User talk:Stifle/Archive 1009b
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Deleted article Todd Hall?
Greetings. I was surprised to find that Todd Hall the lead singer of Burning Starr and Harlet has no Wikipedia article, but I note there was a Todd Hall article which you deleted. Could you please tell me if the article was about Todd Michael Hall the singer or Todd Hall the preacher or some other Todd Hall I've never even heard of? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Freezer Queen page was not an attack page or unsourced, why delete it?
The page the log says you deleted was thoroughly referenced. It had five references that explicitly supported its text. It was not an attack page at all! It pointed to Freezer Queen's 50 year history and said where it was located and how many it employed and more. There was one sourced quote review of their food that said it was bad. That's because that was what I found. It was a minor part of the article. Your comment "(G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)" was not true, Stifle. DanielM (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question is answered in my FAQs. They're linked at the top of my talk page and in the editnotice. Why not check them out next time?
- I'm not sure why you created it with a hangon tag, but the article had a few sentences about history and then went into how it failed a safety inspection, gave out a load of pink slips, and complained about poor food (cited to a banned source). Even if I had not felt the article was an attack page, I would still have deleted it under CSD:A7 (company or corporation failing to assert notability).
- I can userfy the page for you if you would like to work on it further before moving it back to the article namespace. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I explained the problem with what you said. You can't just point people to a great mass of text and links at your page in the face of such a problem and tell them figure it out on their own. I'll follow Wikipedia rules but am not obliged to learn and follow Stifle's rules. Their factory was closed for good after the failed safety inspection, how could this possibly not be relevant to the history? You have a misunderstanding of WP:BLP. The notability was explained in two or three aspects, why not read before deleting? No, thanks, I'm not asking you to userfy anything. DanielM (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- BLP doesn't come into this as it's not an article about a living person, but it was, in my opinion, an attack page. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- An attack page would have an hostile tone. It didn't. The unfavorable review quote was a small portion of the article. I would have equally put in a favorable review quote, I didn't find any. There was nothing even arguably constituting an attack in the rest of it. Their facility was closed for good after failing a safety review, after many years. We can't just censor something like that and have any sort of decent history of the company. We were discussing it productively at the article, and it was pretty high-handed of you to just wipe it all out. DanielM (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm happy with how I treated the page. I repeat my offer to userfy, which will allow you to move the page back to mainspace once you're happy with it; you can also file a deletion review, but that's likely to come out the same way (userfy for improvement), just a week slower. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, please userfy not only the article, but the similarly-wiped-out discussion page. My intent is to show that not only was it not an attack page, but also that you broke policy by wiping out a page with an "hang-on" tag while a constructive discussion and page improvements were under way. DanielM (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm happy with how I treated the page. I repeat my offer to userfy, which will allow you to move the page back to mainspace once you're happy with it; you can also file a deletion review, but that's likely to come out the same way (userfy for improvement), just a week slower. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- An attack page would have an hostile tone. It didn't. The unfavorable review quote was a small portion of the article. I would have equally put in a favorable review quote, I didn't find any. There was nothing even arguably constituting an attack in the rest of it. Their facility was closed for good after failing a safety review, after many years. We can't just censor something like that and have any sort of decent history of the company. We were discussing it productively at the article, and it was pretty high-handed of you to just wipe it all out. DanielM (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- BLP doesn't come into this as it's not an article about a living person, but it was, in my opinion, an attack page. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I explained the problem with what you said. You can't just point people to a great mass of text and links at your page in the face of such a problem and tell them figure it out on their own. I'll follow Wikipedia rules but am not obliged to learn and follow Stifle's rules. Their factory was closed for good after the failed safety inspection, how could this possibly not be relevant to the history? You have a misunderstanding of WP:BLP. The notability was explained in two or three aspects, why not read before deleting? No, thanks, I'm not asking you to userfy anything. DanielM (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
We've had an OTRS ticket (Ticket:2009102010011067) concerning your recent addition of the LaRouche movement cat/template to this article. Do you have a cite saying Mr. Winterberg's a member or otherwise associated with Lyndon LaRouche? Stifle (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note and sorry for the bother. It's part of deciding who belongs on the template and who doesn't. There are sources, but I don't see any need to pursue it. I've removed Winterburg from the template and category. Unless some other editor wants to pursue it that should resolve the issue. Will Beback talk 10:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
RFA spam
| Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
|---|---|
| |
| Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing | |
Hi! As someone who contributed to Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich and/or the deletion review of that AFD, I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination).
