User talk:Stifle/Archive 0806a

''This is an archive. Please post new messages to User talk:Stifle. Feel free to copy old messages or parts thereof from here if they are needed to help comprehend a new issue.''

Image:Gammage1.jpg
I notice you tagged this image for speedy deletion, as redundant. However, you said that it had been replaced by Image:Gammage1.jpg, which is the same image. As an image can obviously not be redundant to itself, I have removed the speedy tag. Stifle (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, I messed that up. I meant to say that Image:Gammage1.jpg is identical to Image:Gammge.jpg, but I apparently confused myself with the browser tabs I had open and ended up copying the wrong filename. I was wondering why the ISD message didn't make a link to the other image. Thanks for letting me know; it's been fixed now. —Bkell (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

pl would you help with my userboxes
they are not lining up.pl help.Yousaf465
 * Okay, here you go. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dirty Socks
If you want proof that I am not indeed a Sockpuppet of Carbine, then you should get in touch with someone that has known us from the begining. See User:Tijuana Brass, I am not a sock, but then Tijuana may say I'm something worse. User:Dfrg.msc 08:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Tijuana Brass says that there is a high probability you are a sock of Carbine. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I quote: This user has frequented the same articles and followed the same general pattern as a friend of his, User:Carbine, who's a confirmed sockpuppeteer. Since the two tend to feed off each other, it can be hard to differentiate which user is making which edits — both have made a hobby of writing inane messages to user talk pages (their own and others)-- Tijuana Brass

Two, mate. Two. Take it to User:Tijuana Brass. User:Dfrg.msc 07:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
I thought I'd ask you this question because you seem to be the king of fair use.

Is it reasonable to remove images from articles where the fair use claim is invalid (such as magazine covers illustrating the cover subject) as soon as I find them, or should I tag the image with and then wait a while for some response. I had been removing such images and then tagging the image as an orphan, but one of the uploaders criticised me because I was the cause of the image being orphaned. What do you suggest? I am reasonably confident in my assessments of fair use. Kevin 09:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's more or less obvious that the image doesn't qualify as fair use, like the regular examples of magazine covers being used in the article about the subject or Google Earth images being used in any article other than Google Earth, then it's reasonable to remove them yourself and go ahead marking the image as orphaned if necessary. If it's not as clear-cut, then perhaps tag it as fairusedisputed for a week, and if there is no response, go ahead to remove it (perhaps noting in your edit summary that a dispute was unopposed for a week). You can also use fairusereview, as the weakest in the line of "this might not be fair use" assertions. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought, so I'll forge ahead. Kevin 11:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vatican coa2.png
I see you removed my deletion tags on this image and replaced with NCT. Will the wiki image be deleted? Gimmetrow 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It won't be automatically deleted as the images are not identical. See criteria for speedy deletion (images). You can, however, list it on WP:IFD. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Rachel York picture permission
Thanks, I sent an email to the person who sent me the image, hopefully they will get back to you ASAP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flipfellax1 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 02 August 2006 (UTC).

