User talk:Stifle/Archive 0409

• Older archives
• Archive: September-October 2006
• Archive: November-December 2006
• Archive: January-September 2007 (you'll notice my Wikipedia editing dropped off fairly significantly this year)
• Archive: October 2007
• Archive: November 2007
• Archive: December 2007 (part 1) (part 2)
• Archive: January 2008
• Archive: February 2008 (part 1) (part 2)
• Archive: March 2008
• Archive: April 2008 (1st) (2nd-8th) (9th-11th) (12th-18th) (19th-20th) (21st-22nd) (23rd-30th)
• Archive: May 2008 (1st-9th)

Replies

• Please reply to me here if possible.
• If your message is about an AFD or other discussion that you want me to (re)contribute to, I will generally not reply other than by checking the page and adding a comment.
• Unless your message or your talk page advises otherwise, I will reply here and copy my reply to your talk page.
• Please don't leave your email address as I cannot reply to messages by email.

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Already done quite a while ago. Stifle (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Greenhouse Gas Management Institute

   * The exact title of the deleted page

Greenhouse Gas Management Institute

   * The reason why you believe the deletion was not correct

You indicated article does not indicate its importance. Code A7 was listed.

You went on to protect article. 15:03 (Protection log) . . Stifle (Talk | contribs) protected Greenhouse Gas Management Institute (repeated recreation [create=sysop]) +- 15:03 (Deletion log)‎ [Stifle‎ (2×)]

   * Any references or sources to back up your claim, particularly if the deletion reason was A7

I admit that the GHG Management Institute is a relatively new organization. But it is a non-profit, so there is no commercial self-interest in having an article. It is the only global training and educational organization in the world addressing the need for professionals that can ethically and skillfully account for greenhouse gas emissions, which is the basis for the Kyoto Protocol as well as all other policies in the world. The Institute's founding partners include the World Resources Instituet (which has an article in Wikipedia) and the Carbon Disclosure Project (also has an article). The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (has an article) has selected the Institute to train its experts, as has the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol Secretariats, and the World Bank (all three have articles).

Although new, this organization is already recognized as world's the leading training facility for addressing climate change.

Buy Wikipedia's own standards represented by existing articles, I see no reason why this article should have been deleted.

Sincerely, mwgillenwater —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwgillenwater (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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

You have not provided any reason why this organization is important or significant (see WP:ORG for some sample criteria), nor any references to reliable sources. If it is truly notable, it will have been written about in some newspapers or magazines, which you should be able to indicate online.

If you can provide such references I will consider undeleting the article. You can alternatively make a listing on deletion review. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

On Ahmad-Shahi Pavilion

Dear Stifle, I should be most grateful if you kindly had a look into the problem with regard to the above-indicated photograph. For further details, please consult the talk page of Polly: [2]. With kind regards, --BF 19:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerne that image is unusable because it is released under a license on the list here. Please see this page for a list of valid licenses. Please note that by order of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, which you will read here, having permission to use an image just on Wikipedia is not considered sufficient. Please feel free to suggest to Mr. Wales, at the village pump (policy), or elsewhere if you think that this is wrong, but all the actions that Polly has taken have been in accordance with Wikipedia policy and while you may feel that image use policy is changing by the day, the two pages I have linked for you with licensing information have been unchanged since March 20th. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And to get back to the root problem, please note that there are multiple different Creative Commons licenses. Some include a requirement that derivative works are released under the same license, which Wikipedia allows, but others prohibit commercial use or the making of derivative works, and those images aren't usable on Wikipedia at this time. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. But could you please have a look yourself and see whether the CC attached by Hamed Saber to this particular photograph is one that is acceptable to Wikipedia? You see, there are several types of CC and I may have used the wrong one. The source is here: [3]. But aside from all these, as I have told to Polly, Hamed Saber has in the past given Wikipedia a blanket permission for using all his photographs; the only condition in his statement was that his name be mentioned as the photographer of the photograph used. Kind regards, --BF 19:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look and the photograph has the "=" sign which stands for "no derivatives". As such, that particular version of the license isn't valid for use on Wikipedia. You did in fact use the wrong one, in this case.