Note: this is going out to all registered editors with talk pages who commented on either page, not just to those on the Delete/Endorse or Keep/Overturn side.
Thank you. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Pirate Radio
Here's the full blurb on Facebook but I can't see the date that it was posted there. However, if you go to Links on "Taking Woodstock" and search for "Pirate Radio is the high-spirited story of how 8 DJs love affair" you can see that it was posted 22 September before the 8 October entry on Wikipedia. Of course if you do a regular Google search for that phrase it can be found all over the place. Obviously the material is designed as advertising to be disseminated as wide as possible, but, unless the original can be found there's no way to tell if it was released under a Wikipedia compatable licence. The article could have just as easily be deleted as spam but I went with copyvio as it's more concrete than saying someone is spamming. By the way I just noticed this which is also undated but uses the European title "The Boat that Rocked" with an unknown release date. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 05:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: Tony Martin
Didn't read the whole content on the Wiki article (I over looked the book editor) but thanks for fixing it back up. Bidgee (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Tropic Thunder FAC
Hello, I was wondering if you could revisit the article's FAC to see if the image changes are now sufficient. Thank you for taking the time to review the article, I believe the current setup looks better than how it initially was. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of "Maleng"
Hello.
Two-three weeks ago I made an article called "Maleng", containing information about an organisation which is established in Uganda and Norway. As we are in the start-up phase with registering trademarks, organisation numbers, etc, and have not been able to make a web page yet, even though we have bougth the domains maleng.org, maleng.no, maleng.net, I was not able to link the article to anything tangible at that stage. I was planning to work more on the article later. I was therefore very disturbed by the fact that you have removed the article. I hope you will un-delete it. The only proof I guess I can give you right now is our Facebook fan page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/manage/updates.php?id=167922650459&sent=1&e=0#/pages/Maleng/167922650459?v=wall, as I can not attach any formal documents here either.
Lbegby (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Maleng was deleted under criterion 7 (under Articles) of our criteria for speedy deletion because it appeared to be an article about a company which didn't indicate why it was important or significant. Please see WP:CORP 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) 19:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
What about this stamp?
In continuing my review of some of the fair-use stamps I noticed File:United Arab States stamps.jpg and I could not find a template I thought fit it but was wondering if there is PD template for such defunct postal authorities such as this one. There is no fair-use rationale but does it really need one at all? Your thoughts would be appreciated. ww2censor (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've tagged it for deletion for lacking a source, which we need regardless of the copyright status. So if a source shows up within the week, I'll try to figure out its copyright status. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
re: concerns raised at Obesity FAC affecting Ketogenic diet
I noticed the discussion on the Obesity FAC wrt product packaging. I've got Ketogenic diet going through peer review with an aim to go to FAC soon. I'm now concerned that File:Liquigen.jpg may fail the copyright test as the label isn't totally utilitarian. Am I right in thinking that File:Measuring Ketocal.jpg escapes the problem? If the liquigen photo has to go, what ways can I re-compose the image (other than one similar to the Ketocal one)? Thanks. Colin°Talk 08:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- The Measuring Ketocal image would be fine because the bottle is not the main focus of the image. The Liquigen bottle is borderline; an image of the bottle with no label would certainly be usable and even the bottle as shown with the label probably doesn't meet the threshold of originality to attract copyright. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Editnotices on the Spam-whitelist
Made a few changes to the appearance (matches both the whitelist/blacklist header color), thought I'd drop you a note. Also added a similar one for the blacklist. --Hu12 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
R151 (New York Subway car)