userboxes
these are now overlying each other.Yousaf465 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems fine for me. Try Village pump (technical) if you can't get it working. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Mariangelruiz.jpg
I think I solved the problem with the image. Please let me know if there's anything else to do. Thanks!--Crunkier21 13:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ideally you should provide the exact URL to the image on its original site, but this seems to be OK. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Alameda Aero Club
This article is worthy of retaining due to the history behind the flying club. It is significant to the San Francisco Bay Area. I'm very disappointed that no discussion took place despite my posting of an objection. The person that proposed the speedy deletion does nothing but post deletion notices. Perhaps he/she would like to contribute to the Wiki in some significant way before they start removing from it? ChadScott 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message.
 * Speedy deletion is just that - a deletion of types of pages that there is wide consensus to delete. The most common reason for an article to be deleted like this is called "A7" - an article about a person, group of people, or club that does not assert the notability or importance of the subject. Hundreds of these articles are deleted every day (see the deletion log), and having a discussion on all of them would clog up processes so badly that no work could be done at all.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such not everything is included, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I am sorry that you are disappointed about the deletion of your article.
 * There are a few ways you can proceed from here:
 * You can re-add the article, including evidence of how the club meets the guideline for inclusion of clubs on Wikipedia (citations from reliable sources are the way to go).
 * I can undelete the article and transfer it to your userspace for you to work on and move back into place when you're ready.
 * We can move on, leave the article deleted, and try writing about something else.
 * Please let me know which you'd like.
 * On a side point, there are some WikiGnomes who don't have time to add content to the encyclopedia but do very valuable jobs making sure that content that should not be here is removed. Please bear in mind that they are an important part of the Wikipedia.
 * Thanks again for your message and I'm sorry that this has run so long. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and put it into my userspace and I'll continue to work on it and try to make it "notable" enough. However, contrary to your statement, there was absolutely no consensus reached on the deletion of this article.  One user proposed its deletion, I objected, and you deleted.  I count three people involved in that transaction.  That's hardly a consensus.  Certainly there must be thousands of articles deleted many or most of them without objection.  This one, however, had an objection that was completely ignored.  That's what irritates me the most. ChadScott 18:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was not entirely clear - it is an official policy that articles about clubs which do not assert notability or importance should be deleted. Unfortunately, one person objecting to deletion does not exempt an article from the policy. Thanks for understanding.
 * The page has been moved to User:ChadScott/Alameda Aero Club so that you can work on it. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving the page. On the same policy page you reference, it clearly states, "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead."  This seems to indicate an objection (dispute) does provide cause for discussion.  Such arbitrary criterion as "notable" seems to lend itself to some benefit of the doubt. ChadScott 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The criterion is not "not notable", but "having no assertion of notability". Can you tell me why the club is notable in accordance with WP:ORG? Stifle (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Super Aguri Picture
I see you deleted it. Is this because of licensing? Because the SA photographer, Matsumoto, lets people use it openly, as long as no profit is made. Just want to know why, not arguing or anything. Just want to know what i did wrong since I'm quite new to wiki. Inn3rchild 18:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.102.70 (talk • contribs) 17:03, August 2, 2006
 * I can handle this better if you link to the exact image title you are referring to, in the form Image:Image_name.jpg.
 * Please see Image use policy for rules under which images are accepted. Note that in particular, images must be in the public domain, under a free license, or valid for fair use to be used on Wikipedia. Images that are usable for non-commercial or educational purposes only, along with images that we have permission to use on Wikipedia only, are unfortunately not permitted. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures and Licensing
Hello Stifle,

--Loremaster 19:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nick Bostrom has given us permission to use Image:Nick-Bostrom.png and Image:Nick Bostrom.jpg in both the Nick Bostrom and Transhumanism articles.
 * Natasha Vita-More has given us persmission to use Image:Natasha Vita-More.jpg in both the Natasha-Vita More and Transhumanism articles.
 * Max More has given us persmission to use Image:Max More.jpg in both the Max More and Transhumanism articles.
 * I'm unsure as what would be the appropriate license for Image:Aldous Huxley.jpg, an old picture of the late Aldous Huxley, famous author of Brave New World, which was found in MSN Encarta.
 * Unfortunately, just having permission to use an image on Wikipedia is not sufficient for using it. The image needs to either be usable under a free license or meet our fair use policy, which is stricter than the law.
 * You need to contact the copyright holders of the images (and note that this is generally the person who took the photographs, not the people depicted) and request that the images be released under an appropriate free license or into the public domain.
 * For the old image, was it first published in the US before 1923? If so, it is in the public domain, tag it as PD-US. Otherwise, again we would need it to be released under a free license. Fair use is highly unlikely to apply here as the material is taken from another encyclopedia.
 * Wikipedia's goal is to become a free encyclopedia, where free is taken in the sense of "free speech" as opposed to "free of charge". Using images that other people cannot use runs counter to that, which is why it is restricted. I hope you understand. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just as an update, Image:Nick Bostrom.jpg is a valid fair use image, as are Image:Natasha Vita-More.jpg and Image:Max More.jpg. Using Image:Nick-Bostrom.png in Transhumanism is not describing the "person in question", so fails fair use. Image:Aldous Huxley.jpg needs a fair use rationale, i.e. a justification of invoking fair use for that image. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible WP:Tagger Vandal
After looking at the Dark Galaxy page, and searching through many other pages in this category, a new user User:Sloane seems to be "tagging" all pages in this category for deletion. His user page is vague and it seems to be tagging pages without regard to real policy, which is a form of vandalism. Can you investigate this by checking the pages he is tagging? Thanks. Charley 20:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've had a look and I don't think that there is a systematic pattern of vandalistic nominations, just a genuine desire to remove content that should not be in the encyclopedia. Might be worth dropping him a line though; he could be considered a deletionist. Stifle (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do recall running into Sloane in the past, regarding the Earth: 2025 article that I was working on. While he does aim to help clean Wikipedia, he certainly doesn't just vote "delete" for everything. He mainly focuses on keeping Wikipedia from being flooded with spam for every browser-based game. --Wafulz 03:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Carroll image
Hi, I'm relatively new this whole wikipedia editing thing, but it looks like you removed the picture of Jim Carroll that I recently put up.

