User talk:Stifle/Archive 0609b

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.

AfD

I'm wondering if you would consider withdrawing this AfD nom to save us all a bit of time. Even in these very early stages it's clearly headed for a keep (or at the very least a no consensus), and you did not actually provide much of a policy-based deletion rationale since you merely vaguely invoked WP:NOTNEWS but did not explain how this situation applies to that policy (sure it's "in the news," but that does not remotely lead to the conclusion that NOTNEWS is applicable). Obviously keep it running if you want, but it's going to waste a lot of time that could be better spent working on the article and keeping vandalism out, and it's pretty clear where this will end up (I'm also not a fan of big AfD tags on new articles that will attract tons of readers - we don't really need that sitting there for a week while tens of thousands of people read the article which is what will happen). Whatever you decide this is just a suggestion and I shan't bother you about it further. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is now moot. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

ACC Request #31173

I wanted to ask for your guidance regarding this request. I originally reserved it, but since I am uncertain as to what action should be taken, I broke the reservation and deferred to other users. The username requested is very similar to a username that was created in January 2009. However, the similar username has made no edits in that time. Would this account be considered active or inactive for purposes of creating another account with a similar username? One the one hand, it was created fairly recently - on the other, it hasn't been used. Thanks for your assistance.

Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 03:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: I see Promethean has closed the request as "Too Similar." This is what I was leaning towards. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 03:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki/Wikipedia

I do not care if it is wiki, wikia, wikipeida-it's a name, you do need to be PC (polictcally correct, thi is wiki, it is commonly refered to as this. Can be found here (do not take this comment personally- it does state you can be a minority).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion#Gagamaericanidol.jpg Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 06:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read WP:DAW at all? It explains the difference very clearly. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Virginia election

Hi. I was just looking into the speedy deletion of File:2001 Results VA.JPG when I noticed that it was actually different from the file it was supposed to be a duplicate of, File:Virginia 2001 Election Results.JPG. At least three counties changed colors between the two images. I posted a message to User talk:Hekerui, who tagged it for speedy deletion, but by the time I had composed that message the image was gone. I'm just giving you a heads-up; perhaps the second image is more accurate. If it turns out to have been an error, I'm sure we can just get the correct file re-uploaded. Anyway, have a good day! -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've undeleted the image; you can figure out for yourselves which one is right and list the other on FFD. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Cleanup Barnstar

Thanks mate. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rognvald Richard Farrer Herschell, 3rd Baron Herschell

I might be miscounting, but excluding the vote of the nom and the vote of the article author this comes out as 7 deletes and 4 keeps - that doesn't read as "no consensus" to me. Ironholds (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would I exclude the vote of the nom and the vote of the article author? In any case, I could equally exclude Phoes !vote as WP:JNN or Tryde's as WP:PERNOM. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Per nom: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by 'per nom'". You can throw Phoe's out, certainly, but by that logic you'd have to throw Max Mux's out with it, see the last line "Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability." That'd still leave it, including the page creator and AfD nominator... 7 deletes and 4 keeps. Ironholds (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can find a solid consensus to delete on this one. Feel free to DRV. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

NSCSponsors

FYI: I closed Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_May_28#File:NSCSponsors.jpg and tagged File:NSCSponsors.jpg as npd. Not sure if that was correct. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not especially correct (NPD is effectively a special case of PUF, so once a file gets there it theoretically stays there), but it'll have the right result. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Media Player Classic screenshot.png

Please comment on the issue regarding File:Media Player Classic screenshot.png you've deleted with the reason "copyright violation" at WP:MCQ discussion. I believe the image violates nothing, as it is a GPL'd application running CC-licensed movie. Even if the image violates "Windows skin copyright" as you suggested, I think it should be considered fair use.

Please consider restoring the image. Thank you. —29th ((☎)) 01:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

GPL and CC aren't compatible licenses. But fair use would seem to be fine; I'll undelete it shortly so you can add an appropriate fair use tag and rationale. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for undeleting the image. I think I'll just reverting it to previous image and use {{Free screenshot}} to avoid licensing conflict. —29th ((☎)) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion message and request

Hi, Thanks for leaving the deletion message on my page - I am actually trying to get that images that I previously uploaded, deleted, along with some others, so I removed the permissions from each of them. Could you possibly help me get them deleted?

