User talk:Stifle/Archive 1109

ESPNsoccernet


Andrewponsford, who you warned for edit warring on 7 October at User talk:Andrewponsford, has continued to restore his unsourced personal opinions at ESPNsoccernet after coming off a 24-hour block for the same thing. Though I could block again for a longer time, it would be good to get an opinion from another admin about what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given him a strong, specific warning. Best to make sure people understand what they're not supposed to do. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this, and giving him the further warning. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the direction on how to cite the sources. To that point, how does this old page I posted not comply though when I used links to the Soccernet pages with errors?  Should I use a link that cites the correct fact instead?  Thanks for your help.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ESPNsoccernet&oldid=323327421 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewponsford (talk • contribs) 23:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The link to the soccernet page shows what he said. You need proof that a reliable source has said the statements were "glaring errors". Stifle (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice
A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)  You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

email
I just got your email about the schools wikipedia and replied. Let me know if you don't get the reply. --BozMo talk 14:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

OTRS
Hi. :) Can I pass 2009102810059047 to you? The image (under both names) has already been deleted on Commons, and I'm not a Commons admin. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ (: Stifle (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Summit Tunnel Fire
Hi,

A few months ago a number of photographs were remove from the Summit Tunnel fire article due to valid copyright reasons. I now have the publishers written authority to use these and I believe it will enhance the article. Can you give me advice on the best way to restore these?

Regards, Leaky  Caldron  10:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Send the consent, including the exact names of all the affected images, to permissions-en@undefinedwikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks. will do. Leaky  Caldron  14:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I did as you suggested and sent an email a couple of days ago. What happens next? Leaky  Caldron  17:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All the emails are queued and answered in the order received. There's a backlog of over 2 weeks at the moment, though... Stifle (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. thanks. Leaky  Caldron  20:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Star Wars
An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for more the new discussion. Dale 10:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OTRS subject requests deletion
Information that the subject requested deletion should not be made public, as in Articles for deletion/Firdous Bamji. OTRS are private communications and such revelations can cause further trouble for the person. —Centrx→talk • 04:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of OTRS policy; please see message 3 in the ticket where the subject consented to this revelation. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

One Drop Redemption page
not understand ing why it was deleted.. also refrences to Da Spirit records and the the other Reggae artisits in the Inland Empire music section. was there not enough links or what exactly constitutes relevance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.90.128 (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One Drop Redemption was deleted under criterion 7 (under Articles) of our criteria for speedy deletion because it appeared to be an article about which didn't indicate why it was important or significant. Please see  for details of what might show notability. If you think that these criteria are met, please explain which one and provide citations from reliable sources to back up your claim, and I will consider undeleting it.
 * You may alternatively file a deletion review request. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OTRS
Hi. I'm so bad with this. :) I've locked myself into an article that I don't have time after all to address. I tried to unlock it and reset the owner, but when I reset the owner it locked back to me. Help? Do I unlock it again and allow myself to be the owner of record? I know I have been able to both unlock and disown, but I don't remember how, and it doesn't seem to work consistently. (This is 2009111110064383. I've been on too long as it is today.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember being able to unlock and disown too, but I can't manage it now. There's nothing special about being owner, though, so you can just unlock it and it'll hit the queue for people to pick up. I've taken ownership of this and unlocked it, so it's back in the quality queue, which ballooned roughly when I went on Wikibreak last week :/ Stifle (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. We need you like crazy. :) You should be cloned. (I spent almost an hour and a half today working on a single ticket. I don't know how you do it!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just waiting on the next statistics, heh. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Romanian
Hey Stifle what do you think of the licensing of these images in http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond_Ambition_Tour Are they properly licensed and can be used on the Blond Ambition World Tour here? If so how to incorporate them? --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ro:Fişier:Madonna-Blond-Ambition-Posters.jpg would be a reasonable lead or infobox image.
 * ro:Fişier:Suitandbustier L.jpg would not meet WP:NFCC or WP:NFCC
 * ro:Fişier:Madonna2.jpg may be usable, but is bordering on failing WP:NFCC
 * ro:Fişier:Livetotell3.jpg is not usable as it has no proper source
 * ro:Fişier:Sooner or later.JPG would need to be properly sourced as well
 * ro:Fişier:182340933 tp.jpg is probably usable.
 * In the case of all of the above, make sure you remain mindful of WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What I actually meant was are they free images to be uploaded in commons? Otherwise addition of such image will fail the fair-use of living person. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. No, they are all fair use and can't be uploaded in Commons. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks a lot Stifle. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't voted yet (and am not sure I will vote at all), but will do this should I vote. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Whitelist
Hey Stifle, I just saw that you had tried to contact me with regards to whitelisting www.wgimpressionists.co.cc. I have a question for you how do I prove that this is a reliable source? This page has been put together by my wife who is an impressionism enthusiast and is self studying the subject..

