User talk:Stifle/Archive 0506c

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not post here. Post new messages at User talk:Stifle.


Contents

[edit] SuperDeing

Hello. I am confused, did you block SuperDeng, as stated here?[1] He is editing now again on Josef Stalin.[2].Ultramarine 22:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears I told him he was blocked without actually blocking him. My bad. He is now blocked. Stifle (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use message to user:Who

Hi - I noticed your message to user:Who about a fair use image. He hasn't logged in since Jan 20, so may be unlikely to respond anytime soon. I suspect he wouldn't mind if you edited the page in question yourself. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:DGX/listcruft

Thank you for participating in User:DGX/listcruft. The descision has been posted. Thanks again! DGX 13:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Marsden

There are serious vandal problems here again ([3])- I believe the same user or group of users is attacking the page. It might need reprotecting. Thanks, Badgerpatrol 17:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reprotected. If you find that someone's disruptively edit-warring you can report it at WP:ANI, and if they make excessive reverts you can also post at WP:AN3. Stifle (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. Badgerpatrol 02:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an eye on this one, Stifle. As far as taking off the semi- and having to reapply it, if you hadn't tried, we wouldn't know, would we? This will hold for another few days until some admin unblocks Ceraurus, and then he'll revert it three-times per day until he's blocked again. Best wishes, Bucketsofg✐ 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:MetaStar still reverting Jean Grey when discussions have not reached a consensus

Hi there,

I noticed you posted on MetaStar's talkpage regarding the three-revert rule. He has continued [4] to revert the Jean Grey page since then. Joeyconnick 19:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

He's staying within the boundaries of three reverts per 24-hour period, so there's nothing I can "enforce". Try a straw poll or a request or comment. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1-2-3

Hi, can we sort this block out among us or should we use a more formal procedure? -- Omniplex 22:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything to sort out. You violated 3RR, I blocked you, the block expires, and we move on. I haven't been able to find anything exempting Help pages from the 3RR.
Your message wasn't very understandable to me, however. You don't say what you allege I did wrong, you don't specify the policy that you allege I broke, and you don't make clear what you want me to do about it. If you could tell me these things, I might be able to help you better. Stifle (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a question of 1-2-3:

-- Omniplex 23:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR says that only simple vandalism is exempt from the 3RR. That's vandalism that is completely indisputable. The content you reverted was not simple vandalism, or even vandalism at all.
Here are your four reverts:
  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff
Saying that a revert was simple vandalism does not make it so, I'm afraid. But since you're obviously concerned that I've acted improperly, I'll request a review of this on the administrators' noticeboard. You can feel free to make your case there. Stifle (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the rvv (your #2) is dubious, the "don't edit this copy" blurb at the top of copied help pages doesn't say that it's vandalism if somebody does it anyway, it could be a new user with difficulties to understand the obscure TransWiki-master-page kludge. But the user in question knows the proper procedure (= edit master page and copy that).
JFTR, your #1 is my #16, IMO no reversion at all. Your #2 is my #22, your #3 is my #26, and your #4 is my #30. -- Omniplex 00:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sukh's RFA - Thanks!

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace

You might be interested in the Article for deletion on the article Religion of Peace. Raphael1 20:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Nalbandian TMC.jpg

Hi, you left me a message a couple of days ago asking me to include a fair use rationale message to the image description page. I added the reason why it is being used in a wikipedia article. I didn't delete the possible copyright violation message on the page because I'm not really sure if what I added is enough. I wouldn't mind if you edited the page for me if something's missing. Additional instructions for the future would also be useful. Thanks. Nat91 (talk) 20:45 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Since Getty Images is directly involved in making money from the images, fair use is highly questionable. You can leave a comment at WP:CP (search for the image title) as to why you consider this to be fair use. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for correctly moving the AfD for EnterConnect

I must have had the AdF template page open from May 19 in another browser window and used the this link link there, rather than refreshing. The AfD certainly should be opened on May 20, not 19. I'll be more attentive in future. Thanks for correcting my error. Cheers, Colonel Tom 22:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile :)

—G.He has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

—G.He 23:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on Moby Dick

I regret to advise you that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moby Dick was not certified by two or more users within 48 hours of creation; as such it has been deleted. Stifle (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So much for dispute resolution... :/ Thank you for letting me know. --Cat out 07:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. The main reasoning behind the requirement for two people to validate a request for comment is to reduce vexatious RFCs (not that I'm saying this one was) and to encourage people to seek a third opinion or negotiate first. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh I know its for technical reasons and the RfC wasn't completely unproductive. --Cat out 10:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to advise you that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moby Dick was not validated by two users within 48 hours of its creation, and as a result has been deleted. If you would like to retain details of the RFC in your userspace, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll restore it and move it to your userspace. Stifle (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, too. As I have read it and this has all been discussed on an/i, I see no need for a copy in my userspace. --Moby 09:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Fleet Battle Group Omega