Thank you so much for your help

(Asbk3 (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

These are all commons images and I have nominated them for deletion as copyright violations according to this company web page [1]. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing for me to do then. Stifle (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Blatt

Hi, I am new, so please don't be angry if I am leaving this in the wrong area. You deleted a file I uploaded :

(Deletion log); 16:07 . . Stifle (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Thomas blatt.gif" (F7: Violates non-free use policy: non-free images of people who are still alive aren't allowed)

I posted a reply on the link you provided: link

In summary what I posted:

I uploaded a photo of Thomas Blatt, one of the Sobibor death camp survivors (still alive) back from 1942. Photo was deleted for "(F7: Violates non-free use policy: non-free images of people who are still alive aren't allowed)." According to a reply from Mr. Blatt's website (sobibor.info), this is the only available image taken of Mr. Blatt in Nazi occupied Poland shortly before Sobibor. It is currently considered a Public Domain photo in Poland. Doesn't this fall under the historical images provision (1) non reproducible, (2) no copyright holder {67 year old image} (3) lowered quality than original? We can put a photo of how Mr. Blatt looks now, but that would not illustrate him during the time of the Sobibor revolt: the actions he is famous for. This is the link to the deleted image: [link]. I would like to place the photo back. This is the link to the photo [link] Meishern (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Stifle, please let me know how the photo can be placed on wiki again, since it passes all 10 copyright rules according to wiki guidelines. Thank you for taking your time, and I apologize again if I am posting this in an incorrect area of your page. Meishern (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this is Wikipedia, not wiki.

I am going to undelete the page as it would appear to be public domain. If it was not, it would not be undeleted. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. I am in the process of writing/rewriting/updating the section the deals with Sobibor and I appreciate your prompt reply. Meishern (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

BuildingGreen, LLC page deletion

I wish to challenge the deletion of a page that you deleted.

The page title is BuildingGreen, LLC.
I have read the reason for deleting the page and I feel it was incorrect because the BuildingGreen, LLC page was not appreciably different from the pages for other mission-driven corporate entities, e.g., Minnesota Public Radio, American Public Media or the U.S. Green Building Council. The BuildingGreen, LLC page was a description of the past, present and future of a organization that has been instrumental in advancing green building practices and products in American architecture.
The following sources back up my claim:
Minesota Public Radio
American Public Media
U.S. Green Building Council

Please consider restoring this article.

Thank you. Brian Becker | Digital Product Manager | BuildingGreen, LLC / Taunton Press | Brattleboro, VT / Newtown, CT |—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbecker44 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide online links to specific articles about your company so that I can verify your claims of its notability. Please note that references to other articles which have not yet been deleted will not be considered sufficient. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

F.E.A.S.T.

Hi, I made some changes to entry on F.E.A.S.T. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.E.A.S.T. corresponding to your concerns. I also left a lengthy response in the "discussion" tab of the article to your concerns about whether the organization is "notable". Please let me know if you have any other concerns...and if not, could you please remove your flag?

Thanks much, Jacques Neher —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jneher99 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

Please note that this issue is nothing to do with me; I merely told you that you had left a message in a place where nobody would see it and advised you where to leave it instead. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Afd Greenfinger

Seeing as you have taken part in the conversation before I thought you should be notified of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenfinger_(3rd_nomination). The previous decision seems to have been against consensus, which was more for redirect. I personally think the article should be deleted. This is not canvasing as I am informing all people involved in the previous discussions and nobody outside of the discussions. Polargeo (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting your advise regarding the new Copyright template

Greetings, Stifle

I need your advice regarding a new Copyright template I am creating.

As you perhaps know, recently Wikipedia has changed policy and allows 3rd party images with licenses compatible with "Attribution, Share-alike, no derivative work" scheme to be uploaded and used in articles. For a long time now, Microsoft screen shots were only used whenever they qualified Fair-Use. However, with this new change, they no longer qualify for Fair-Use, as Microsoft has already authorized the use of its product screen shots under much less restrictive licensing terms. Microsoft licensing scheme allows virtually any resolution and does not mandate a no-other-alternative check.