Cheers

Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pimpingeezer (talk • contribs) 17:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS for details of what constitutes reliable sources, and leave any comments or requests on the whitelisting page, MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, rather than here. Stifle (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted references
When removing &lt;ref&gt;s using blacklisted links, as you did in this edit, please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind&#32;(e.g. these). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 18:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Stifle (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the previous version of an image per WP:NFCC?
Greetings, Administrator Stifle

I'm writing in to ask for help about a Wikipedia process of which I'm fully aware. In order to comply with Wikipedia Non-free Content Criteria policy, clause 3, part A ("Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information"), I have uploaded a new version of File:Windows Media Player 10 Mobile.png in which only one copyrighted item from one party instead of two is used. However, I believe I have read somewhere (which right now I don't remember) that I should notify an administrator to delete the previous versions which do not comply with WP:NFCC#3. If this is the case, can you please tell me what is the proper way of doing so? Is there any tag that I should place on the image description page? Or, would is this message enough for a notice?

Please guide me.

Thanks in advance.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker reply) I've gone ahead and deleted the image. Also, you should update the Fair use rationale (for example, it says the image is not low resolution, but it's less than the the general recommendation of <.1 megapixels, so it's fine by that regard. WP:IUP specifies some steps for deleting images, but basically the easiest way to delete an old revision is to ask an active admin you know; I'm not even sure there's a template for marking things (aside from the non-free reduced template, but that's not quite analogous to your situation.) Hope that's some help, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Until It Sleeps Happy  Thanksgiving 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User:ElPilotoDi sock
The above user's sock User:Thela Brown is going on doing the same things, uploading the same images which were deleted, and replacing already existent images with his/her own. Started those same things for which the user was blocked. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh... blocked indefinitely. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RUMOR
What was the former content of WP:RUMOR, which you deleted? (If it was a redirect somewhere then I think it should be debated. Just my opinion.)  Thanks. Bwrs (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a redirect to Verifiability. You're welcome to recreate it if you think it's worthwhile. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Cortney Tidwell
You asked: 1. How Ms. Tidwell meets your choice of criteria at WP:NMG? Me: Tidwell has coverage from reliable sources. MSNBC and The Guardian She has 2 albums from two known labels. She has been on tours with other famous artists and some of her music is collaborated with members of the famous band Lambchop (band) 2. Why you chose to repeatedly recreate the page, including recreating at a different title to circumvent page protection, rather than engaging with the administrator who deleted the page or seeking to improve it? Its not against Wikipedia's rules to repeatedly create a page if you make improvements upon it. Wikipedia is never a final copy article. Currently I have my finished or near-finished article of at Cortney tidwell. However I would really prefer just to have a formal Cortney Tidwell article. Need your help though. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncerlan (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the third recreation; please allow the DRV process to complete. I am replying to your questions at the DRV. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Question re image
Not questioning your tagging of File:Australian House of Representatives Ballot Paper.jpg as such, but trying to figure out from looking at it why F7 (invalid fair-use claim) applies? I note there's two fair use claims for specific articles on there, and I can't imagine how any free use alternative would be possible given all voting papers would theoretically be copyrighted to the state or federal electoral commissions. Orderinchaos 17:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is tagged as a poster, failing the first instance of WP:CSD ("Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a Non-free logo tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately.") Stifle (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a bit odd (it's clearly not a poster) - I'll look into it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Orderinchaos 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you have another look and see if my attempt at a valid rationale is correct? Orderinchaos 02:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No immediate issues with the tag, although I am still unsure that the image meets WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. I'll come back to it at some stage. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * NFCC#1 is pretty easy - it's a criminal offence to create a fake one. NFCC#8 might be a point, not sure. Orderinchaos 13:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One can create a sample ballot paper, outside of Australia if necessary, to illustrate what it looks like. The exact candidates or details on the paper aren't material for the article on preferential voting. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. If we merely change the names but preserve the design, it will still be a non-free derived work.  On the other hand, if we change the design, then we give our readers a false idea of what an Australian ballot paper looks like.  Jheald (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The image fails WP:NFCC on Australian electoral system as is, as its omission would not impede readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's your point of view. Others take a different point of view.  See for example the image's use rationale, which sets out why the image does add to the understanding of the text.  It also adds to the understanding of the topic, which is the actual policy criterion. Jheald (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'll have to nominate it for FFD. Stifle (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
You're right, nasty messages from genre warriors is not exactly the kindest welcome. :) Haha, thank you!  Chase wc 91  23:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Flickr image
Well, happy birthday, Stifle...! Can you pls check this page here on Flickr and let me know if you see any issues with my cropping the image of Air Marshal Scherger in the bottom-right-hand corner and uploading to Commons for use in the Frederick Scherger article? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't access it from work, so I'll come back to you later. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey there, any update on this one, Stifle? Like to make a call on this image before I nom the article for FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gah, sorry, forgot. I'm moving this to the bottom of the page so I might actually see it from home this time... Stifle (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on the country where and year when the photo was taken. Do you know what they are? Stifle (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Taken in New Zealand, March 1958. To be honest I wasn't particularly expecting the time and place to be the key factor in determining whether reproduction on WP was permissible (though of course depending on NZ's copyright laws, it could well be), more whether its appearance on Flickr automatically made it fair game (I'm not particularly familiar with the status of Flickr images for WP use). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, since it's marked "all rights reserved" on flickr, we can't use it here — only CC-BY and CC-BY-SA images from flickr are accepted. Unless the creator of the photograph died in 1958, it's still copyrighted and we can't use it. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's cool, at least I've eliminated that one from consideration... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