Who do you ask to put a link to memory Alpha on the main page or something so its easier to locate for computer illiterates. Wiki ian 07:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's at http://memory-alpha.org, and it won't be linked from the main page as it is not a Wikimedia project. But if you insist on asking, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is probably the best place. The site is also linked from its Wikipedia page, Memory Alpha (initial capitals). Stifle (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JP cartoon victims

You might be interested in the table I've just created, which lists Wikipedias JP-cartoon victims. Raphael1 16:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NoticeGoogle10

The indication of non-utility comes from a handful of responses to a query about same; confirmation will come from the WP:TFD process. I personally still believe it is utile, or I would do as you suggest (i.e. {{db-author}}); as it is, I will abide by the consensus outcome. Thanks for the advice, nonetheless. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tag not working

I have added a puppeteer tag like this but its not pointing to the category page of puppets correctly. Anwar 00:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've fixed it now. The category of suspected sockpuppets didn't actually exist previously.
Incidentally, when you're linking to other Wikipedia pages you can use a shorter format for the link. [[User:Prin|this]], for example, comes out as this and links to Prin's userpage. Stifle (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Its not fixed yet. Clicking on the list of puppets in the puppeteer tag still points to this page instead of this page. Anwar 01:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I've linked the two category pages to each other, seems like the path of least resistance. Stifle (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
LMAO! Tanx. Anwar 07:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NFD thanks

Thanks. I'm still trying to get all these tags and things figured out. I'm sure I'll get better at iti with time. Mitch 02:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian actor titles

Hi Stifle. I saw you crop up on my watchlist. You might want to pop down to WT:INCINE, because there is a feeling that your recent moves to Ajith Kumar and Joseph Vijay may not have been the best - in that it would be better to use common names, akin to Ronaldinho, Sukarno, and that the old names may have been more appropriate. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 07:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] 3rr

Do your definition of good faith efforts towards dispute resolution include calling people racists? Irishpunktom is obviously trolling, and is surely not making any good faith efforts as it is also obvious from the diffs provided in the 3rr report, and the following personal attacks against me. -- Karl Meier 10:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make a disruption report, please use WP:AN/I or WP:AIV for vandalism. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

Could you protect this article while the dispute resolution process is under way? Netscott 11:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while the article isn't protected other editors are making edits that are at the heart of this dispute. Netscott 11:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, done, but in future please use WP:RFPP to get a quicker action. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh you mean like this? Ok... I'll be sure to do that next time... hehehe.. :-) Thanks for your assistance. Netscott 16:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Go raibh maith agat! An bhfiul 'ám agat, mar, ba mhaith liom (agus Netscott) daoine "neodracht" cúntóir a féach ar an airteagal seo. (you can probably see why i don't edit ga.wikipedia !) --Irishpunktom\talk 16:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Ní bheinn in ann é sin a dhéanamh daoibh, toisc go bhfuilim i measc scrúdaithe choláiste anois, agus go n-imeoidh mé go dtí'n Ollóin an Déardaoin seo chugainn. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Go raibh maith agat arís! Agus, go n-éirí leat le do scrúdaithe choláiste --Irishpunktom\talk 17:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Camp Avoda again

Hi, because of your past interest in this, you may want to see the new vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Avoda (2nd nomination), best wishes, IZAK 14:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prin suspected socks

I noticed you created Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Prin. There seems to be a current CheckUser request with a few more possibles. I noticed that the User:Ghajini account restored a rather juvenile vandalism edit originally by User:81.158.122.184 [5], and the User:Prince 06 account seemed to pick up a few hours after the now-banned User:Jath16 account stopped. I'm highly unqualified in the area of East Asian film stars, but the edit patterns are not dissimilar; perhaps some sort of fan club at least! - David Oberst 09:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I don't think I'm in a position to do much about it, though. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coding

Hi, is there any exhaustive ready reckoner list of all mark-up codes used in Wikipedia edits like < math >, < small >, etc? If so, where is it? Anwar 06:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)</math>

The page Help:Editing has many of them. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something is fishy with this page

Help:Displaying_a_formula. Is it supposed to be like this - blank! Anwar 09:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chapelcross.jpeg

I've added a fair use rationale to the image. Please could you see if it's OK now.

