User talk:Stifle/Archive 0506a

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive. New messages on the main talk page, please.


Contents

[edit] Stop posting your nonsense on my talk page

This is what you think appropriate behavior for an admin is? When you're shown wrong, badger everybody you can find who's been acting contrary to yout ideas? You can't find a counterexample, and past practice is uniformly contrary to your position. The best that can be said is that there's no consensus for your policy interpretation, and you have no right to insist that other users follow your unilateral directives. Monicasdude 18:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You have not shown me wrong, just shown that you and some others have a different opinion to me. I should not have followed this up with you originally, because we will never agree on anything. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide

Regarding the speedy keep, I was aware that it fell outside the guidelines in that some people had voted to delete it although they seem to have been active in editing the article and on the talk page. Given the sensitivity and notability of the topic, I thought that it was one of those rare occasions when it was appropriate to Ignore All Rules. Capitalistroadster 18:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gravity vomit and prod re-adding

Okay, obviously I stopped reading at the "improve the article" point.

"You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason."

When notifying people that I've {{prod}}ed an article, I've described it as a non-intense, non-confrontational process. I didn't realize how small that gnat could be to the unimpressed.

Have you seen anywhere where the prod-to-afd conversion rate is being discussed? So far it looks like using prod merely delays the application of afd. I'm not really convinced it helps, although it is certainly a 'nicer' way to hint that an article is in trouble. Shenme 19:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you're saying. Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion is probably the page you're looking for to discuss the matter (check down at the third-from-last section or so). Stifle (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Okay, but PRODding rules must be modded to state that if a PROD is removed because the user doesn't agree, he/she must give a reason for it. --soUmyaSch 08:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
That needs to be suggested at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. There is an ongoing discussion there. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surplus store

I'm of mixed feelings about the ==See also== section of Surplus store, but I'm curious why you left the two other store links while removing Galaxy. Granted, Galaxy has linkspammed a slew of articles, but looking at this one article, it seems to me that they should either all stay or all go. I initially took them out while cleaning up spam, mistaking them for external links, and them put them back when I realised they were links to articles. Not a big deal either way, but I was curious. -- Mwanner | Talk 11:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a toss-up, but I think that the link was added as linkspam (even though it's an internal link), and in any case the article's probably going to be deleted shortly. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, Stifle/Archive 0506a, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight.
If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever...
Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me...

The JPS talk to me 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Indulge. :)
Indulge. :)

Dear Stifle/Archive 0506a,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanx

Thanks for touching base. I think I do a good job of staying middle of the road. If not, please feel free to call me on it. I'm here to enjoy and help. Paramountpr 01:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Carama

You voted to delete this article in its last AfD nomination. A user using different IPs is trying to expand the article using origional research and no citations. I reverting his edits back to my own which ask for citations for each of his claims. I am thinking about putting it up for deletion again because it's clearly a violation of WP:NOR and the OR is the only thing really establishing notability. What do you think? --Strothra 01:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

actually I went ahead and renominated it anyway. feel free to take a look --Strothra 06:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've commented over at the deletion page. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zipmic getting prod

Hey Stifle ! I write to you because i find it weird that you make prod on zipmic. I dont really see a good reason for it, because there is nothing in the world called zipmic except for the comic made by Code as he calls himself online. I mean, what harm does it do being there ? It's not like someone will get mad is it ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Decon (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

Hi there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that not every subject is suitable for inclusion. Some topics are not suitable for including in an encyclopedia, and there are more details about what to do next at Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!. Stifle (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me, 3RR

Thank you for leaving a comment on my talk page concerning your "nomination" of me for a temporary block under the 3RR. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns and will not at all hold a grudge if I am blocked under the 3RR. You have certainly behaved graciously in your handling of this matter. Obviously, I do not believe I violated the rule but I understand that you legitimately believe I have. --Yamla 23:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My first 3RR notice

Just to clarify ...

I should have used this instead of this?