So, as I'm currently working on a re-write for Windows Media Player article and I need screen shots, I decided to create a new template for Microsoft product screen shots to accommodate the Microsoft's licensing demands: User:FleetCommand/Template:Microsoft_screenshot.

However, I feel I need the advice of a Wikipedia expert on the subject for this template, and you are one of the few that I could think of. Please visit the new template's draft and provide feedback. Any advice is highly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Fleet Command (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Say what now? Where did you get the idea that -ND was okay? Dragons flight (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I said "No-derivative-work"-compatible not -ND. (-ND is a Creative Commons variation.) Fair-use images are all like this: You can't make derivative work from them because it is un-Fair-use and illegal. Do you know just how many Fair-use images are uploaded to Wikipedia.

2. Never mind about that now. Microsoft terms allows derivative work to some extents anyways.

Fleet Command (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Item 4 on their license isn't acceptable to us. Also, the license limits use to "in advertising, in documentation (including educational brochures), in tutorial books, in videotapes, or on Web sites", but files here must be free for all uses (unless a fair use applies). Stifle (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. However, I have two objections:

You said it must be free for all uses. Well, it exactly IS free for ALL uses. Tell me, what other kind media you know that is not a book, not a web site, not a videotape, not an advertisement material and not a document in which a Microsoft screenshot can be used in? Just name it!
It does not make any difference whether this license allows "free for all uses" or not. (Although it does.) The fact of the matter is that since Microsoft has allowed this extent of freedom, Microsoft screen shots are no longer eligible for Fair-use. We have no other choice but either (1) using the freedom that is bestowed upon us or otherwise (2) delete all Microsoft screen shots uploaded with the excuse of Fair-use.

Fleet Command (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A book that is not a tutorial book, a magazine, a HTML document not stored on the internet, a DVD, an SD card, or an informational poster are all uses which the license doesn't allow.
That's a false dichotomy. There is no necessity to delete all Microsoft screenshots.

I think that your template is still useful, in a way similar to Template:Non-free with permission. It could say something like "in addition to the fair use assertion shown on this image, Microsoft has given (blah blah blah license)". Stifle (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the issue. Now, I see what you mean: Microsoft screenshot are still considered non-free in Wikipedia (despite the new poll's results) and must adhere to Wikipedia:Non-free content, am I right? (Although, I can argue that an HTML document is still a document and use of Microsoft screenshot in it is allowed; but your point stands.)

So, you recommend to use this template as a more specialized version of {{Non-free_software_screenshot}} and keep including {{Non-free image data}} and {{Non-free image rationale}} with it? If that is so, two critical questions remain: (1) Can Microsoft screenshot licensing scheme (MSSLS), and this new template, be used to remove the necessity of using lowest possible resolution that is currently in effect? (2) If not, has whatever I had done been totally futile?

Fleet Command (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to where it says no-derivatives works are accepted on Wikipedia? I don't ever remember seeing that.

As to your question, I don't have the authority to exempt the screenshots from NFCC#3b; you'll need to raise that at WT:NFCC, or possibly WT:F. Sorry. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I understand that the template is useless anyway. Thanks for your help.

Fleet Command (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Five

You mentioned this point in FAC but I was unclear about it: I'd been told in the past that the lead did not have to be cited unless a direct quote was used, as it was expected that the material summarized in the lead would be proved and cited in the article itself. Could you please clarify this? Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the rules and nuances of featured articles; best to try asking at WT:WIAFA. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Mikie Da Poet

The Mikie Da Poet page has been blocked for many years, reading the editors comments, they stated he needs to be mentioned on a news segment as proof of his status, well he was! the instructions said to be bold, well here it is. Mikie da Poet was called the new Eminem by Fox News when he performed live on Fox News and was called a superstar by FOX anchor David Navarro years before the block was ever put on, if a good editor reads this, not only should they take off the block, but they should send an im sorry email to the person who was trying to despute the block. The first guy desputing this was perfectly correct, Mikie Da Poet is a well known well respected artist all over the world. heres the link to the live Fox News performance. thank you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb1lWbt3bk8

