User talk:Stifle/Archive 0208a

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive. Please leave new messages at User talk:Stifle, and not here.

Bueller 3RR violation[edit]

Hi, I added a comment to your ruling on the 3RR report I filed about Bueller; just posting here in case you miss it there. A response is appreciated. Thanks! csloat (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Stifle (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes image[edit]

With respect, is it your contention that the image is in fact readily replaceable? I ask, because I haven't seen a cast ensemble grouping image anywhere on the web. Perhaps I am in fact mistaken in my research, but I uploaded it with the conviction that an alternative image does not exist. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is my contention that there is a free equivalent that could be created. WP:NFCC #1 requires that no free equivalent is available or could be created, it says nothing of "readily replaceable". Apologies for the poor choice of words in my original message.
Just about any fair use image of any combination of living people is not permitted on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(You don't need to duplicate a response on my Talk page; for the duration of this conversation, I've watchlisted your page)
I am puzzled at your idea that a free image of the vast ensemble exists or is "readily available". Perhaps you have come across such a thing, and could point me to it? Wikipedia use cast ensemble and band group images all the time, as evidenced by just a cursory glance through the 'pedia:
Film & Television
Music
...the list goes on and on, but I think I've presented fairly conclusive evidence that "just about any fair use image of any combination of living people" is in fact permitted in Wikipedia, and in fact is utilized in many, many FA-quality articles. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into those. Again, I did not say that such an image exists or is readily available, merely could be created. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would contend that the image manipulation on the unaltered image makes the modified image a created image. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it is also a derivative work and would need both copyright holders to release it. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I asked around a bit, to see if my thinking was out in left field. It seems to be an okay application, I think. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see how it goes. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the discussion, are we now on the same page about the image? If not, please let me know. And thanks for self-reverting the PUI tag. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus there yet. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Canada page unneccessary[edit]

The edit warring referred to has long ceased. It occurred in October, and by mutual agreement the debate as taken to the Dominion page where it continues. I'm sorry I did not make that clear. My aim in bringing this to your attention was to show that the pattern of edit warring was repeating itself again. I wanted to nip it in the bud before it starts again. Thanks.--Soulscanner (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone ever considered including tag-team edit warring as a 3RR violation? When two people act in tandem (unintentionally or intentionally) to make the same revert four times, they may not technically violate the 3RR rule, but they certainly do so in spirit. This was the problem on both sides in the edit war on the Canada page, and precisely what I wanted to avoid on the Dominion page. Would it not be easier to warn editors as you did here rather than shut down pages for weeks at a time as was done in the Canada case? I'm sure this would cure the escalation problem without blocking access to pages. Any comments on this? --Soulscanner (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They can be blocked for edit warring as well. Feel free to bring issues like that to the admin noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Dominion[edit]

Thank you for your consideration and counsel -- see here. Please note that this was being discussed, albeit torturously; however, the addition of these tags and said edits are a further demonstration of this editor's disruptive behaviour. I have requested reliable references from this editor -- or anyone, frankly -- which justify the assertions made. Said references have also been requested of others previously, and apparently for months (glance at the talk page) -- to no avail. Let me be clear: if these references aren't provided by said parties in a reasonable timeframe or unless compelled otherwise, I will remove the extraneous tags. Please feel free to monitor said communications to ensure that contributions and discourse conform to Wikipedia policies and procedures. Thanks. Quizimodo (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commented over there. Bear in mind that it is for the person seeking information be added or kept in an article to verify it, not for someone looking for it to be removed or not included to provide evidence that it isn't true. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but please elaborate. The information being challenged is already supported by the references provided, and it has been for months per talk, so the burden of evidence is on those who dispute said information to reply in kind. This editor, amidst discussions at 'Canada', was unable or unwilling to convincingly justify their position, and therafter extricated oneself from the morassdiscussion that they instigated. If this is not proof-positive of this editor's disruptive, inchoate style, I don't know what is. I suggest you read the statements at the now withdrawn RfA. Quizimodo (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the burden of evidence always remains on the person seeking for information to be added or retained. I don't think I can be of any more help with this article, so I suggest you post an article request for comment. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the burden of evidence supporting these assertions is already satisfied. This is untenable. If an editor places a 'lopsided' tag but cannot or will not justify why, while continuously challenging said content which is based on a number of reliable sources, that is not my problem and is arguably disruptive. I defer to prior comments. Quizimodo (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As well, your note on my talk page indicates I've been "previously blocked for 3RR violations". No: only once. Please be more attentive in the future. Quizimodo (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was a typo. My bad. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ongoing dickery, hypocrisy, and removal of tags by said editor -- please peruse the talk page and recent edit summaries -- I hereby request that 'Dominion' be locked until disputes are resolved. Thanks. Quizimodo (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That much I can do. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Quizimodo (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth generation jet fighter[edit]