Thanks. Sue Anne 02:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly :) Stifle (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting vandalism

(apropos the AfD on progressiveindependent.com) Strong KEEP (with editing to reduce the POVness). 'Important' and 'big' are not synonyms. Also, what makes anyone think the membership claims of other sites bear any relation to reality? (No, I'm not a member of that community)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.145.158 (talk • contribs) . Note: this vote is the anon editor 70.17.145.158's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 16:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Discounted this recommendation as unregistered user. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Now where do you suppose the lengthy series of exchanges went that followed RWR's comment about it being my first contribution? The lengthy series that began with my identifying myself as having been a registered user since 2005. Apparently someone deleted them before you (officially) saw my self-identification. Now who would have done that?

It's crap like that that makes me wonder why I remain committed to democracy. Katzenjammer 17:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not been able to find the page you refer to. If you could please provide an exact link to the AFD page in question, I can handle your query better. Stifle (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Information.

You recently closed the requested deletion of the entry John Francis Laboon Sr. The remark left on the debate page "Transfer to WP:CP".

First, there was never any debate. Rather, there seems to be no record of such a debate, as far as I can tell.

Also, the aforementioned target does not list the supposedly transferred entry.

Can you explain what this is about? Folajimi 19:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)talk

I am sorry, I forgot to properly transfer the issue to WP:CP. This has now been completed.
Standard Wikipedia procedure dictates that copyright violation issues take precedence over the AFD procedure. The debate therefore should not take place at WP:AFD, at least not until the copyright problem has been settled. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Be sure to follow through on such actions in the future; it sounds to me like the matter was well on its way to your "forget" pile... Folajimitalk

[edit] nn-bio

I just noticed your comment at the end of the RFA — if this is so (shame on me), what is the most widespread definition then? Thanks. Saravask 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

{{nn-bio}} strictly means a biography that does not assert notability. Different from just being non-notable, in that being non-notable is not a speedy criterion, whereas failure to assert any notability is. Good luck with the RFA. Stifle (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks — the {{nn-bio}} thing just highlights how little experience I have had in VFD and related topics; I hope to correct this soon. Take care. Saravask 23:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for catching my mistake on the image I speedy tagged earlier; I removed it from the one page I had added it too, but forgot to take it off the page someone else had put it on. Always nice to know that people are keeping an eye out for things like that, and that my mistakes tend to be caught before they can do any harm. Thanks again. --RobthTalk 05:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hello, Stifle/Archive 0506a, and thank you for vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 62/2/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. As I acclimate myself to my new tools, feel free to let me know how you believe I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! RadioKirk talk to me 05:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afd/International_Relations_Institute_of_Cameroon

I thought better safe than sorry. Recently i spent evenings with the policies, and it was outside them (phone #). It turned out to be a living article, not an advert. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 13:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Striking out your nomination is all that's needed to close a deletion debate, an administrator will then clear it up for you. Thanks for your help! Stifle (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Channel Cats Image

Hi Stifle, thanks for the welcome. I'm using my user page as a test ground right now. I'm writing an article on a hockey team, but i wanted to make sure it looks right before making it live. Once i publish the article, i'll remove the image from my page. Thanks. Chris 22:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Spyder_Monkey

[edit] Question

Could you please check the image Image:Bulgarian postmark.jpg and tell me whether you believe the claimed GFDL. Did the user create the stamp - I'm not sure which licence goes on stamps, but I don't think that's the one. User:Pulvis angelus and his alter ego Vlatkoto seem to slap copyright tags on randomly. Telex 23:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced it with {{stamp}}, which seems reasonable. Stifle (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion criteria

About my speedy-delete proposal for Image:Books-aj svg aj ashton 01.png: I thought that "Redundancy" was listed as one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Image:Books-aj.svg aj ashton 01.svg is the exact same image in SVG format. So doesn't that qualify? Phoenix-forgotten 23:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is only valid if both images are on Wikipedia, not on Commons. See WP:CSD. Stifle (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] prolyphic artist page

hello, please restore the prolyphic page so i can continue to work on it.

thanks Tjthecat3 21:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed for Deletion: List of farms in...

