User talk:Stifle/Archive 0810a

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

Is this a violation of the topic ban?

[1]? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No. "Tourism in Israel" is not an article about a place. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Stifle. I was actually going to mention this as well but wasn;t sure if it was something you take care of or AE. I don't know if you are aware of the ongoing dispute there but it has been based on how and if to address the Gola Heights, East Jerusalem, and other disputed locations. The dispute is over locations although the article may not necessarily be. From what I can tell, Nableezy and Shuki both just violated there ban with the insertion of a POV template and its removal. Nableezy made it clear today in his edit to the talk page that East Jerusalem is the problem.[2] You were the one who wrote the enforcement so your call obviously but I think this isn't even a case of the often used "broadly construed" since it is so blatant.Cptnono (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that Mbz1 brings up a tag which of course is no violation while not saying anything about Shukis clear topic ban violation where he removed a place in Haifa, Israel from a section: [3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

SD, have you ever bothered to look at the dates and times? I guess, no. I asked my question on July 30. Stifle responded to me at 19:33, 31 July 2010, and said it was OK to edit the article, which Shuki did on 19:37, 31 July 2010 after reading Stifle's response. So, no, there is no topic ban violation on Shuki's side, and there's nothing I've done wrong, while with accusing me of a bad faith you did. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This isn't the place for it guys. Did Stifle realize that the edits both Nableezy and Shuki made were about locations. And if not, does that make is a breech of the topic ban. If it isn't against his intent of the ban then fine. Let him respond when he gets a chance and don;t bogging this down in bickering.Cptnono (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't consider any breaches to have arisen from what I can see here. Please file breach notices at WP:AE. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice

I've added a dis-favourable assessment about Nableezy to his post on WP:AN3 against a third editor. I consider his edit-warring at the Gaza War article as something of testing the patience of the community when he's already banned from Israeli-Arab localities. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OSS Logo deletion

Can I ask why you believe these "OSS Society" guys? What have they provided you by way of evidence that they own the copyright to that image, beyong having it on their own website? That logo was taken directly from CIA.gov, which clearly states that everything there is in the public domain, unless it is otherwise marked with a copyright notice. I ever took a screenshot to prove this [:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CIAscreenshot.JPG], and as you can see, CIA.gov presents this as their image, without a copyright notice to "OSS Society" or anyone else. This OSS Society probaqbly want to keep the logo off of Wikipedia because they use it on books and videos which they market "for profit". However, I believe their claim of copyright is fraudulent. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's also openly used on this website [4], this website about an OSS documentary [5], and as a cover image on this book [6]. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
There has been a very long email discussion about it on OTRS and we are satisfied that it is not in fact a CIA-created logo. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
It just doesn't make any logical sense to me (maybe just because I can't view OTRS tickets). I'll attempt to contact the CIA webmasters directly and find out if they can clear it up definitively. Anyway, thanks for listening and for your kind response. Kindzmarauli (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

VPC

— raekyT 23:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Avunculate

Thanks for a helping a hand. Regards, Cavila (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Belgooly GAA

I am annoyed that you deleted Belgooly GAA. Firstly, there are hundreds of GAA clubs with articles. So this club is of equal significance with all of those. Secondly, I only began this article yesterday. I planned to expand this article today. Surely you should wait for a number of days at minimum to see how an article will turn out. Many of the other club articles are less detailed that this one will be. I ask that you reconsider your decision here. Pmunited (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2010 (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 a Corkman myself, but I had to delete Belgooly GAA under criterion 7 (under Articles) of our criteria for speedy deletion because it appeared to be an article about a club which didn't indicate why it was important or significant. We have a policy that articles about certain topics can be deleted without notice where this applies. We're unable to accept arguments that certain clubs have articles and others don't; if anything, this tends to mean that those other articles should be deleted too, rather than one being undeleted.
Please see WP:ORG 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, or I can userfy the page for you to allow you more time to work on it. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page

Hi Stifle, I'm recreating the Hach Company page. You moved it here in on May 4th after deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Afrost333/Hach_Company. I've gone in and added much more references. Before uploading it asked me to contact you. I hope I've taken the neccessary steps to make it more notable to be vaild to post live. Afrost333 (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems mostly OK to me, although it has perhaps too many external links to hach.com. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Kirjath Sepher OTRS ticket