I found another link that mentions the R151 subway car that you tagged for deletion(http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2496). I don't know for certain whether it's a genuine hoax, but it's definitley a rumor. ----DanTD (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Forums aren't generally considered to be reliable sources. However, you are welcome to remove the proposed deletion tag if you choose. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Living person's image
Hey Stifle, I was looking for a free image for the BLP article Ipsita Roy Chakraverti but couldn't find any image. However I came across this news link where there is an instant that the lady is showing a method of a certain prayer. My question is can that image be uploaded since its being used to display a particular instant? Same is with the image on this newspaper? --Legolas (talk2me) 08:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- No. Whether an image "displays a particular instant" or not, we look behind the rationale to see the main reason why an image is displayed on a page. If the reason is to identify the person, then either the image must be free or there must be no reasonable prospect of a free image being taken. As Ms. Chakraverti is not a hermit or recluse, or incarcerated, or missing, or dead, a free photograph could be taken of her. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Stifle. And LOL!! LMAO at Ms Chakraverti being hermit or recluse, or incarcerated, or missing, or dead. :) --Legolas (talk2me) 09:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Would you look at the contribution of this user? I have a feeling it is a sock of the blocked indef User:ElPilotoDi. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Stifle. And LOL!! LMAO at Ms Chakraverti being hermit or recluse, or incarcerated, or missing, or dead. :) --Legolas (talk2me) 09:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether I want to remove the tag or not. Even on that board there are people who doubt that the subway car exists. I just want to see the subject kept on reserve, in the event that there's any confirmation that it's real. ----DanTD (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Lifetime bars
To say that a person who is barred from associating with an NASD member is "barred from the securities industry" is actually standard language that FINRA itself uses, see [1] but I see your point re its use in BLPs when FINRA has not applied that specific language to Asensio. In fact, I was posting on that point myself on the talk page just before I noticed you had changed the lead.
On another subject, I notice that two external links on the Asensio page are newspaper clips that appear on the Aensio.com site. Do you think that these present a WP:COPYVIO issue? Maybe substitutes can be found elsewhere, or they can be used as references without linking.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, WP:ELNEVER states that we should not link to sites which carry material in violation of its owner's copyright. The articles in question can still be cited, and if the original site is still online, can also be linked. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: Off Prospect Point c. 1925.jpg
Hello Stifle.
The result of your 15Sep09 discussion of the possible deletion of this file due to copyright concerns was that the image may be kept, due to the image being in the PD in both the US and Canada. As requested, I have indicated on the file page the specific reason why the image is now deemed to be in the PD in Canada. The reason for the US PD designation was previously indicated. Can you remove the mouse-over image comment on the article page which says that the image is scheduled for possible deletion? Thank you. Cardena (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Cardena
- This has been removed.
- Note that you don't need to write your name after the ~~~~ signature. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you unprotect "The 404 Podcast"?
Could you unprotect "The 404 Podcast". I'd like to submit my article as the wiki page but it sais it's been recreated so many times, so it's been blocked from creation. Here is my article (I still need to do some wiki code formating):—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maynard 321 (talk • contribs) t05:37, 29 October 2009
| The 404 | |
|---|---|
| 200px| The 404 logo created by Blake Stevenson[1] | |
| Presentation | |
| Genre | Technology, News |
| Updates | Daily, Monday - Friday |
| Publication | |
| Original release | November 15, 2007 |
| Provider | CNET[2] |
The 404, is a daily audio and video podcast produced by CNET TV. The show is dedicated to tech news, current popular culture, and stories of the hosts' choosing. Currently The 404 is hosted by Jeff Bakalar, Wilson Tang, and Justin Yu.
History
Originally known as "The Dudecast", the first episode of the show was deputed on November 15, 2007, with hosts Randall Bennett, Jeff Bakalar, and Wilson Tang. On May 15, 2008 Randall Bennett left the show, later being replaced by current co-host Justin Yu.