I have proposed that some of your articles be deleted, mainly because they do not appear to be of significant use in an encyclopaedia. Before adding more articles, check that they do not violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and perhaps that they are not lists of interest to very few people, i.e. listcruft. Thanks for your help in making Wikipedia better! Stifle (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your advising me that you proposed the various lists of Norwegian Farms for deletion. As you probably noted, I'm simply translating the equivalent pages from Norwegain Wikipedia. It is easy to see your perspective that this information is likely to be of limited use. I'm doing so as the result of a request for access to this gazetteer-type of information from the Norway-List; local historians and genealogists use this type of information routinely. However I'd use the tests your links proposed as a measure to evaluate whether this is appropriate:
  1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons. - Nope these are consistent data which have a rather tight geographic associaton.
  2. Travel guides. - Certainly these are not travel information and they have existed for extended periods (some over 1000 years), so they're hardly transient.
  3. Memorials. - Not dedicated to a specific person, so it doesn't fit this category.
  4. News reports. - Nope
  5. Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. - well, these are actually geographical gazetteer data & not lists of people
  6. Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business. – Not itn the classical sense of a directory
  7. Instruction manuals – Nope
I did consider whether this material was appropriate to transfer to the English Wiki, and appreciate a chance to join in the debate. Since I’m not into the policing role & I’ve never paid attention to actions like this in the past, I’d appreciate your providing me the link so I can participate in the debate there. Thanks - Williamborg 00:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
You can discuss this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of farms in Oppland. Stifle (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sidhoji Rao Shitole AfD

I understand that this should not be under AfD. I am planning to take this to ArbCom when I figure out the guidelines and such. I just wanted to request you to change your vote with respect to the following evidence: Wikipedia manual of style states that biography should be under most common name Ghits: Sidhoji Rao Shitole - 20 vs. Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath - 2580. --Hamsacharya dan 18:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't care too much about what the name is, but as you've said it should not be on AFD (and for other reasons) I have closed the AFD discussion. Please use Wikipedia:Requested moves to solve your naming dispute. (I don't recommend bothering with arbitration, as firstly they require you to have exhausted all other methods for resolving the dispute, and secondly they don't generally handle content issues anyway.) Stifle (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of farms in Oppland

Thanks, I stuck with my delete vote but added a couple of words to make it clear that I was aware of the multiple nominations. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natalee Holloway Deletion Page

It's nice to see someone who agreed with me on the Natalee Holloway page. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Here here :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Change1211 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 09 May 2006.

[edit] Thanks for voting in my RfA!

Thank you for your vote in my RfA! <grin> No, it wouldn't violate WP:BEANS, and I did in fact promise to not engage in any deletions or blocks (as a wikignome, those aren't things I want to be responsible for anyway!) But the RfA did not gain consensus so it's not an issue. Glad I took the ride though! - Amgine 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conjugate quantities

You wrote "the current entry which is patently wrong". Could you give a hint what is wrong with it? Thank you. LambiamTalk 17:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I clarified the issue on the AFD page. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It still gives no hint as to what is wrong with it. Are conjugate variables not a pair of observable quantities? Or if they are, do they not have associated operators? Or do the associated operators commute? Or else, what? --LambiamTalk 19:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The comment by BigDT explains what I mean fully. Stifle (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Since BigDT made the comment (19:58, 7 May 2006) I edited the article (03:47, May 8, 2006), prior to your contribution (14:51, 9 May 2006). --LambiamTalk 05:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Lafayette

Oh, that makes sense. Good catch. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Thanks for the tip — I'll know in future. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSD:I7

Thanks; I know very little about copyright/fair use and how images are handled on WP, I just stumbled across 3 images of an underaged actress drinking and smoking and doubted them as publicity photos, so found the safest procedure I could to alert others to them. Thanks for your note. - dharmabum 19:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] .org

Hi Stifle! I was evesdropping on this, where you say Websites in the .org TLD are generally not commercial.

Whilst I and many others with non-commercial websites in this TLD wish this was so, I'm afraid it isn't. .org is not policed; ICANN has several pages lamenting that this is not so. [1] [2] [3] [4] are but four .org TLDs being used for commercial gain (two by squatters, two by commercial companies). I can come up with a dozen more in both categories in seconds if you want.