Thank you for your timely intereceding regarding an edit war mainly over content interpretation. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC). Thank you for your concern over my actions. I shall keep your notification in mind.Freepsbane (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the article again. An anon, User:68.199.113.247 may be contravening a block, masquerading as a sock. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I am not sure how one "masquerades" as a sock, but you should use WP:SSP for this. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency: Please check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR History[edit]

Please check G2bambino edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. The History page shows extensive alterations to posted complaints and decisions (see history page). G2bambino has altered the page to make it appear that my posts were spurious, resulting in User:Spartaz blocking me (in good faith) for harassment. G2bambino then reverted to the old postings. This is a blatant case of vandalism. Please compare following with current page:

G2bambino deliberately altered my posts to the page with intent to misrepresent them. --soulscanner (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration I've referred it over to ANI because I have to go and this is more complicated than I think. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also confused v=but I appreciate your dealing with this. G2bambino Humbug! 23:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

It all started when I removed a duplicate post; I accidentally also removed G2bambino's original post which was posted minutes before that. G2bambino was trying to restore his original post at a much later date, and accidentally deleted one of mine. In any case, you didn't see his post when you made your decision. And Humbug! later only saw G2bambino's restored post and my later October post without my report about yesterdays reverts. That made it look like he'd deliberately altered mine. Time for more apologies. Geez, I'm sorry about this. Moral: assume good faith. --soulscanner (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as bad for jumping into the issue without properly examining everything. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, though, it was my editing mistake that triggered the whole thing. A bunch of people aren't looking too good here because of it. I really should have known better than to weave conspiracy theories. I'll request that a few administrators monitor the Canada and Dominion page for the next little while and keep everyone (including myself) on a very short leash. The issue needs mediation, frankly. I won't edit war or use the 3RR page under any circumstances, not after this. This is a deeply engrained content issue, but it needs to be settled once and for all.--soulscanner (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 3RR noticeboard[edit]

Thank you. I'll look into RFCU as soon as I can. I think it's pretty clear from his interests and his style. SamEV (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Hicks, Skyring & Wm[edit]

I haven't really weighed into the discussion on this article too much but I noticed that Skyring has been blocked for edit warring. A review of his edits to the article show 2 reversions in 3 days and a total of 3 edits in the last 4 days so a block seems a tad harsh to me despite his rather strong opinions on the matter. That, however, is not why I'm posting here. I note that after he was blocked, Wm made an edit to the article, effectively reverting Skyring's edits, using "Skyring blocked for 31 hours for edit warring" as the edit summary[1], which seems highly inappropriate. He has also posted the message on the article's talk page[2], which also seems to be inappropriate. If I was to ignore WP:AGF I might think he was gloating going by these comments and that also seems inappropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have warned him to be nice. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Warning noted. I apologise for not realising that this would be inappropriate. Although I did wonder. I was concerned to let people know that they would be allowed to edit the page again. I have never had to report anyone for edit warring before. Now that I am familiar with this protocol I will certainly abide by it in future. Thanks. Wm (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skyring is requesting an unblock, and I am inclined to give it to him. He doesn't seem to be edit warring at ALL; since ALL of the edits to the David Hicks situation seem to be at the talk page, save one or two. We should encourage people to use the talk page, which is exactly what he is doing. I am just awaiting your response before acting on this. Do you have any additional evidence to show that this 24 hour block is needed to prevent any real damage to Wikipedia? Please respond ASAP so that we can act on this. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed all of his examples and the article as a whole as well as the edits of those who are also involved in the dispute and I agree with Jayron32. I feel this block was not warranted, everything I have read suggests that this user has gone out of his way to avoid edit warring. I am also inclined to support an unblock. Trusilver 18:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no internet access until now due to travelling and work, but I am back now. This seems to be all dealt with now, but if there's anything else I need to do please let me know. Stifle (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removal of neutrality tags on Canada page[edit]