As I have mentioned previously, by edict of Jimbo Wales, a permission to use photographs on Wikipedia (only) isn't considered sufficient, contradictory as it may seem. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please have a look here: [4]? The last but one paragraph contains Hamed Saber's statement with regard to use of his photographs on Wikipedia. --BF 20:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That would cover it, I think. Let me see what I can do. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! Many thanks! --BF 20:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've placed a statement on the image page at Image:Kushk-e Ahmad Shahi, Niavaran Palace Complex.jpg. If you upload any more images from this user's flickr site, you should include that statement as well so that anyone checking out the image won't need to bother you to confirm that the image is usable on Wikipedia. I've let Polly know as well. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Stifle, thank you very much. I have seen that the removal tag has already been removed, which is very pleasing. Kind regards, --BF 20:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Subsection break for ease of editing

Dear Stifle, I just received the following from Polly. I do not know what she is talking about.

Possibly unfree Image:Kushk-e Ahmad Shahi, Niavaran Palace Complex.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kushk-e Ahmad Shahi, Niavaran Palace Complex.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC) --Polly (Parrot) 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Is she trying to take revenge on me for not having got her way? Kind regards, --BF 20:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

She has also put a message here: [5] (see the photo gallery). What is going on? --BF 20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And here: [6]. This strengthens me in my belief that some psychopaths get their way into Wikipedia just for making people's life a hell. This Polly has kept me from doing any useful work on Wikipedia for this Saturday. --BF 20:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Polly is taking the action designated by Wikipedia for when a user believes an image is free but not obviously so. You can add your opinion on the matter at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 May 10#Image:Kushk-e_Ahmad_Shahi.2C_Niavaran_Palace_Complex.jpg. It is recommended that comments left there are concise and brief. Stifle (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is clear to me what Polly is doing, but why should she be doing all these? Who is benefited by this utterly senseless enterprise? Polly, who calls herself a Parrot, says that the image is "disputed", and it turns out that Polly herself is the one who is doing the disputing! This is called sadism. Now, I can go and put my opinion somewhere, but this is all waste of time. As you have yourself verified, Hamded Saber has given the permission to use his photographs, and now Polly has become the public prosecutor number one. Where has this Parrot got the idea that the photograph is disputed? You have witnessed that since you have known me I have been constantly struggling with exactly the same type of people: photo editors! Why are we playing these senseless games? Why cannot someone tell to Polly and her ilk the most obvious that this is not the way an encyclopaedia can get written. Believe me, I feel I am just mad, leaving and then coming back to get involved with exactly the same type of people as before. What can I add to the discussion that I have not said already? Why are these photo-editors not held responsible for their sadistic actions? I expect that that discussion will have by now attracted a bunch of psychopaths demanding the immediate deletion of the photograph at issue --- I have discovered that there are some people who constantly roam Wikipedia pages, just like vultures, looking for victims and always ready to strike. Kind regards, --BF 22:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC).

As to why Polly has made her decisions, I can't tell. If only I were psychic... Stifle (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a very healthy common sense, so you should know without being psychic. There are people who derive pleasure from causing other people inconvenience. I often think of a class-mate that I had in the first year of primary school, sharing the same school bench between us (I still remember his name). I vividly remember that every time that he saw me solving a math problem, he automatically began counting numbers in the reverse order (say from 100), thus causing me lose my concentration; on doing so, he invariably waited for me to protest, and on hearing my protest burst in laughter. To this date I wonder where this five- or six-year-old boy had learnt this nastiness. Time moves, but people remain following very rigid patterns of behaviour; then that child, today Polly. Suddenly I am afraid of tomorrow. Have you read that poem by John Milton on my talk page? Kind regards, --BF 23:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have. I think you have summed up your predicament. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --BF 11:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Re

Ok, I will archive it. Actually I prefer the talk page to grow at least 120 KB in size so that each archive can remain in similar size. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Gitmo detainee articles

Hey there, I noticed your opinion on the WP articles on each individual detainee - and while I tend to agree, I see it more as an issue of each article needing a good run-through with an NPOV and COATRACK brush - than deletion. Details about what the detainee is accused of, whether they participated in any riots or hunger strikes, their judicial proceedings - that all belongs - but I agree with you that there's quite a stretch of COATRACKness to them as well, talking about "the Bush Administration" and such.