.org is a nice idea but the lack of controls on it means one can't expect a .org to be non-commercial. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 22:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I stand by the notion that "Websites in the .org TLD are generally not commercial" (generally being the keyword). The reasoning behind the A8 speedy deletion criterion is that if a website is engaged in directly making money off of the copied content, then a release under the GFDL is considered sufficiently unlikely that there is no point in putting the article through the WP:CP process. And indeed this would appear to be the case here. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a .org is more likely than a .com to give permission to use content. Stifle (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] use of nn in nominations

Good idea. Though for nn stuff it should probably be speedied anyway if you ask me. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In many cases, yes. But it's better, when we can, to give an article a chance to improve if there is a chance that it would actually benefit the encyclopedia. You may like the userbox {{user delete}}. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for voting on my RfA

Thanks so much for voting!
Thanks so much for voting on my request for adminship. I have decided to withdraw my nomination as it seems that consensus will not be reached. If you voted in support, thanks for putting your trust in me to be a good admin. If you voted in opposition, thank you as well for your constructive criticism as it will only help me be a better Wikipedian and perhaps help if/when I apply for adminship again sometime in the future.

Mahogany

[edit] Slightly ridiculous procedure

Hi. First someone (not me) removes the two images from the Christine Kaufmann page (which had been there for quite some time, without anyone objecting), then someone else (you) comes along and tells me I may add them back again and that if I don't they will be deleted.

Well, it's not me whom you should be addressing here. It's User:Mel Etitis, who removed them and with whom I've had quite an unpleasant discussion in between the removal and the orphan messages.

See User_talk:KF#Image_Tagging_Image:C_Kaufmann_der-letzte-fussgaenger-heinz-erhardt_II.jpg and User talk:Mel Etitis#Thank you? for details. <KF> (another user who is busy in real life) 15:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, looks like I didn't read enough of the discussion. I regret that Mel is right - it is fair use to use the image of the magazine cover to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question, or the image of the book cover to illustrate an article discussing the book in question, but other uses of these images are hard to justify under fair use. It might have been a bit much for Mel to remove the images from the articles, the {{fairusedisputed}} tag might have been better, but at the end of the day, I don't think this use can be justified. I hope you find some other images to illustrate the article. Stifle (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help preventing an edit war

Whenever you do manage to read this, I think you may be able to help as an admin who has had a lot of experience with this kind of thing. Also, you occasionally help out at the Lost pages when there is dispute, and that's where I got your name. Anyway, you can help by either intervening or pointing me in the right direction (even if I'm wrong in the matter). On the Dharma Initiative page, I had been making edits to improve the organization of certain sections, including one where I grouped the perspectives of different characters into sub-subsections, on the matter of "what is the purpose of the station?". After a 'no consensus' on a splitting vote of the 'station' part of the article, one particular user behaved in a bold manner and went ahead with the split anyway (this user's name can be found reverting my edits on the section DHARMA Initiative stations) After he did the split, he removed all of the editing I had done in that sub-section. I have attempted a discussion with him on the matter of my organization in the talk pages, but he seems to refuse to speak to me directly about it, he makes posts at other parts of the talk page and continues to 'ignore' my discussion and reasoning.

I behaved 'boldly' as well, and decided to fight his "dictatorship" of the page by trying to revert his revert. He responds by claiming that I am starting an edit war and says that I don't own the page, even though he is the one who originally reverted to a version of the page that he preferred. I believe he is abusing his knowledge of wikipedian rules and his status to force me into keeping quiet, so that he can have the page the way he likes it. Since no one is speaking in the discussion (not including users that said one line like 'i do/dont like it', etc...), I don't believe I can gain any kind of consensus to understand what is truly best. I also don't believe that starting a poll or anything like that will help, because this user has many friends online, and can easily request them to vote the way he wants, or at least recruit people he knows will vote his way. How should this issue be fairly resolved? If people that aren't coaxed by him agree that my edits should not be used, then I will gladly abide by that decision. Thank you for your time. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the issues involved, I would have to recommend filing an article request for comment. It seems that you have already tried to discuss the matter and failed. Just watch out for the three-revert rule. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image L'ecume

