User talk:Stifle/Archive 0706c

There has already been trouble from people about me making some pages of irrelevent voice actors. --Crampy20 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I looked at them all. Most appear to be notable, but I speedied two as short articles with no context and prodded six. Thanks for the list. Stifle (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarine Harp

I am sorry to be rash, but maybe if you left the article there I would have time to place some more content on it. I was typing up content twice and before I could post it, the article wasn't there. I didn't realise it was being deleted, though I suppose it was obvious. --Crampy20 18:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend waiting until you have typed the full article before posting it. If you wish to see how a section looks, use the Show preview button. This will make sure that articles aren't needlessly speedily deleted.

If you need access to this or any other deleted text, please let me know, and provided it isn't defamatory or a copyright violation, I will make it available to you. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kiddy Grade

I understand you are doing your administrative job. But what is your problem with me writing detailed descriptions of Kiddy Grade characters? I do not want this to personal. --Crampy20 22:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not doing an administrative job by listing articles for deletion. This is me acting as a regular editor. I feel that many Kiddy Grade characters do not exhibit notability, and that the articles do not have citations from reliable sources to make them verifiable. They may also be fancruft. You can share your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiddy Grade characters. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already supplied an opinion. Policy dictates that notability is not a reason for deletion, instead refer to AFD for a decision. I have also pointed out that in fact Kiddy Grade is more popular than the biggest anime around today (Ah my goddess) via the typical AFD GHits measure. I feel that acting as a regular editor does not include trying to get articles deleted. That is just disgustingly rude. Deleting peoples work is spiteful.

I have also noted this 'fancruft' rubbish, but as you are clearly in-adept at anime, i find your opinion null. --Crampy20 22:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, but can you actually concentrate on the matter at hand not breaking policy. You are in fact the first person I have been rude to, and even then... --Crampy20 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe I have broken any policy. I did not delete any articles, merely referred them to the community for the consideration of deletion. Stifle (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Opps sorry, my wording was off, i ment concentrating on kiddy grade not me breaking policy. I take THAT back with a lot of gusto --Crampy20 23:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Let's keep the discussion at the AFD page, where it belongs. Stifle (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, I wish to distance my earlier comment from the people who are opposing this deletion... I was just curious why you did only some of them. :-) --Jhortman 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Image:Buchanan.jpg

You removed the Speedy tag from Image:Buchanan.jpg saying that "I1 doesn't apply because the image quoted as duplicate is lower standard", but as far as I can see the images are exactly the same (dimensions, file size)... What do you mean by "lower standard"? --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be me typing the wrong edit summary. The actual edit summary I would have liked to use was that the image quoted as duplicate is on Commons, so CSD:I1 doesn't apply. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm surprised

...by this decision. What purpose does warning a user who is violating 3RR serve for a veteran user who is already warning other users about 3RR while violating it himself? Clearly, the user was aware of the rule as he was warning others. 6 reverts in just over 5 hours by a veteran member merits a warning? I accept your decision but do not agree with it. FightCancer 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable point, but also be aware that the 3RR is a means of stopping sterile revert wars, not punishment. The reverts in question happened over 36 hours ago. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 3RR

Please have a look at the edits of that anon and the discussion on the talk page, that was vandalism. The IP got blocked (by me) and the article semi-protected because of that. --Conti|✉ 14:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It may have been vandalism, but does not appear to have been simple vandalism (i.e. adding nonsense, blanking). Stifle (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate user name

Hillary Clinton (talk · contribs) - CobaltBlueTony 17:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The correct place to list this is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 17:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Eclair and Lumiere (Kiddy Grade) article.

Is this fancruft, I recently typed it up, I know it isn't perfect. But i want to get away from fancruft, and can't continue without knowing if this is considered fancruft. --Crampy20 18:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this is much better. I am not, however, sure that the characters are notable enough to merit their own articles. This is a separate issue from fancruft. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:N is explicitly not policy, wether or not it falls in check with that article is a null point. If you are concerned about Notability i suggest looking at Category:Pokemon and admiring the girth of articles for the pokemon past-its-time, anime series. --Crampy20 19:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is not policy does not mean it is not right or not used. Pokémon has many times the fanbase of Kiddy Grade and is nowhere near as dead as you may believe. Stifle (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo in MacleanStewart page

Hey.