Hey Stifle, I saw your post at Talk:Kappa Sigma and separated your notice as a new talk page section. Could you post the details of the OTRS ticket for those of us who cannot log in to that system? Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not; OTRS tickets are confidential. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. So aside from the nature of the complaint, nothing else whatsoever can be shared? Is it possible to at least confirm whether or not the request was from the Kappa Sigma fraternity itself? That is to say, does OTRS require that complaints must be filed by the subject of an article (or their legal representative)? Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
No I can't, and no it doesn't. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bush-McCain tax cuts

Bush-McCain tax cuts is still a misnomer with no incoming links; McCain had as much or less to do with that legislation as any other Senator -- he's not mentioned by name in either article as of last night -- and the redirect is probably just detritus left over from some ancient POV war, which is exactly the kind of thing Speedy Deletion is meant for. What's next, the Obama-Lenin Health care plan? (Maybe I'll create that and see if anyone notices for 2 1/2 years....?) -- Kendrick7talk 22:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Eh, anyway, I didn't think being recent was a requirement. There's no prod for redirects? Anyway, I'll send it off to RfD. -- Kendrick7talk 02:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Bitcoin AfD: Sock farm comment

Could you please explain your comment here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin? prat (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I get extremely suspicious when lots of new users arrive at AFDs and vote one way, and I generally interpret this as resulting from actions taken in bad faith and vote the other way. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you please clarify who the new users were exactly that you considered to be part of your 'sock farm'? What research did you do before making such claims? prat (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Cb6, 166.70.24.100, American Antics, and Dizm. It appears clear to me that the users in question are single-purpose accounts. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

?

Your comment "Delete old image; delete new image also as using two screenshots is not permitted.". Could you please explain this as WP:NFCC does not in anyway say you cannot use more then one image as long as they mean guidelines. Which they do. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NFCC item 3a? Stifle (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

GVSU Victory

Greetings. Can you userfy this article for me, so I can merge (and reference) any useful content into the Grand Valley State University article? I didn't know about the deletion discussion. I have no intention of recreating the article. Thanks, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done, User:Pdcook/GVSU Victory. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

topic ban question

Is State of Palestine covered by the topic ban? nableezy - 15:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a location bordering Israel. Stifle (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It actually isn't, but that is a discussion more technical than is needed here. More to the point, the actual country articles are off-limits as well? I did not know that. nableezy - 17:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I said "place" and a country is a place. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
What you wrote was articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries. Israel is not a place "in Israel", it is Israel. To be clear, I am not trying to lawyer my way around the restrictions, I just ask that you take more care in how you word such bans. nableezy - 18:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

James Yuill

You have now twice made this edit, removing information from this article with edit summaries "removed uncited statement" and "cite please". Given that all along there has been a citation at the end of the sentence in question to a reliable source that states "And when he's not working on his own music he's applying his knowledge of beat science to other artists, like his hero Aphex Twin adopting an alias, Hunger/Thirst, to remix the likes of Tilly & the Wall, the Answering Machine and Au Revoir Simone.", can you please explain what on earth your problem is here?--Michig (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that citation was for something else. Don't mind me. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ciara_Bravo

Could you look at the Ciara Bravo DrV again? [7] It looks like the sources are now likely over the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Hi Stifle. There is still no result for my appeal [8]. Could you please follow up and see if the reduction of the topic ban is granted. Appreciate your help in advance. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it to the live page. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure? I think you mistakenly restored the topic ban to the active, not my appeal. Can you please review? Tuscumbia (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've restored the appeal. See WP:AE#Result_of_the_appeal_by_Tuscumbia. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh OK, now I see it. Thanks much. Sorry for confusion. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Stifle, I see the section was archived again, does that mean the decision was made? Could you please let me know where the issue stands? Tuscumbia (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it means the appeal was unsuccessful. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand it was, but nobody replied to your note If there is no further contribution from uninvolved users I will take it as no objection to the topic ban being reduced per my proposal. So, if nobody made any further contribution showing no objections, doesn't that mean the ban can be reduced to 6 weeks as suggested by you? Tuscumbia (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
No. Sandstein objected. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks anyway Stifle. Tuscumbia (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Advice, please?