Format
The 404 is recorded live at 11:00am Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. Episodes are approximately 30 minutes long and are posted on the website once aired. During the live broadcasting of the show, viewers are able to sign into the chat room and communicate with the hosts while running the show. The 404 puts heavy importance of listener interaction. Fans are encouraged to email or call to leave a voicemail for the "Calls from the Public" segment.
Hosts
Jeff Bakalar is a gaming editor for CNET Reviews. After spending a few years in the world of film production, he has settled down and currently lives in New Jersey.
Wilson G. Tang is an associate producer for CNET TV. He's a part-time artist and filmmaker and has written and directed several films. He is originally from Tennessee.
Justin Yu is an associate editor of home and hardware for CNET Reviews. He covers the reviews of printers and other peripherals for CNET. He is originally from Orange County, California.
Notable Guests
The 404 has been visited by guests in a variety of fields. Most are fellow CNET employees, but other famed guests have included rock music performer Andrew W.K., olympic gold medalist snowboarder Shaun White, and Clayton Morris of Fox & Friends.
See also
References
External links
- CNET Podcast Central
- 404 Show Page
- The 404 Twitter
- The 404 Facebook
- Jeff Bakalar's CNET Profile
- Wilson G. Tang's CNET Profile
- Justin Yu's CNET Profile
- Jeff Bakalar's web site
- Wilson Tang's web site
- Randall Bennett's web site
- Justin Yu's posts on CNET's Crave
- Jeff Bakalar's posts on CNET's Crave
- 404 Forums
- Learn Out Loud Podcast Directory
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 404
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_404_podcast
- Maynard 321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
- BlueCottonCandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
- stil a copyvio--Hu12 (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
An IP replaced the di-no-license tag on this with a CC license, but had the tag messed up. I tidied it for him so it appeared correctly but then I saw in the page history your simultaneous OTRS and di-no-license tagging and was a bit unsure, since those seem mutually exclusive to me. Just letting you know, in case I've done something that shouldn't have been done. Apologies if I have. It probably needs someone more expert to check it. • Anakin (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. The previous IP editor failed at adding the license tag properly. I'll take it from here. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Back again
Ya Stifle, User:ElPilotoDi is back in the form of sock Thela Brown. Uploaded the same bunch of pictures for which he was blocked previously. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll look into it. Also, I've nominated File:S&s-intothegroove.jpg for deletion as the stage and background depicted are copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didnot understand the reason for this nomination. Then every image of live performances from Flickr should be deleted because each and every one of them depicts some portion of teh stage or backdrops. And as for copyrighting, since the copyrighters chose to display them in public performance they cannot be kept as copyrighted as anybody in public domain can take a picture of it. Will you please explain what is wrong with this one only? --Legolas (talk2me) 09:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not everything on a stage or backdrop is copyrightable. A plain stage certainly isn't. This one has pictures of people and other designs on it.
- "[S]ince the copyrighters chose to display them in public performance they cannot be kept as copyrighted as anybody in public domain can take a picture of it" — this may appear to be common sense, but is legally inaccurate, and such images certainly can't be released under the free license required for Commons. If you were to take a photograph of a book cover in Borders, would you expect to be able to reuse that under a free license? How about a photograph of each page in the book? The copyright holder certainly chose to display the book in public, and anyone can take a picture of it, but it's not legal to then use that for your own commercial purposes. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I have one other question. The Template:infobox concert tour doesnot have a place to write about alternate text for images. Since you are an admin, can you incorporate the feature into the template? --Legolas (talk2me) 11:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didnot understand the reason for this nomination. Then every image of live performances from Flickr should be deleted because each and every one of them depicts some portion of teh stage or backdrops. And as for copyrighting, since the copyrighters chose to display them in public performance they cannot be kept as copyrighted as anybody in public domain can take a picture of it. Will you please explain what is wrong with this one only? --Legolas (talk2me) 09:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Happy Halloween!
As Halloween is my favorite holiday, 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 Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)