When a page has been deleted so many times that an administrator has found it necessary to prevent recreation, it's usual to provide a draft of the article in userspace (see WP:SUBPAGE) for the community to assess. I would like to see one in this case. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC) From what my non-administrator self can see, it was deleted three times, the most recent being two years ago. Is there something I'm missing? Because I do not see sufficient grounds for a page protection that continues into mid-2009.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC) The IP editor is not asking for the page protection to be ended, he is asking for review of the article deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC) You may wish to re-read the nomination, Drawn Some.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Im not a editor, just a music fan, I dont know why Mikie was blocked to begin with, the proof the second editor ask for was sothing solid, solid proof, like a news segmant as he worded it, I provided that news segmant that shows Mikie is a established artist at the least. I dont know what page protection is, im asking that the block be lifted and Mikie Da Poet's name be aloud to sit with the other great names from Chicago and all over the world that he has worked with without being distured or deleted. Business as usual "trailer" search it anywhere, the most anticipated hip hop documentary ever, and they asked mikie to do the soundtrack, you can watch this and hear his song playing see his name in the credits, krs1, kanye west, dr cornell west, every big name in hip hop is on this project, and they used Mikie's old song from 7 years ago as the soundtrack. what is the reason why his name is blocked to begin with, this man has three albums in stores that can be purchased now, are you saying that this man is not worthy or does not have the credits to be on this websight? I have provided you with more credit then earlier editors asked from the other person desputing this artists name, his accomplishments in music deserve to be witness by the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.132.100 (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

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?

Please add messages to the bottom of my page.

As I already indicated, a user should create a draft of the article that we can assess and see if the artist is of sufficient notability to be included. Simply saying he is doesn't make it so; see WP:PROVEIT. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

strifle, you seem like you know what your doing, im done trying to get this block off, maybe you could help out. thank you,

The Mikie Da Poet page has been blocked for many years, reading the editors comments, they stated he needs to be mentioned on a news segment as proof of his status, well he was! the instructions said to be bold, well here it is. Mikie da Poet was called the new Eminem by Fox News when he performed live on Fox News and was called a superstar by FOX anchor David Navarro years before the block was ever put on, if a good editor reads this, not only should they take off the block, but they should send an im sorry email to the person who was trying to despute the block. The first guy desputing this was perfectly correct, Mikie Da Poet is a well known well respected artist all over the world. heres the link to the live Fox News performance. thank you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb1lWbt3bk8

When a page has been deleted so many times that an administrator has found it necessary to prevent recreation, it's usual to provide a draft of the article in userspace (see WP:SUBPAGE) for the community to assess. I would like to see one in this case. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC) From what my non-administrator self can see, it was deleted three times, the most recent being two years ago. Is there something I'm missing? Because I do not see sufficient grounds for a page protection that continues into mid-2009.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC) The IP editor is not asking for the page protection to be ended, he is asking for review of the article deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC) You may wish to re-read the nomination, Drawn Some.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Im not a editor, just a music fan, I dont know why Mikie was blocked to begin with, the proof the second editor ask for was sothing solid, solid proof, like a news segmant as he worded it, I provided that news segmant that shows Mikie is a established artist at the least. I dont know what page protection is, im asking that the block be lifted and Mikie Da Poet's name be aloud to sit with the other great names from Chicago and all over the world that he has worked with without being distured or deleted. Business as usual "trailer" search it anywhere, the most anticipated hip hop documentary ever, and they asked mikie to do the soundtrack, you can watch this and hear his song playing see his name in the credits, krs1, kanye west, dr cornell west, every big name in hip hop is on this project, and they used Mikie's old song from 7 years ago as the soundtrack. what is the reason why his name is blocked to begin with, this man has three albums in stores that can be purchased now, are you saying that this man is not worthy or does not have the credits to be on this websight? I have provided you with more credit then earlier editors asked from the other person desputing this artists name, his accomplishments in music deserve to be witness by the world. and to the nice professional person who wrote above, thank you for the advice, but when i click the links, I get lost, im not good at this, but i believe the public should see that they blocked Mikie, his fans would find it insulting, just because a man retires, doesnt mean block him for know reason and act like he never was great when the credits and albums are right in the editors lap.

Please see my reply above this message. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. The Request for Comment page is here. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)