You noted "rm unlicensed image", however the page where I got this image expressly states that "This photo may be reprinted as long as the photographer is credited." Which I plainly did. And on another page says "You may reprint any of these photos provided that you credit the photographers."

If I'm missing something, please let me know. I'll be putting up the photo again in the meantime, I hope it works out.

edit - I realize now that I may not have included all the relevant copyright information when uploading the image, I'll try to be more detailed this time around. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zerohourminuszero (talk • contribs) 22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Okay, the tag you are looking for is attribution. You just type that into the description box when you upload the image, and do not choose a license from the license selector.
 * The reason the previous images were deleted is that you indicated we have permission to use the images on Wikipedia only, which we don't support. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR report
Query for you here, Stifle. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

holgaflash image
Hello I most certainly verify that i made this image in its entirety, do i have to press any buttons anywhere to verify this fact? //Jacob —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The-totem (talk • contribs) 23:11, 03 August 2006 (UTC).
 * No, that is fine. Please sign your posts on talk pages by adding ~ at the end.
 * However, you said that you are the creator of both Image:DSC_1371.jpg and Image:Mindre moveonup piece.jpg, which is impossible. Please choose one, and then add the correct copyright tag to the other. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

more on the images...
Hi Again. Why is it impossible that i made both pictures? i don't understand. Surely, i have made many pictures in my time, i chose not to limit myself to only one image in my entire life.... right? So then the copyright should be ok, or..? The-totem 17:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Simple. You say that you are the person on the right in Image:DSC 1371.jpg, and that it was taken by a bystander. This does not compute with what you have previously stated. Stifle (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha! thanks for that clarification. The picture was indeed taken by a bystander, but later given to me with verbal OK for putting it here. Which type of licence do this mean i should put on it, then? Sorry about the trouble. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The-totem (talk • contribs).
 * You need the permission of that person to release the image under a free license, or you need to provide a justifiable reason that the image qualifies for fair use. You will also need to provide the source of the image, otherwise it is liable to be deleted. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, emmm... I got the image on email from the person who took it(don't remember the name), i asked if i could ise it online on wikipedia, and she said it was OK. What do you propose i do? English is'nt my first language anyways, it's kinda hard reading through the whole of Image_copyright_tags for what to do... The-totem 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Having permission to use it on Wikipedia only is not sufficient. It needs to be released under a free license. I recommend bringing this to Media copyright questions as they are more specialized and can deal with you more quickly. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Aldridge
Hello Stifle,

You deleted my page on Patricia Aldridge for the reason "A6 speedy deletion - article created only to disparage its subject."

That page was written with Aldridge's help and approval, and there was nothing disparaging about it. In fact, I was careful to be neutral in order to avoid putting too positive a spin on the bio. My goal was to create a fair and balanced account of Aldridge's interesting life. Furthermore, the content was verifiable and careful references were given (they required further documentation, but the article was clearly labeled a stub).

It was a lot of work, and it was intended to be a careful, accurate and respectful record (although not yet complete) of a qwirky Toronto character. If you think it was created to disparage the subject, then you need to open up your mind to alternative lifetyles.

Apparently, your straight, theist sensibility has interpreted a truthful record of historical events as disparaging. You are wrong, and you should not have deleted this important work about a part of Toronto's queer history.

If you want to confirm this, write to Aldridge herself at info@wildside.org.

Please undelete this article.

The Original Author —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.63.56.147 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC).

First Same-Sex Couple in Canadian History
I just got off the phone with Aldridge herself, who is outraged that you would delete information about the first same-sex couple in Canadian history.

This is a matter of historical record.

The Original Author —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.63.56.147 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your message. In future, please sign your posts by typing ~ at the end.
 * I do not take kindly to threats, outrages, and the like. Please refrain from them, per WP:CIVIL.
 * If you feel I have erred in judgment in deleting an article, you may make a listing on Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hi, can you tell me: How do I get an overview of another users contributions?--Medico80 11:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Type Special:Contributions/Username into the searchbox, replacing Username with the name of the user. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart
"I am considering filing an RFC against User:Supreme_Cmdr due to conduct and persistently ignoring consensus. Would you certify the basis for the complaint if I filed such an RFC? Stifle (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)"


 * Sure, what do I need to do? - Chris 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm building Requests for comment/Supreme Cmdr at the moment. You can add any relevant information there, and if you agree, just sign under "users certifying the basis for this dispute". Stifle (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)