Thanks for the heads up on the photograph. It is a headshot taken by my photographer friend Joe Fox. I actually own the headshot as I am Maclean Stewart and I paid for the shot to be taken. Hope i've used the right Copyright info this time. If you need confirmation on ownership of the Image, I can get Joe to email you himself.

Thanks for your help though.

--P-lab 19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but be aware that anyone can now use that image and make derivative works from it based on the license you submitted it under. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licence help

What licence should I use? --P-lab 19:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for help choosing the right license. I am unable to help you in this. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In response to your deletion of images on Celebration fo the Arts festival

I appreciate your comments to me. Unfortunately, the only license I could find for the images that most resembled the actual license was noncommercial. If it's not allowed, then why include that license in the list?

I remember a while ago, "Promotional image from <site>" or something resembling it was an available license. Why not now? Do you have a suggestion as to what license I could use? The images are definately available and are often used in press outlets and are available in the COTA press kit. Thanks BrianZ^(talk) 19:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added the template {{Promotional}} to the images and left "None Selected" as the choice in the drop-down. I hope this is sufficient. Let me know if it's not. I'd rather work with you to fix the licensing so it's correct, then reuploading them after you delete them without working with me. Thanks again. BrianZ^(talk) 20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be fine. By the way, I or any other admin can undelete any image deleted after June 25th, so if that is more convenient than reuploading, then there is no problem. If an image tag is listed on WP:ICT as a valid choice, you can always type it into the description box and use None Selected from the dropdown.

Please make sure not to use any more fair use images than are necessary, further details of this are available at Wikipedia:Fair use.

{{promotional}} and its entry on the license dropdown was removed because it was being badly abused by people who just slap "fair use" on every image they find on Google Images. For the reasoning behind having the noncommercial and permission options in the license selector, see MediaWiki talk:Licenses.

Finally, don't forget to add a source URL to all the images you uploaded, including the three on Celebration of the Arts Festival, so that they will not be deleted. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grey area?

I was recently warned by you for 3RR, though that is not exactly what I am approaching you about, and I am not requesting a repealing or anything of the sort.

I am curious as to the status of edits like these: [1], [2]. More specifically, what is the status of reversions of random and unconnected IPs that make unconstructive edits against consensus, but that are not part of any edit-war. The reason I ask is because in my [short] experience on the 'pedia, such edits have been often referred to as vandalism, even though they do not fall under its technical definition. In the case of these two reversions:

• One was an rv from a nonconsensus picture which had been extensively discussed on talk by others. I was not involved in the discussion, but was maintaining its consensus version of the page, and others had similarly reverted other random IPs who made this change numerous times previous to mine.
• One was an rv of a flagrantly POV and nonconsensus word substitution. Reversions of numerous such IP substitutions had been made by others throughout the day.

Again, neither of these were part of any edit-war (as an aside, they are of a different POV than the other edits included in my 3RR, and I personally believe the other user specifically included them for the sake of blocking me, and not because he contested them). I also discussed this issue with another admin on IRC, and they were at a bit of a loss as to where these types of reversions fit in. How should one react to these types of edits, if they are indeed counted towards 3RR, and then what is to prevent 3RR being used as a weapon based on edits completely unrelated to any edit-wars. Moreover, isn't this type of editing for which sprotect was designed? Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 00:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message.

Reverts of edits like that absolutely are counted towards the 3RR. The simplest solution is that if a genuine consensus exists for a certain version of the page, then more than one user will be able to revert it - the POV-pusher will violate 3RR but the consensus supporters will not.