User:Quizimodo and User:G2Bambino are removing a neutrality tag at the Canada page that I put there to mark the statements that are being discussed at the Dominion page. They know the policy on this. I've warned them about it and filed an incident report. I'm not qoing to get into an edit war on this again, and I'm encouraging other editor to leave the tag off until an administrator can comment. --soulscanner (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this editor continues to be disruptive and intransigent -- see here. Quizimodo (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't once removed a tag of any kind from the Canada page; at least not within my recollection, which means not in relation to Soulscanner's present rampage. --G2bambino (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Stifle. At times like these, I don't envy your job. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it would be appropriate for me to take any action here. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Care to go to the mediation request page for Dominion. Could us someone to support the request. I understant if you do not wish to wade further in these waters. --soulscanner (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you complete the request I will make a comment on it. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi[edit]

Dear Stifle,

since you were the admin that once talked to Benjiboi, I am writing to you. Have a look at this edit summary. Benji repeatedly has refused to justify his action on the talk page claiming that he was "encouraged not engage me". Still, IMHO he has the obligation to participate in discussions on talk page and not just simply revert.

Can you clarify this matter to him? Str1977 (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't want to talk to you, I'm not going to force him to. If he breaks 3RR or edit wars, report him. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, so far he hasn't. What I meant is clarify to him that he cannot refuse discussion under the pretext of being told not to engage me. Sure, he is free not to talk to me but then he shouldn't revert like this. Str1977 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He can refuse to discuss with you for no reason, so to say that some particular reason isn't valid would be spurious. Stifle (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are unwilling to intervene and I cannot blame you. Next time he uses that spurious reasoning (it is indeed spurious: note that he doesn't admit to avoid me out of choice - he claims he is bound by admin's orders) I will simply raise it at AN/I.
Thanks for your patience, Str1977 (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors claim that repeatedly misrepresenting a source is OK" seems to be so unthinkable that admins to date misunderstand the simplicity of this case.[edit]

Hi Stifle, I put the following issue on ANI but got no apparent admin response. "Editors claim that repeatedly misrepresenting a source is OK" seems to be so unthinkable that admins to date misunderstand the simplicity of this case. (At least to my eyes)

If you don't find interest in looking at this please suggest where I should go.

This is not a content dispute. Nor is it a dispute over reliability of source. My concern instead is that the behavior that Prester John and Skyring/Pete promoted durring this dispute make working collaboratively a futile exercise: Accurate representations of sources is presented as unnecessary and, in addition, correcting, discussing and then finally lodging an ANI is presented as "disruptive".

(re-edited from ANI version)

In article David Hicks /Religious and militant activities/Afghanistan a source lists allegations against David Hicks. (article: US charges David Hicks)
Prester John has repeatedly edited to present the allegations as facts/admissions. He has been told that this is not acceptable. This problem has been discussed here on the article talkpage with PresterJohn and Skyring/Pete and also on archived User_talk:Prester_John#David_Hicks allegations.
Misrepresenting edits
Revision as of 00:43, 3 February 2008
Revision as of 01:59, 13 January 2008
Revision as of 00:10, 12 January 2008
The same edits have also been performed by IP
Revision as of 03:10, 1 February 2008 by 124.180.162.217
PresterJohn had been blocked for 1 month starting 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) by Save_Us_229 according to page Talk to the Hand. The first of the misrepresentation of sources began 12 January 2008.(ANI report lodged 02:17, 3 February 2008)

I am also open to feedback over what I could have done better/differently. Thanks for your time. SmithBlue (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that consensus is against you and you are attempting to frame a good-faith content dispute as an editor conduct issue, which it isn't. Their interpretation of sources is no less valid than yours, and they are continuing to discuss on the talk page. I think a consensus will arise out of this and blocking people would be counterproductive.
I have warned Prester John about his edit summary usage, but that is all I am going to do. Your next step in dispute resolution would be to file a request for comment, and the instructions for how to do so are on that page. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clear advice on the next step. My understanding was that the content of a source had to be accurately represented in an article. So when a source says "the US government accuses and alleges" we can not replace that with "he admitted to" or "he did this ..." while citing that source. However I see that many of my fellow editors think otherwise which puzzles me greatly. If you have a simple insight that would illuminate my darkness I would appreciate it. Thanks again for your concision. SmithBlue (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think that filing a request for comment would be the best way of resolving this for you; the mediation cabal would also be an alternative. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for this. You'd think since I was cutting and pasting from the banning policy that I'd manage to spell... but no. --Deskana (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for Vkontakte.ru[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Vkontakte.ru. 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.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for images challenged on Vic McGlynn article[edit]