Danielnez1 19:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair use in Energy use and conservation in the United Kingdom, see point 8 of WP:FU. Stifle (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CorbinSimpson's Request for Adminship

Thanks for voting in my request for administrator rights, even though it failed (13/30/4). Sadly, work has forced me to respond to you all using a substituted message rather than a personalized response. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that administrators, to me, should be chosen and approved by the community, and I will continue working to become a better editor and Wikipedian. No matter what the alignment of your vote was, I will take your comments seriously and use them to improve myself. If you wish to discuss your comments personally with me, I would be more than glad to talk about things since the RfA is now over; just leave your concern on my talk page and we will sort things out. Thanks again for voting, and happy editing! - Corbin Be excellent

[edit] Re: Template:Utverylong - boxed or not?

Template:Utverylong is pretty widely used on User_talk pages, though. And I know (from personal experience) that boxed notices on user_talk pages offend some users, so there does not seem to be any good reason to unnecessarily offend people. I look forward to your response; feel free to revert the template back to the non-boxed version if you agree. (Copied from it's talk page) JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's just fork it. Make Template:Utverylong2 (or some other such name), and put one in a box and the other not. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OrphanBot

You should be ashamed of yourself, giving a 'recommendation' for OrphanBot. OrphanBot has removed many images which followed the rules at the time of their upload, and undid much FREE, VOLUNTEER work that is now rendered a complete waste of time. Thanks for making Wikipedia a worse place.

→ R Young {yakłtalk} 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In future, please leave new messages at the bottom of my talk page.
Please give an example of, say, five of these images and the pages they were removed from. I will review them and let you know if my endorsement still stands. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about the images for Maria Capovilla (1 and 2), Christina Cock, Mitoyo Kawate, and Yone Minagawa. Again, there are several objections here.

1. It is not fair to place a 'computer program' against volunteer work of humans. In these cases, the computer will invariably win. Are you paying us? What 'fair use'?

2. OrphanBot uses 'guilty until proven innocent' technology, giving only 7 days to fix a problem. Worse, the default value is delete. Suppose someone went on vacation for 30 days? Or suppose someone did some great work, but died? Their work shouldn't automatically be deleted under any circumstance. Work should only be deleted when it is deemed inappropriate.

3. I thought this was a .org site, not .com. Wikipedia's increased focus on licensing suggests an illegitimate attempt to sell images.

4. Even the courts have ruled that Google thumbnails are not copyvio. Yet Christina Cock (114-year-old woman) a 7K photo, is to be deleted. Who loses? Anyone who reads the article and no longer can see the photo, that's who.

5. Wikipedia is messing with ex post facto violations. If the image were not uploaded according to the rules at the time, why did they last for several months or years before being deleted? Changing the policy now doesn't change the policy then.

6. In the case of Maria Capovilla 1, the copyright holder (China Daily) was specified, yet the image was deleted anyway.

7. While you're at it, check out the Moses Hardy photo. Maybe you need to take that one down.

THE BOTTOM LINE: WIKIPEDIA'S 'IMAGE UPLOAD' SYSTEM IS BURDENSOME AND INADEQUATE AND A WASTE OF TIME. TO THEN EXPECT PEOPLE TO RE-UPLOAD IMAGES THAT NEWSPAPERS COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT IS RIDICULOUS. LAST I CHECKED, I DON'T SEE ANYONE ADDING A NEW MARIA CAPOVILLA IMAGE. I'M WAITING ON SOMEONE 'RESPONSIBLE' TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE ORPHANBOT HAS DONE. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE WIKIPEDIA A LEGAL CONUNDRUM, THEN FIX THE PROBLEMS YOURSELF INSTEAD OF TELLING OTHERS TO DO IT WHILE GIVING LITTLE STARS TO THOSE WHO TEAR DOWN THE WORK OF OTHERS.

GOOD DAY.


→ R Young {yakłtalk} 18:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy, Wikipedia is not the United States and does not need to practice an innocent until proven guilty concept, and that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and non-free images conflict with that aim.
Please also remember to read WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blnguyen's RfA

Hello Stifle. Thank you for your full support and gracious comment at my request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. You can see me in action and observe what then happened as a result. Naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out. I look forward to working with you in the future, and enjoy the Irish summer. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) - CobaltBlueTony 20:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Rummel is always Right (again)

This article has been recreated in a different format. You discussed the deletion of a previous version; please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies; it may be that this version is less POV. Septentrionalis 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been speedied, so the point is moot. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlawful Enemy Combat

Could you please give me information/reason on why this article was deleted; or, even better, provide the actual article so that I may see why it was deleted? Thanks - Mark (posting as 69.253.236.36)

I'm sorry, I don't know what article you're referring to. Please provide the exact name and place [[ ]] around it. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)