The only reverts that are exempt from the 3RR are:

• Reverting simple vandalism, e.g. addition of nonsense, page-blanking, inserting inappropriate graphics. If it could be argued that the edit is not vandalism, then it is not simple vandalism. Good-faith edits and content disputes are never simple vandalism.
• Reverts that are made by the same user without any substantial intervening edits by anyone else (just counted as one revert)
• Self-reverts
• Reverting banned or blocked users
• Reverting libellous material
• Reverting your own userspace
• Reverting for maintenance, i.e. in the sandbox etc.

This is an absolutely exclusive list - nothing that is not on the list is exempt.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you :) Stifle (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. While I'm now clear on the technical definition, in a case where there are only 2-3 constructive editors under a barrage of unconstructive IPs, albeit non-edit-warring ones (4 IPs at 3 edits a piece), 3 reversions per editor can quickly run out, and that is without any content disputes. It seems that this is would create an application of 3RR which diverges from its original purpose, and could be taken advantage of to block editors not engaged in edit-warring (which of course I believe happened to me, but I'm not addressing that =D). Is this a real, if unfortunate side-effect, or have I just misunderstood 3RR's application? Thanks for your assistance, Tewfik^Talk 01:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, after a second IP comes on the scene and starts to revert-war in the same way, I would be recommending semi-protection of the page (use WP:RFPP). Admins will take this into account in assessing 3RR violations. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you, but... My issue is involvement of non-edit-warring IPs. Perhaps four separate IPs make four separate non-constructive edits, but none constitute vandalism. While they may eventually be reverted, that would be hours away, and if they are lost deep in the article's text, maybe longer. Should one not revert those to avoid 3RR? And if there are only perhaps two, should one then not make more than two content-based reversions later on in relation to a different user? Again, sorry to bother you, but the issue is really disturbing me, as it seems that there may be an application of 3RR (blocking after 4 rvs including those unrelated to edit-warring) which diverge's from the original purpose (preventing edit-warring). Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 22:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if four reverts are made by one user in 24 hours, unless they are exempted as per above, then the user is liable to be blocked. If the reverts really need to be made, there are several thousand other Wikipedians who can make them. Stifle (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your continuing help. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 22:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

Thank you for your invitation. This survey appears to be too repetitive and long for me, but I hope that you will get some participants to your research. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:03715.jpg copyright

Hello Stifle. Could you please answer, is fair use will be appropriative type of license for this image? Thank you. rootik 08:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know. Who created the image? Why did they create it? Do you have permission to use it or did you just find it on Google Images? Why did you lie by saying that the image was the work of the US Government? Stifle (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll rather delete it. I don't know who is author of this image and airnav.com silent about copyrights of their images. But who else can do airshot of closed military zone? I think only goverment permitted to do that. But in my opinion Earth surface images should not be copyrighted in any way. Thank you. rootik 07:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have the image deleted, just put {{db-author}} on it, and an admin will delete it for you.

A copyright does not have to be expressed or registered in order to exist. It is automatically existent as soon as the work is created/published. Photographs contain some creative work, so they are copyrighted, and needless to say, our own opinions aren't relevant. Stifle (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet?

Oh no Stifle. Just what do you think your doing? I've worked too hard for you to do this. And why? Dont assume, look at my contributions and what have I done? What ties me to "Smugface" (as you and every second person belives)? And what sets us apart? CONSTRUCTIVE EDITS! Thats bloody what!

Remove or find an answer.

User:Dfrg.msc Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 10:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not happy Jan!

• Could we not discuss this in the stead of dirtying up each others pages? User:Dfrg.msc Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 10:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  Your contribution patterns are very similar - very little article contributions, causing general annoyance, and yelling at anyone who tries to call you on it. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardly! As to my article contributions, I do what I can, when I can. Do you know how hard it is to edit articles without a Q or S (I copy and Paste them)? And what is this general annoyance, if I am causing general annoyance - then why sould I not be told of my behavior so I can make an attempt to stop it? Dont make acusations you cant back up. I yell at no-one, my main-man. I dont mind being acused, it's quite funny actually, I just dislike that godawful template. It makes me look sleazy.

