so. Thanks.  JN 466  14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you would hold off with deleting it until the last person has recanted any claim that that image is in some way a reasonable one to use for a prominent politician. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It has the usual two days that any non-free image of a living person gets. I will not delete it before then; I can't speak for the other 1650 or so sysops. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Stifle/AN draft
I didn't want to jump in and edit your draft, but you may want to change the second word following the numbered list ("principle") to "principal." Deor (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, but do feel free to edit. This is a wiki, after all. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

your proposed ANI
thanks for contacting me, whilst I can understand you're doing this, this is a far better and more sensible proposal than what DGG said to me of getting a single admin to somehow police this with zero community sanction or backing. Sanctions are the only way to enforce this. I agree that people need to cool down, but 1 month seems a long time for me. I would suggest (only my opinion) 2 weeks and reassess after this date. Also there has been no excessive stub creation unlike what we saw from the now banned stub creator, so I don't think the creation of new articles is really an issue here. I actually would like to create a few more bilaterals that I consider quite notable. but I guess it creates complexity about if new articles would be subject to the nomination ban. having said that I have an issue with trying to recreate previously deleted articles that aren't really different (and this is not just for bilaterals). my only other comment is that perhaps for these bilaterals, admins need to much more clearer when declaring borderline no consensus or delete to save any controversy. thanks again. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The main reason for the suspension of creating new articles is to provide a bit of a quid pro quo. There's nothing against userspace drafts.
 * I doubt anything will get sorted in two weeks, but I might change it to the end of the month instead. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ok yeah maybe June 30 is alright. LibStar (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, and would say, June 30, with consideration towards extending it. Additionally:

I suggest changing the second para to:
 * "In summary, the same sets of people tend to show up at all the discussions, and some of them tend to !vote the same way on all discussions. This has the effect that the decision on any given FBR article, once nominated for AFD, depends on how many of each side show up to the discussion. If additional references are found in time, the discussion focuses on whether they are substantial, but because of the many ongoing discussions, views have hardened to the point that very little either side does convinces the other."

I think it unfair to say that that "most" vote the same way--I certainly do not, & saying this will tend to antagonise others. Second, trying to dig up references is a good way to deal with articles, and a discussion of their substantiality can be a meaningful discussion.

Additional we need a sentence saying:
 * "This does not inhibit improving existing articles, and also does not inhibit working on deleted articles in userspace"

If you agree with the changes, post. DGG (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph changed. I'll add a #5 with that point. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, posted. I don't see any real need for a further delay. I plan to link it from various AFDs and notify users concerned, but have to leave my computer now for a while. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that despite these calls to halt them, some are still continuing to nominate and flock to it with the usual copy and paste deletes. One would think with these talk page discussions, your note in multiple AfDs, and now the AN thread that editors would give it a rest for at least a day or so while these discussions go on, but apparently not.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * perhaps it should be amended to halt ongoing afds as well, at least those within the last 24 or 48 hours--those nearer the end might as well run to a conclusion, since everyone has already gone to the trouble of commenting. Perhaps some uninvolved admin to do so by IAR. DGG (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * hang on, Stifle's proposal doesn't say "stop nominating effective from the time I post this". he put it up as a "proposal" and is wanting community sanction. until it is achieved, there is little enforcability about this. it's like a government proposing a law to say arrest all people littering and arresting people before the law is passed. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is something lame if a discussion is ongoing to try to hurry up and get one's viewpoint accomplished before action can be undertaken. You do not see me trying to quickly create some new bilateral relations articles before something comes of the discussion.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * if someone is suddenly nominating 5 or more, I see a problem, but arbitary blocking based on IAR is not constructive, DGG originally wanted to get an "uninvolved admin" to police no new nominations rather than go through ANI or WP:SANCTIONS. what DGG says above is just a version of that. Stifle has done the correct and sensible thing. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what we are seeing is the difficulty in trying to focus on the ANI thread while simultaneously still arguing in AfDs. I still wonder how many of these we would improve if instead of all of these talk page, AfD, and ANI threads we all joined together to improve them.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

well there was the infamous Estonia-Luxembourg example, if it was closed correctly as delete the first time, it would have saved hours of WP editors' good time. LibStar (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that it was closed by someone who has commented in some of these discussions, because based on strength of arguments, the close itself was correct and I cannot imagine if you disagree how the subsequent hubub and ruffled feathers was better than just leaving it be. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * that is purely your opinion that it was closed as correct. but we'll agree to disagree! LibStar (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, please keep your argument to your own talk pages. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cent
Your comments please at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Template:Cent. Cheers, &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)