Betacommand bot put a challenge on the Vic McGlynn article. These are low resoultion captures from the in-studio webcam at BBC 6 Music. I then edited the photo and made a new one and uploaded it. The image in question is "Image:VicMc3.jpg" . It is fair use. Please advise. I think the betacommand bot is not working out well. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't qualify for fair use because photographs of living people are virtually always replaceable - a free photo could be taken of her and uploaded. Stifle (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your kind advice. I will be very reluctant to upload images unfortunately, now. But I understand the rationale. Thanks so very much. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion - protection[edit]

Hi. Three editors: User:GoodDay, User:Silverchemist and myself seem to have arrived at a consensus at Talk:Dominion and have decided we would like protection lifted. The three other major contributors: User:Soulscanner, User:G2Bambino and User:Quizimodo seem to have lost interest. The last is aware that there is an RFC concerning his behaviour on the page. We do feel however, that there should be a 1RR rule imposed for a period. Thanks!--Gazzster (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOFLAW[edit]

Please kill it, KTHXBYE. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long gone by the time I got to this message; I'm not online all the time :) Stifle (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI[edit]

Thanks for the block earlier. I'm sure you checked to see that another editor recently warned me. Im sure you also were aware that current events requires multiple edits/reverts in a short time frame. Im sure you also checked the talkpage of the page in question and saw that at the time of my block i was the ONLY user who had written ANYTHING. Anyway, perhaps you should check out these articles: judgement and common sense. Also, the same user who continues to vandalize (I consider my edits reverting vandalism) persists in adding hate speech to the portal. I insist on removing it. I edit the portal almost daily and am well aware what current events is. Illegal activity, hate crimes and bigotry are not news. For more information on this, please see: Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. Veritas Aequitas WikiTony (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your sarcasm would be futile. However:
  • Users who should already be aware of the 3RR do not require to be warned about it again.
  • Writing on talk does not excuse edit warring, although it can help to de-escalate it.
  • The current events portal is not, to my knowledge, exempt from normal edit activities.
  • Only simple vandalism reverts are exempt from 3RR. Simple vandalism is an edit that someone who had never seen the page before would know to be inappropriate, like blanking the page, introducing nonsense words, or cuss words.
If you are at risk of violating 3RR, then you should attempt to see if other editors agree with you. If not, then consider that consensus may be against you and that your edits should, in fact, be reverted back. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of 194.189.32.65[edit]

Thankyou for blocking this IP address. I have a couple of concerns, however:

  • The IP address had only just had an existing block expired, so a block of 31 hours for continued vandalism seems too lenient.
  • The editor at that IP has put in an unblock request which constitutes a personal attack on me.

I feel that a much longer block is warranted. For the record, I never called them pathetic, I described their claims that my warnings for their vandalism constituted personal attacks as pathetic - a big difference I feel. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking IPs for a long time is usually neither useful nor effective. If he comes off the block and continues, then report again. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of image[edit]

Hello! It seems you have deleted one of my pictures Image:Tramzone6.png that had a bad licencing tag. I waited for the issuer to reply but you deleted it anyways. It is possible to restore the picture? Thanks! --Party!Talk to me! 14:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already restored by someone else. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged a picture wich i asked a admin to restore, and i gave it the proper tag, it is ineed a bus pass, wich obiviously you don't know how one looks like. So i reverted it. It is ineed a bus pass. It's public domain... The design doesn't come back for a while. --Party!Talk to me! 15:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the meaning of the words "public domain", and I do think I know what a bus pass looks like. An image is in the public domain if it can be used by anyone and is not subject to copyright. This image is certainly not in the public domain - it is copyrighted by the Agence métropolitaine de transport. Therefore, you must follow the non-free content criteria in order to use it. Do not just revert and put a public domain tag on it, as otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle/Archive_0208a&oldid=1142799548"