User:Dfrg.msc Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 10:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need some assistance

Hello, I noticed your removal of the Marcel Khalife picture, and I understand your reason for it. But I must admit i'm not completely clear on the rules of posting pictures on Wikipedia. Do you mind telling me what could be done to save the picture or at least get a new one. --Karimi 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This image was deleted because Wikipedia policy requires that images here are either available under a free licence, in the public domain, or under fair use. As the image was not available under any of these, it was deleted. If you can contact the copyright holder of the image, you may be able to send a permission request to use the image. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Karimi 22:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BuySell Real Estate needs to be deleted.

Hi Stifle,

I am not a moderator but the creator of BuySell Real Estate is still creating an ad for an unimportant company with a spam company website (just look at the end keyword stuffing) who just wants to have links from wikipedia. I suggest for an immediate deletion.24.136.27.240 21:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide the exact name of the article or link to it, I may be able to address this matter further. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] irregular picture

the picture Image:koreanirregular.jpg is licensed. The site gave permission for all of its use on images as long as the picture was copyrighted to them. This is the second time now. I don't understand why everybody is so consistent with deleting and tagging images on the Imjin War article. Good friend100 23:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you be so good as to link to the page on the source website where it says this? Thanks. Stifle (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[3]. Unfortunately, its in Korean, but if you scroll down about halfway the picture is there. Good friend100 23:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me a direct translation of the text, please? Stifle (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The texts under the picture are really excerpts from the annals of Joseon and poets.

The first box: "Gwak wore his blood red tunic and waited in the Naktong River to attack the Japanese sailing up and down it. Also, Korean POWs escaped and told how much the Japanese were afraid of the Gwak and the irregulars. -Annals of Joseon King Seonjo 25th year October"

"The night after the battle at Jinju, Gwak scared the Japanese by taking 200 men to light fires giving the impression of the large host."

The second box: The second box is a song lyric a Park Gun-ho wrote. It basically just glorifies Gwak. Theres nothing much to it.

I'm not the greatest interpretor because my Korean is not a professional level. Good friend100 23:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, but that tells us nothing about whether we are free to use the image or not. See WP:IUP for more. Stifle (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image template

Indeed it's a template: {{UploaderHints}}, remember to "subst:" it. And as I just looked - it's exactly a year old. feydey 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I use the {{Redundant image}} CSD template on duplicate images (like those Angelica Houston ones); You can just delete duplicates as an admin... Best, feydey 00:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As an admin You knew that of course :P feydey 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I remembered that I'm an admin halfway through :P Stifle (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathon Douglass

Hi, I see that the page Jonathon Douglass has been deleted. However, as it was only 2-3 hours since the deletion request tag went up, it hasn't given anyone much chance to oppose the deletion. The article was a stub and could have done with some tidying up but it seemed to be deleted too quickly without consensus or giving anyone chance to respond. Can it be restored? I will endeavour to tidy it up once it has, thanks. Marky1981 13:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles can be speedily deleted without a significant process if they meet one of the narrow Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. The article you mentioned meets Article criterion number 7, on unremarkable people/groups.

If you can provide a reason why Mr. Douglass is remarkable and explain how he meets the inclusion guidelines for biographies, I will be happy to restore the page for you.

You also have the option to list the page on Wikipedia:Deletion review, but this normally has a one-week delay. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Jonathon Douglass is a singer and songwriter at the Hillsong Church in Sydney. As one of the largest churches in the country and one of the most well-known around the world, they have released over 50 albums in over 15 years, many of them selling as gold and platinum (their 2004 live album reached number 1 in the Australian secular charts, a notable feat for a church!). Because of the worldwide popularity and influence of the church, articles have been written about their albums, musicians etc. to give an overall picture of Hillsongs. Many of their songs (and authors/musicians) are very well known in the international Christian community. As one of the core singers and songwriters, I believe Douglass deserves his own article. I hope you will consider restoring this article. Thanks Marky1981 23:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll restore it but I am also listing it on Articles for deletion so that a consensus can be obtained. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Marky1981 09:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my RfA

Thanks for your opinions in my RfA. Ultimately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your honest opinion was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here!
Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hi Stifle,