I borrowed this image from the book by Yury Kholopov and Valeria Tsenova: Edison Denisov, published in Moscow 1992, where it has been printed without the indication of the name of a photographer or copiright symbol. Denisov was my former teacher and close friend, and therefore I know that this photo was given to the authors by Denisov himself for the illustration of the staging of his opera L'ecume des Jours. Together with this three of my own photos were published in the same book (and nobody asked my permission for this). That time the copyright law did not exist in the Soviet Russia. I believe that the low-resolution image of this photo, let to say, promotional material, we can use in Wikipedia. However if someone have different opinion and convincing arguments, please do detete this image. (Meladina 23:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

I think the best thing here is to list the image on Possibly Unfree Images. You can make your case there. Stifle (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elebramony

Hello, I am the creator of the Elebramony article that was recently deleted. The Elebramony is a fictional animal in Douglas Adam's book "Dirk Gently". I omitted this fact from the article to stay as true to the text as possible. If the inclusion of that line would let the article stay on wikipedia I would put it in, but I think all the Douglas Adams lovers out there would appreciate it if the article was undeleted and left in its previous form.

Thanks for your time, ewhite2

Please place proof and citations for this article on Talk:Elebramony, along with {{editprotected}}. An administrator will then check that the content is verifiable, and restore the article if so. Stifle (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In his book, an elebramony first appear on page 57: "After Thersa turned around her eyes dashed around the room from wall to wall as if she were in an endless labrynth, when all of a sudden a giant elebramony appeared in the window."

Thanks again,

Ewhite2 00:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me; I've posted it to Talk:Elebramony, but you need to make a listing on WP:DRV or add {{editprotected}} to that talk page before anything will happen. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Afd-privacy}}

I meant that it should be that when substed, so you have to do {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}} otherwise it substs when you edit and it puts the template name in. Sorry for not being explicit--going by the timestamp I'm going to blame it on lack of sleep. Kotepho 01:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's fixed now. I'm probably not the best person to edit WP:HRTs anyway. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hobeywood

Thanks for the heads-up, it is indeed supposedly about a place. I was hasty, it looked an obvious vanity about this Hobey family to me. I'll just take it to AfD. Hornplease 06:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magazine covers

Wow, so it's not "critical commentary" even if I mention the specific cover in the article? I guess you've got a lot of work ahead of you, then, because by mentioning the cover I was even being more dilligent than most authors of the articles in which these [5] appear. Rules are rules, but if the image I put up is deleted within minutes of uploading, I want all of those others gone as well. I'm guessing you should get started now... - Davis21Wylie 17:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The tag you added to the magazine cover was:
This image is of a magazine cover, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the magazine or the individual contributors who worked on the cover depicted. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers
  • to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question,
  • with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above,
on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.
Your use of the image was not to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question, therefore it cannot be justified under our fair use policy.
Feel free to identify and tag other fair use images that should not be in place as well. I'm sure you understand that it is impractical for one user to deal with every such image. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, the image has not been deleted. Stifle (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Also incidentally, I took a random look at some images from Category:Fair use magazine covers.
  1. Image:007ThunderballLife.jpg - used on the article Thunderball, not in Sean Connery
  2. Image:0105 large.jpg - was used on Pete Rozelle, now removed
  3. Image:1101261227 400.jpg - used to illustrate the publication of the magazine article on Alfred P. Sloan
  4. Image:1212 large.jpg - was used on Jim Brown, now removed
  5. Image:001 PLAY139 cover.jpg - orphaned, tagged for deletion in a week
  6. Image:ARRAY magazine.jpg - used to illustrate ARRAY Magazine
  7. Image:AirPirates01-1-01.jpg - used on Dan O'Neill to illustrate a particular dispute directly involving that magazine
  8. Image:Bcreport.jpg - used on BC Report, not Saddam Hussein
  9. Image:Grenadiermagazineissue2.PNG - used on Grenadier Magazine
  10. Image:Hcc sub.gif - used on Hemmings Classic Car, not on the article about the model of car displayed
I hope that this clarifies the issue somewhat for you. Stifle (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transwiki templates