Your advice here was to take this appeal to ArbCom. I would like to do that, but I have been unable to decide where this appeal should be filed. Can you advise? Brews ohare (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You can go to WP:RFAR and look under "Request an amendment to an existing case". The clerks will move it to the right section if they think it's wrong. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You may notice that the present appeal is already on this page. So I'd take it that nothing need be done: the appeal will be moved by the clerks? Brews ohare (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed, but I'm preoccupied with several things. But yes, the clerks will move it if they don't like it. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

New section

Will the shortening of a duration of a topic ban be applied to both parties involved in this dispute, or only the one who filed the appeal? I ask since I'm the other party and while I have viewed my topic ban (3 months) as a mixed blessing of sorts, I feel that it is somewhat too long (especially for the minor infractions that are the cause of it). Thanks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

  • It is unlikely to be relevant as the appeal is unlikely to succeed. You would need to file a separate appeal though. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Stifle. You have new messages at Phantomsteve's talk page.
Message added 12:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Big_Spring_Cafe

Hi,

I am considering asking for a deletion review in this case. The reason is that, despite votes to "keep," WP:CORP does not seem to have been applied when the discussion was closed. We know that "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." The only one offered in the discussion was a brochure published by the Alabama Tourism Board. This source does not provide coverage in depth (the text in its entirety runs "Chili burger & slaw dog"!). More importantly, the Alabama Tourist Board itself categorizes the brochure as a "public relations resource" (here). Per WP:CORP, as you know, local coverage does not established notability. What we have here is local coverage from a single sources and one claimed regional source which turns out to be a PR publication which does no more than list a dish offered by the restaurant. I am contacting you as a matter of courtesy to see if you considered these points before closing the AfD and refusing a relisting.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

  • 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? Stifle (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing it out. I see I needn't have taken the trouble to be courteous. Sadly life is far too short to scan users' talk pages for links which may or may not be relevant before posting a message.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Nableezy Topic Ban violation

Hello. Please have a look at this edit/revert by Nableezy (talk · contribs). I believe it constitutes a violation of the topic ban that you imposed on him [9] as it concerns the naming of a geographical location in Israel or its environs. Thank you for your attention to this matter.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The topic ban is on articles about "towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries". This is an article about a war. nableezy - 18:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Nableezy. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a topic ban violation.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment: This is the same issue Nableezy and Shuky were sanctioned for (edit-warring over "occupied"/"illegal" in the first paragraph). Another regular WP:GAME and testing the patience of the community (IMHO). Nableezy recently charged that I'm approaching you as "trying to canvass a selected admin"[10] (as opposed to an ongoing reviewing admin) so I would suggest considering the review of a few extra admins. Please note that I suspect foul play here as well. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Accusing others of sockpuppetry without evidence is a personal attack. I am not that IP and unless you can provide evidence to the contrary you should refrain from repeating that accusation. Any literate person can see that the topic ban Stifle imposed was on articles about various places. Not on all articles that mention various places as some of you would now like to pretend, but on the actual articles on these places. I am banned, for example, from the West Bank article. I am not however banned from articles that discuss the West Bank. Mbz1, you should know better, you asked almost the exact same question about Tourism in Israel and were given a straightforward answer: No. "Tourism in Israel" is not an article about a place. Six-Day War is "not an article about a place" which is what the topic ban covers. nableezy - 19:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I would point out that edit warring on other articles that aren't in scope of the topic ban is liable to result in someone filing a new AE to have them brought inside the said ban. No accusations, just a point of information. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
You see, Stifle, how topic ban does not work here. While Nableezy is reverting other editors in the very contagious articles, reverting the very same content that talks about the places in Israel and West bank, you see no topic ban violation there. On the other hand he should ask for a permission to edit a good, harmless article from which Wikipedia will only benefit, and while you gave him that permission, you mention that he should consider what other admins will say. It is just absolutely wrong implantation of the sanction IMO. Could AE be filed about the case for other admins to review it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
An AE can be filed to extend the topic ban or issue alternative sanctions if Nableezy's conduct since the topic ban is still creating issues. Stifle (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

topic ban exemption

I should have thought of asking you prior to making edits, but an article that I wrote is a "place" in Egypt, al-Azhar Mosque. I am currently working on getting this up to GA, and then FA, status. Would you please exempt this article from the topic ban? nableezy - 19:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but subject to a requirement that if any admin, including Jayjg, says so, the exemption is annulled. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, nableezy - 20:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle/Archive_0810a&oldid=1142533054"