We actually had a huge discussion on this last year at Talk:Harghita County/Vote. To me it seems that Criztu is pretty isolated on the view that historical names should not be mentioned in the lead. Also, he hasn't edited since the 19th. Do you suggest we have another vote? —Khoikhoi 21:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep discussion about this on the actual mediation page, if you don't mind. Also, m:voting is evil. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Smart

Thanks for protecting the Derek Smart page. I have now requested arbitration at which time I think the page can be unprotected once the issues are resolved. Thanks. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 20:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Smart lock

Hello, just wanted to see if I could run a few concerns I have on this page lock by you, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to proceed. The unfortunate timing of the lock has meant that the live version is neither the mostly-concensus working version which has been the live version for the majority of the last several months OR the slightly more controversial alternate version, but a new, single-author rewrite of most of the controversial sections. I'm no stranger to policy and page locks, but I've never seen a page locked on a version that flaunts policy quite as badly as this. Again, this is a completely unsourced, original research, editorial version which shifts the entire focus of half of a public figure's page to unsupported assertions about a non-public, non-notable individual.

Additionally, I'm a bit worried that the page lock was requested immediately after this large-scale rewrite, and that the justification was the sudden appearance of an anon editor who was reverting sections that had not previously been contended. It seems to have been a sudden revert war between one party to the long-running conflict and an anon without a clear objective, with no involvement by any of the other usual editors during the time leading up to the lock.

Thoughts or suggestions?

Fox1 (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version, as it says on the page itself. Once you have agreed on a version, you can notify me or WP:RFPP to have the page unprotected. Is there something I'm missing? Stifle (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am concerned about this. While everyone understands that protection is not an endorsement, the fact is that the same editor who requested the protection made large edits prior to the protection; his version is the one currently visible and he has no incentive to reach consensus. He seems to think that arbitration will be his long-term solution but it is well known that the ArbCom does not like content-dispute cases. From my observation of the discussion this is one editor who has failed to negotiate in good faith now using the protection mechanism to get his way. Although I know the admin applying the protection cannot pass judgement on which version to protect, as a practical matter I feel that if the version protected was not this editor's preferred version it would motivate him to build consensus. --Ideogram 17:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, what are you asking me to do about it? Stifle (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you revert to the last version immediately prior to the edit by the requestor, here, and protect the page. --Ideogram 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be a violation of the protection policy. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The original request for lock was based on an untruth by the requester.

Will someone please add full protection to the Derek Smart page please? For many months now it has been the target of edit waring and it doesn't seem to be getting any better; especially with the anons. The latest edit I did is the most current based on recent revisions by most of us editing that page. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 20:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

While the latest edit is the "most current" by definition, it in no way represents any agreement or consensus by "most of us editing that page" and clearly adds a big chunk of rambling NPOV, unsupported and un-verified text that was not present previously [It had been just been added the previous day http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derek_Smart&oldid=65943350]

It in no way reflects "recent revisions by most of us editing that page" and to claim so is dishonest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.229.180 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 29 July 2006.

Well, what are you asking me to do about it? Stifle (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

We are asking you to, either unprotect the page, or else revert to Fox1's accepted version (vide discussion page), which is by far the most agreable version. You should realise that the current edit was done by Supreme_cmdr alias Derek Smart himself so it cant be considered a neutral opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.43.232.74 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC).

Editing the page while protected would be a violation of the protection policy, and I find it hard to see how unprotecting it would not provoke another edit war. However, assuming good faith, I am going to unprotect it for now.

If you do not have proof that Supreme_Cmdr is in fact Derek Smart himself, I urge you not to make such assertions as they may be considered libellous. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please full protect the page. No sooner was the lock removed, that the edit waring has started up again. Over the same link that started it in the first place. A link that has already been declared to not meet the guidelines of an Unreliable Source. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A helpful link that applies directly to this discussion: m:The Wrong Version. While the article is humorous, it illustrates the problem with trying to use Protect in sequence with reversion. Page protects are not designed to "only show the correct information", they are designed to protect the project from disruption while the core issues behind disruption are worked out. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OMFG!!! That article was heeelarious! :) Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Aside from that, I am not reprotecting this page. You can request it elsewhere at WP:RFPP. On the other hand, I have removed all unsourced critical information from the page. Any readditions should have a citation. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, user Fox1 went and put back the link which was removed and created a section which is not only irrelevant but has no place in an autobiography of this person. Can't you folks make him stop? Seriously. How long is this going to continue for before someone bans him?