On Stroker Serpentine
hi stifle! i'm martin bane, I'd love to pick ur brain about what is considered a valid source foran article. currently im editing the Stroker Serpentine wiki page and as this is a virtual avatar widely reported on in the real world and would would best be termed the "virtual" press wold not a valid source be considered a virtual one and not just real world ones. Activities widely reported in the virtual press shold be judged for veracity and not just the reach of these press organs. Weblogs are valid sources and some of these "virtual " press blogs have much wider reach than many quoted rl ones. I'd be interested in your thought s onthis issue--Martinbane (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Real-world sources are always best. But to be honest, this isn't really my strong area; I'd point you towards WP:RS/N. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

hey thanx stifle. i have a good handle on good sourcing and verafiability and can proceed with sure footedness in the article i'm attempting to edit. An article in a ezine was deemed an unsound source. I believe that it can be ultimately termed a valid source or at least one of many voices speaking verafiable facts. --Martinbane (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Article United Nations Institute for Training and Research improved
Dear Stifle, thank you for your message. I have improved the text of the article "United Nations Institute for Training and Research", I did my best, I hope that it is fine with you. LoveraA —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveraA (talk • contribs) 09:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, you dojn't need to tell me. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

OTRS check please
Hi, Stifle. Could you please check this ticket found at Talk:Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology and see if it applies to all subpages of the KNUST website, for example this one. I'm trying to determine if it can apply to this WP article among others. Thanks. — Cactus Writer |   needles  13:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While the subpages haven't been mentioned specifically, we have the CC-BY on every subpage that was placed following our previous interactions, we have OTRS permission for the website's main page, the footer of the planning page mentions "KNUST Website by Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
 * Based on a work at www.knust.edu.gh" (the latter being OTRS-released). I think what we're doing here is needless & WP:BITEing process wonkery, but that's just my 5 cents. MLauba (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I seem to be picking up some WP:TPSs; MLauba's answer leaves me with nothing to add. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm involved, since I actually cleared the latest CP listing as validly licensed yesterday and brought the subsequent deletion up for review. For the TPS, BTW, I don't mean to intrude, if it is undesirable, I'll apologize and stop immediately. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, understood -- the subpages aren't covered by the OTRS permission. Thank you, Stifle and mini-Stifle. :) — Cactus Writer |   needles  14:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's contrary to what I interpret as the spirit of the permission, for what it's worth. Mini-Stifle (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with TPSs; they save me time :) Stifle (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Hamilton Gurdwara.jpg
Hmm... supposedly File:Hamilton Gurdwara.jpg is a copyvio, but http://www.sikhs.co.nz/Gudwara/hamilton/tauronga%20171.jpg gives me a 404 error. Are you sure that's the right link? I checked it against TinEye and found nothing. &mdash; The   Earwig   @  19:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just opened it myself and it comes up. See for a list. It came in on an OTRS ticket. In fact, why am I waiting? I forgot momentarily that I'm a sysop... Stifle (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Leaving Home at Eighteen
Hello Stifle, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Leaving Home at Eighteen has been removed. It was removed by Graeme Bartlett with the following edit summary ' work is notable as it is reviewd in two significant newspapers '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Graeme Bartlett before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/RGM-89 Jegan (2nd nomination)
An AFD you participated, is again up for deletion for the second time. Ikip (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)