Hiya! I am interested in helping with the transwiki system and noticed your {{transwiki}} and {{transwiki2}} templates. I've not yet started doing any transwiki work and would like to know if you'd like some help testing, specifically from a newbie user standpoint? I've got brand new accounts on meta and wiktionary for the purpose of transwikification and would be happy to help. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done transwikification in a while. It's quite time-consuming to transwiki stuff properly, because you have to copy and paste the page, copy its history to the talk page on the target wiki, format the entry correctly (for Wiktionary anyway), and propose the old entry for deletion. As a result, it's not something I've been doing for a while. If you want to go ahead and transwiki stuff, knock yourself out :) Stifle (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image size

I shall see what I can do. I only possess the program paint on my laptop, so I'm not afforded the luxury of resolution and size modifications as on a more advanced program such as Macromedia Fireworks. Its certainly more economical, however, and I'd rather merge all the minor characters into a respective group image than festoon wikipedia server space with multiple, seperate uploads. -ZeroTalk 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for your help. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Utah House Seal

You left me a message regarding whether there is a copyright on an image I uploaded. The image is the Utah House Seal. I am not aware as to whether it is under copyright but I assume that it meets the Fair Use Guidelines. I attempted to find a copyright statement on the seal but could not locate one. I am under the impression that official government seals are not under copyright but are a part of the public domain. Let me know what you think. Edward Lalone 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Only the work of the US federal government is automatically public domain (and can be tagged {{PD-USGov}}). State governments and the like do not have such a provision.
From WP:ICT, the correct tag to place on this image is {{symbol}}. You can find most useful tags there. Thanks for your reply. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image speedy deletion

While true that they're not exactly vandalism, the user (who is actually a sock) is now indefinitely blocked for forgery and also uploading and submitting in articles massive copyvios; see AN/I. --Rory096 04:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool. {{db-banned}} works in that case. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Nifty tag (I actually hadn't seen that one yet), but he's not actually banned, just blocked. The sockpuppeteer is still unblocked/banned (for some reason). BTW, see my comment at WT:CSD on the new image criteria. --Rory096 09:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if he's a sock of a banned user, he is banned. Bans apply to people, not accounts. I've also replied on WT:CSD. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
No, the sockpuppeteer isn't banned, he's just a blocked sock. I've replied again. --Rory096 09:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Brent Corrigan

Thanks for the note! I felt full protection was necessary due to User:Melbedewy's comment that he could continue to make Hotmail accounts and WP accounts to continue to add the copyvio. He was using non-static IPs because he didn't HAVE to reg accounts with no page protection in place. BTW, I'm the one who brought the AfD. :) Feel free to write back with any additional comments, and thanks again! RadioKirk talk to me 19:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: in line with the responses at the AfD, I've closed it as a SPEEDY KEEP. RadioKirk talk to me 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote on my RFA

Thank you for voting on my RFA, however I've decided to withdraw my nomination. I'll perhaps nominate myself in the future once I have more experience, and not to immaturely release RFAs. Until then, I'll continue working on Wikipedia. —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 21:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Court of Appeal

Re [6] - I'm interested to know where do you want to have the page redirect to? The Court of Appeal is in fact a lower court to the Court of Final Appeal. The former is not part of the latter. — Instantnood 21:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meta Wikimedia

All the Gastrich stuff we just went through ... well, it's about to start over. You see, he discovered he was only banned from Wikipedia, not Wikimedia. Check out His User Page. Be sure to look in the history, especially with regard to one possible sock puppet there. Look into his talk page too just for fun. Harvestdancer 01:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I did make a mention of this on his RfAr. Harvestdancer 01:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up (although I'm not sure why you contacted me, because I'm not an admin on meta). I don't know if it'll be necessary to block him there, but I'm sure the meta admins have it under control. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)