If possible, I'd like to find three or four users from differing backgrounds/opinions, to sit down and hammer out an exact format that meets those standards, and have it applied to each Detainee article. I wonder if I'd be able to persuade you to help with such a venture? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess so, as long as it's over a reasonable length of time rather than all going to be wrapped up in a week. However my tendency is strongly in favour of deleting all those pages unless the detainees have been written about in a context unconnected with their detention. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

that strikes me as looking at it upside down. their continued detention and the various events that occur during it are sufficient prime importance. A sufficiently notable one event is notable. Being detained there is about as notable as it gets in the real world. You may possibly want multiple sources talking about their detention, and think that some of the articles do not have it, and that would be reasonable. But this is like asking that a medal of honour winner be notable for something besides the events he got the award for. DGG (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See, I completely disagree with you. As I understand it, your opinion is that being detained in a particular prison camp confers notability, and I can't find myself agreeing with that, any more than I would say that anyone who's ever been in Mountjoy Prison, or anyone who's ever been in the army is notable. The events that happen at GTMO, the war (or conflict, or difference of opinions, or whatever word we're using) in which those detained there have been involved, and so on, are notable, but the individual people are no more notable than any front-line fighter or common criminal. And while I agree that attention should be called to any misbehaviour of US troops that may be taking place there, and to the circumstances which led people to be detained there in the first place, I very firmly believe that Wikipedia is not the place to be doing that.

However, I must congratulate you for spelling "honour" correctly. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Line of Succession to the Hawaiian throne (Keoua Nui)

What do you mean it does not exist? Currently all Hawaiian pretenders are not descendants of any of Hawaii's eight monarchs. Every one of them died childless or their descendants died out. But the Kawananakoas and Keoua Nuis, descend from the last Big Island alii or king, Keawe-i-Kekahi-ali'i-o-kamoku II. Both house descends from the Big Island chiefdom's throne and even distantly to the other three major islands. This is a line of succession of an abolished monarchy. All articles on the other line of succession of other abolished monarchies like the monarchies of Austria-Hungary, Legitimist France, Bonapartist France, Orleanist France, Georgia, Iran, Korea, China, Two Siciles, and etc should be deleted since their throne doesn't exist, so by definition a line of succession to it is non-notable. KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, they should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket

Could you please verify that ticket #2008041110026206 verifies that Image:Machinedrum.jpg is released under the GFDL, and if so let me know on my talk page? A user has claimed this and I just want to be sure it's all in order. Stifle (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that the subject/owner has given "express permission" for the above image to be used on Wikipedia. License was not specified but the ticket was closed as successful - Alison ^❤ 23:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User rights

Umm, I just removed those again. Let's not do that, nor set a precedent. They're not required as you're already sysop but if that changes, it can then be addressed. I'm particularly wary of granting IPBlock-exempt right now - Alison ^❤ 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Spoilsport :P Stifle (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorrreeee :D As you can see, it stood out like the proverbial sore thumb!! :p - Alison ^❤ 23:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Stanisław Orzechowski - undeletion.

Article, which i just started yesterday, was deleated before i could even expand it. Maybe i should keep it in sandbox, at least there it would survive 12h. So please, undelete it and if it`s possible paste in User:Mikołajski/Sandbox2. Thanks in advance. Mikołajski (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please uprotect the article RomexSoft? I have read about images and copyright but didn't manage to make the necessary changes.