User talk:Stifle/Archive 1008a

your decision on WP:3RR page
Could you please reconsider, I've found an additional edit that may be construed as a revert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:190.246.82.69_reported_by_User:Michellecrisp_.28Result:_No_violation.29Michellecrisp (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the page for 2 days. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Magibonscreenshot.jpg
Hi Stifle, I deleted this nonfree image after 48 hr as an I7. The original uploader asked me to re-consider, but I remain of the opinion that deletion is correct. I'd appreciate another admin's eyes looking over the discussion here just to make sure I'm right. Thanks.  JGHowes  talk  14:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thx, I've only had the mop for 6 weeks and wanted to double-check to make sure procedure and policy were applied correctly. I've frequently seen your username in image-related work and thought you'd be a good expert to ask. Cheers,  JGHowes  talk  19:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Adityas
Can you unprotect the page please? This isn't the first time I've seen you protect pages for no good reason, and I am a little concerned over this trigger-happiness. An account adding nonsense to a page is not a reason for full protection. Also, if you already take it upon yourself to protect a page, please at least bother to also tag it as protected. --dab (𒁳) 18:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I should have tagged it as protected, you're right. I protected it in response to an AN3 report, and the content did not appear to me to be nonsense.
 * Just to note for future reference, my message wizard, linked from the top of my page, has the message on the protection subpage saying "If you feel that I protected a page inappropriately or that the wrong level of protection is used, list it at requests for unprotection. Or if you are an admin, feel free to unprotect the page without further reference to me". Stifle (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for stopping by my page and reminding me about "minor edits". I admit that I've overlooked it several times. I will remember not to mark them as such from now onwards. I appreciate you so much for helping out new contributors on Wikipedia. VedicScience (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

2 images with different titles
Dear Stifle, Can this image Image:P1000860.JPG on WP be deleted? I contacted an Admin at Commons who told me it could be moved to Commons since it was now in the public domain. But, he also asked me to place a more appropriate title as I did here: Image:Adam, Eve and Abel by Carl Johan Bonnesen (1868-1933).jpg I don't think I can slap a db-commons tag on the first image since their files names are totallly different and I have to contact an Admin on WP like you instead. Unless you know the code here for duplicates with different file names on Commons. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
 * The correct tags to place are and db-i8. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Stifle for the 'now commons' tag. That was exactly what I was looking for. You're the best! With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's late here where I am
I am really surprised to see the message you sent me. There is plenty of articles on Wikipedia with more than two pictures added on. Compareable to say the least. Wikipedia is now promoting the artist who has been ignored for years with his own creations. Adding knowledge to the readers who are interested in knowing this unjustly forgotten man. Wikipedia is meant to boost the awareness of individuals who have contributed to all fields. I see no diffrence with his well-known iconic creations. Electric Japan (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the message at all? There is nothing wrong with having the images I mentioned on Wikipedia; they must simply have a non-free use rationale added in order to comply with the non-free content criteria. The template Non-free use rationale may be helpful to you. You can ask at media copyright questions if you're having difficulty adding this. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Thanks. I just came on to Wiki and saw that. I have been on the PC all-day. Sorry about all that. You must be doing a great job. I like Wikipedia a lot. Electric Japan (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

NPD
Hm, that should really be integrated into TW. I'll contact the creator(s).   Ase ' nine ' '' 15:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion
Hello,

I tagged them under G6 housekeeping with Twinkle.

Thanks,

 B  G  7even   16:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you did, but the pages don't qualify for speedy deletion under G6. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? I have tagged things in WikiProjects in the past under this and they went. Please explain why they cannot be deleted? There are no incoming links or transclusions and are unused.
 *  B  G  7even   19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You should use, like I suggested. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hiroshima Dome 1945.gif
I noticed you recently left a disputed fair-use tag on Image:Hiroshima Dome 1945.gif. In case you didn't notice, the image already has a Non-free historic image on it, which displays the useful text:

...
 * to illustrate the event or historically notable person(s) in question where:
 * The image depicts a non-reproducible historic event or historically notable person(s), and no free alternative exists or can be created, and
 * The image is low resolution and of no larger and of no higher quality than is necessary for the illustration of an article, and the use of the image on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright,

If this does not accurately describe this image, please remove this tag and provide a different fair use rationale.