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a little harsh, considering you're the only one currently on record opposing the link. Also, that's not really how banning works, but... whatever.

Fox1 (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no power to ban people nor do I have any power to block people at my discretion. Please see our blocking and banning policies. If you can quote a specific breach of one or more of these policies, I can take action. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

However, if you can't, then I respectfully ask that you take your dispute off my talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig

Hi, I don't think we know each other at all at WP, but I see you contributed to the recent deletion review on CTMU and noted the problem with sockpuppetry. You might be interested in this MfD which seems to be a consequence of my contributions to the deletion review. ---CH 23:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks from Yanksox

Hey, Stifle/Archive 0706c, thanks for supporting my RfA, with a tally of 104/4/7... I am now an admin!!! I was and still am very flattered by all the kind comments that I recieved, I will also take into account the comments about how I could improve. I guarantee I will try my best to further assist Wikipedia with the mop. Feel free to drop in and say hi or if you need anything. Again, thank you so much! Yanksox 07:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Kaplnka-Mosovce.jpg

Hi, I haven't been around Wikipedia for that long, so I'm not sure what you mean by linking the image to commons. If it has the same name, doesn't it appear in stead of this immage after its deletion (which is, BTW identical) on all affected pages? Thanks, Peter

Thanks for your message. In future, please type ~~~~ at the end of your message to sign it. In future, use [[:Image:Image name.jpg]] (note the extra colon) if you wish to link to images without including them on the page.

An image which is already (or also) on the Wikipedia Commons is subject to speedy deletion only if:

1. • The image's license and source status is beyond reasonable doubt, and the license is undoubtedly accepted at Commons.
     • All image revisions that meet the first condition have been transferred to Commons as revisions of the Commons copy and properly marked as such.
   • All information on the image description page is present on the Commons image description page. That includes the complete upload history with links to the uploader's local user pages.
   • The image is not protected, and the image description page does not contain a request not to move it to Commons.
   • The image has been marked with Template:NowCommons or Template:NowCommonsThis for at least one week.
   • If the image is available on Commons under a different name than locally, it must not be used on any local page whatsoever.

Not all these steps have been completed for this image. Please add {{NowCommonsThis}} and try again once all the steps are complete. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thx 193.87.112.157 10:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economy of the Republic of Ireland FARC

Hi there—Economy of the Republic of Ireland is currently in the FARC list. Nothing much has been done to improve the article since its nomination for FA Review. I wonder whether you're able to assist. It would be a pity if te article were de-listed. Tony 14:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I will if I can. Stifle (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

Thank you for removing the speedy from my first article, Corner Pocket. I noticed that the image was also removed - is this because of copyrights? Is there some way I can re-upload this, or does the comic's actual author have to do it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.174.39 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC).

Hi, thanks for your message. In future, please sign your posts on talk pages by adding ~~~~ at the end, and don't forget to sign in.

Image:CpIssue20something.PNG was deleted because it was used only by permission of the author. Images on Wikipedia should be under a free license - see the Wikipedia:Image use policy for more on this. Failing that, it may be possible to claim that the image is usable under fair use; if you can either get an image under a free license or supply a rationale for adding a valid image copyright tag of fair use, you can upload the image again, or I or any other admin can undelete it. Stifle (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand completely. Obviously, the message was sent by me, but I figured I'd let you know anyway. :)

I don't think the image is under a free license because of the copyright on the webpage, but if I find out it is, I'll let you know. Thanks again for your help on wikifying my brain! SugarFLY 23:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C900 image...

My apologies about the image. I thought that getting permission from him was enough. I have found another image that I believe falls under "fair use".

Thanks, GJC