Whilst the original uploader has now provided a short rationale, you are the second person in recent weeks to have disputed this image's fair-use. I am confused, so please could you explain in which way the Non-free historic image template text is insufficient as a fair use rationale and why you say the image has "no rationale"? Astronaut (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The template specifically says "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information". Boilerplate tags are not a fair use rationale on their own; you must write a rationale which explains how each of the ten points at WP:NFCC are complied with for the image. WP:NFURG has further details on how to write that tag. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The template actually says "If this does not accurately describe this image, please remove this tag and provide a different fair use rationale" and only then goes on to say the "To the uploader..." instructions.  It certainly suggests to me that a separate rationale is only necessary if the default text does not accurately describe the image.  In the specific case of this image, it is a notable historic image showing a non-reproducible historic event, no free alternative exists or could be created, the image is of low resolution and the image does not decrease the value of the copyright.  To simply repeat the same adds no value to the project.  If such "Boilerplate tags are not a fair use rationale on their own", then why does the template exist at all?  Astronaut (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All images require a copyright tag, of which non-free historic image is an example, and non-free images also require a rationale. This is the current image policy and is not my decision. Feel free to open a discussion at WT:IUP or WT:NFCC if you feel it should be changed. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I've added separate fair-use rationales for each use and removed the disputed tag again.  I invite you to visit the image again and advise me if the rationales are adequate or not.  Astronaut (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thanks for your work. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Image
Regarding that image you mentioned, what I just did was copy that image on my computer before uploading it onto Commons. I never do crops or resolution adjustments to WP images prior to transferring them onto Commons because I am not expert on photography: Image:Trajansmarket2.JPG But I leave it up to you to take a second look if you wish. Its not a big deal. Thank You Stifle. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing else to be done for now — you can reupload the full-size image to Commons if you want to delete the one here. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Want to reapply for ACC
Hello. I'm here to reapply to use the ACC tool on the toolserver. I couldn't reregister my account, so I'm asking you because your the one who rejected me. So, this is my request. If I did the wrong thing reapplying here, just let me know, and tell me where?. Thanks. Techman224 (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your request. Your account has now been activated. Please see WP:ACCG for information on how to use the tool.
 * For now, you are limited to creating six accounts per day, and you won't be able to create an account if the name is very similar to an existing one. If you find yourself running into these limits regularly, request the accountcreator permission at WP:RPE.
 * Thanks for helping out! Stifle (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Cirque Lodge
I was about to direct User:MattHales to WP:Copyright problems when I saw your changes. I have left a note on his talk page. The listing isn't showing up on WP:CP for me, although it is there on the subpage. Maybe it's just me, but I thought I'd let you know. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind the second part of my note. Purging the server cache fixed it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ACC admin protest
I protest the granting of account creator privileges to Techman224. A quick look at his contributions to WP:Usernames for administrator attention reveals a very poor understanding of username policy. My concern is that legitimate account requests will be denied because he does not like the username chosen. Wronkiew (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll watch his actions on the account creation tool and I will deal with any problems if they arise. Stifle (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Wronkiew (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Lee Archer (disambiguation) deletion discussion
I may bring Articles for deletion/Lee Archer (disambiguation) up for review. There appears to be consensus to delete, with only one use opposing (although they opposed three times). I didn't notice that it was the same user voting Keep until just now, and thought maybe the same thing happened to you. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that was it. I will amend the closure. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please watch dubious admin Dougweller
Dear Stifle, I see that many responsible ones here also seem to have turned a blind eye to admin Dougweller's recent misgivings. Apparently, someone else also ran into his disruptive editing. He really needs to work on NPOV. He continues to dabble in with his own POV on the Henotheism page after the recent Adityas debacle. Let me remind here that “civility” is best understood as rational commentary. So he should really go debate on the Talk:Henotheism instead of engaging in edit reversals pushing his own POV, without paying attention to references added by others (in this case ADvaitaFan) for verifiability. Why not talk to him about “civility” and "wikiquette"? It should also be noted that “rational debate” does not just mean usage of a good tone, but also willingness to compromise and adapt to the positions of other editors: simply repeating his original position ad nauseam through rvs in the face of questionable verifiability of rvs – is not civil, but merely tendentious. In his case, clear abuse of admin privileges! Be well. VedicScience (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
 * If you have a problem with another user, please see Dispute resolution. I do not intervene in user disputes. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Severed
I have done a bit of repair and reconstruction on Severed. Can you make further suggestions for improvement?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will keep my eye on the article and add a few new sources as I find them. regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Advise
Thanks for the advise. Because you bought this up, lets say there's the user "Test" already on Wikipedia, but someone requested a account called "TeSt". Would that qualify as too similar? Techman224 Talk  20:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be considered similar, but if the user Test (the existing user) had less than about a screenful of contributions and hadn't edited in the last few months, I would be happy to create the new account. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review of CityCare
There doesn't seem to be any content at the deletion review. What's going on? Never mind; it's actually here, on the 5th. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 10:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OR tag
Could you respond at Talk:FIDE World Chess Championship 2004? Thanks. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Eighties Babies
Do you think two experienced admins like us could just close it and implement the redirect? Hiding T 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done and dusted. Cheers pal. Hiding T 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

CENT
Yikes- I must have been editing an old version of the page. I'm usually pretty good about not doing that. Thanks for catching it. --Eliyak T · C 13:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Update on deleted college football coach articles
You requested an update on the deleted college football coach articles that were copied to my sandbox. I have a "skeleton plan" put together at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach and have made some initial progress on the following:
 * User:Paulmcdonald/Alured Ransom (discussed at both Articles for deletion/Alured Ransom and Articles for deletion/A.C. Ransom)
 * User:Paulmcdonald/Simon F. Pauxtis (deleted without an AfD)

I have also been applying these steps to current AFD articles in our project:
 * Articles for deletion/B. Russell Murphy
 * Articles for deletion/Joseph Pipal
 * Articles for deletion/P. W. Griffith

Essentially, I just would like to communicate "more" and not "less" to make sure that we're working in line with what is expected.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

GoGo's Crazy Bones
Dear Stifle, I requested speedy deletion of GoGo's Crazy Bones because I thought that it was a nonsense created by someone. It is also orphaned. But after doing some research, I found that it is not a nonsense. You declined speedy deletion. I feel that it is lacks notability. What should be done with the article? Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You could use one of the other deletion options, like {{subst:prod}} or {{subst:afd}}. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

please restore the Codona page content
...to a user subpage of mineDjg2006 (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, see User:Djg2006/Codona. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Digimon in Digimon World DS
I was wondering if there were any revisions to List of Digimon in Digimon World DS since December 2007 (other than AfD and really minor stuff). If so I was wondering if it could be temp undeleted so that I could export it, for use on Digimon Wiki. Thanks. -- Ned Scott 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, all the edits were minor/formatting changes. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Aqua Connect
Hey Stifle. You voted to delete an article I made that is currently in AfD. I added two more credible sources to the article. Hopefully this helps out the article and may change your vote. By the way, I am not sure if it is proper etiquette to respond directly to votes on the AfD. If not, please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacJarvis (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~ at the end.
 * Replied at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Account Creator
I have been on a long wikibreak and I am now back. Please return the flag. Thanks :)  Mww113      (Talk)       (Review me!)      (Sign!) 00:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Stifle (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

prod
"unreferenced" is not a reason for deletion. Unreferenced and unnotable, maybe."tried but could not find any sources for notability" much more convincing--when you say something like that, I'd probably accept your view. But of the 2 you marked unreferenced, one seems to have had a ref. tho not a good one Blaqstarr--I didnt check further, and the other Esa Maldita Costilla, is probably notable given the performers involved. DGG (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess our standards differ. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for butting in, DGG, but Stifle did not tag Blaqstarr as a PROD candidate because it is "unreferenced". It's tagged as failing to meet the criteria of Notability (music). — Satori Son 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

LAX Requested Change
Hi Stifle, thanks for completing two of the requests on Los Angeles International Airport. However you missed one request, at Talk:Los_Angeles_International_Airport in regards to the V Australia start date. If that could be fixed, that'd be fantastic. Thanks! Mvjs (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean this one? Stifle (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're too quick! Thanks again. Mvjs (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No consensus at Origen
I am kindly asking you to re-evaluate the discussion at Articles for deletion/Origen, which you earlier closed as "No consensus". Most votes seemed to unambiguously support deletion of the current disambiguation page to make room to move Origen of Alexandria back to Origen, and a move of the current content of Origen of Alexandria to Origen (disambiguation). The "keep" votes either gave no reason, never mind one based in WP:MOS, or demurred on procedural grounds that this was a matter for WP:Requested moves, not AfD. If it is indeed what you feel as well, I'd have appreciated you saying that in your closing assessment, particularly so I know whether to take it there instead of deletion review. But I don't think "no consensus" entirely reflected the discussion. Cheers. Ford MF (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * AFD has two outcomes, either delete or not-delete. I felt that there was no consensus to delete the page, and closed as such. Whether the page should be edited, moved, disambiguated, etc. is not a matter for AFD, and you are free (I think) to make the moves that you suggest as a normal editorial action. Stifle (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Nightingale Research Foundation
Hi,

You deleted the Nightingale Research Foundation page, which is fine, but partway through the deletion discussion the page was moved to Byron Hyde and re-worked. Byron Hyde had his own deletion discussion a year ago, and the new debate wasn't directly addressing his work. I'm not sure if this is a simple User talk:Stifle/wizard/deleted case, so I'm asking. I'm OK with the page being deleted, or re-starting a new deletion discussion if required. Right now the page has a lingering AFD template at the top which should be dealt with in some way and it's sufficiently complicated that I'm throwing it at your mercy discretion. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 14:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deleted that page as that seems to reflect the wishes of the AFD contributors. Thanks for letting me know. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 14:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Anglo Marri wars
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Anglo Marri wars. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. andy (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Rob Oates
The consensus in the Rob Oates article that was nominated for deletion (Articles for deletion/Rob Oates) was less clear than you may have felt. Only one person agreed with the deletion nomination after the article was substantially edited. The early votes (Nsk92 and Punkmorten) were based on an earlier, relatively unsourced version of the article that did not establish notability. The one vote after said edits refers to the nomination's justification, which was no longer the article's sole claim to notability. I'd like to see the most recent content of the article discussed on its own merits. Please re-evaluate this case. Avram (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
 * The AFD was up for a week after you added the sources; I expect if they were considered sufficient people would have !voted to keep. Nobody did. Stifle (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your input here. Since it's not my area, I particularly value your input. I had to read the thing today to figure out how to tag an image for lacking proper permission! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I think it's a very good guide. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)