User talk:Stifle/Archive 0509b

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


File:Sad kermit.jpg

I'm disputing the speedy tag on this picture. This picture does add understanding to the topic - the juxtaposition of the Kermit puppet with the Johnny Cash style pose illustrates the dichotomy of the two elements that makes the parody song work. I'm removing the speedy tag - this one deserves a proper IFD debate. Exxolon (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Ireland relations

I saw this AfD, which caught my interest, then got side-tracked into mini-bios of Irish participants in the Colombian wars of independence: James Towers English, James Rooke, William Aylmer and Francisco Burdett O'Connor, then further side-tracked to Mariano Montilla and Pedro Antonio Olañeta. John Devereux (con artist) and Francisco Tomás Morales are obvious gaping holes, and I suppose others will appear. But to go back to the AfD, now in day 6, any comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Only that I'm not sure why you're contacting me about it (-: Stifle (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You might want to comment on the AfD - you have commented on other country X/Y relations AfD's. This was a last-minute expansion before the deadline, and I didn't want it to be deleted without some discussion on the revised version. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Metallum

Why exactly has this page been removed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.95.148 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
This article was deleted after a community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Metallum (2nd nomination). The deletion decision has been appealed, and you can view the appeal at Wikipedia:DRV#Encyclopaedia_Metallum. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:76.15.135.44

I've replied on my talkpage. I've unblocked the IP, so we can move on. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations

Hi, Stifle. Could I please ask you to have a closer look at this discussion? Clearly, there was no consensus to delete Bosnia-Romania relations. However, I also nominated Malta-Romania and Phillipines-Romania, and not the slightest attempt was made at defending those (except for one, by Petri Krohn). No one voted "keep all" and, as far as can be divined, the "keep" votes referred just to Bosnia-Romania. It does seem, then, that there was a consensus to delete the other two, no? - Biruitorul Talk 20:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Two users suggested keeping one and deleting the other two, but I don't think there was a strong enough consensus to delete them. I'll annotate the result though. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Biruitorul. might I also add that Biruitorul is one of the few Romanian speakers active in AfDs...so I'm sure he did searches in Romanian. although that doesn't mean his vote counts more! LibStar (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS notes

Hi. I've just tried to communicate with you via a note attached to a ticket at OTRS. I've never tried this before, but I'm hoping it will pop up in your inbox. :) If it doesn't, please let me know, and I'll communicate with you about it another way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't noticed anything in OTRS; what's the ticket number? Stifle (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Rats. There have been two of them now. :/ I was hoping this would be a quick form of communication. One of them is Ticket:2009050910022701. I'm not sure how you'll want to handle that; maybe to merge it to the older ticket? The other one was Ticket:2009050810002127. In both cases, you did not know which article was under discussion. With the aid of WP:CP, I do. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I will have got emails about them, but I don't have access from work to the email account to which my OTRS emails are sent. I'll go and sort them out now. Thanks for the help. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
And,  Done×2. Now, all we need to do is educate OTRS customers as to the merits of bottom-posting! Stifle (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe I saw somewhere that you had already attempted to educate OTRS on the merits of top-posting. :) I found that note enlightening, because I was baffled that I received so few responses. I wonder how many stop reading at "Thank you for your e-mail." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Full_Protection_of_WP:NOT

You claim I'm in a minority, when a straw poll was held, 66 came out opposed to any discussion of plot summaries in WP:NOT, and 63 supported some form of discussion on the page?

You claim I closed discussions. I haven't closed one.

Kindly correct your false accusations. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Regarding this edit, I just changed the date as the article was nommed for deletion May 1, 2009 - not July 23, 2008. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; my AFD closing script went a bit insane there. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BQZip01_4

Stifle, I think I've responded and I think addressed your concerns (creating an accessible IP talk page) and Fuchs moved his thoughts to neutral, but I didn't see a response from you. I just wanted to make sure you'd seen it. All I ask is that you take a peek to see if what I've done has addressed your concerns. If not, no hard feelings. You're entitled to your opinion. — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming a file

Hi Stifle. I have uploaded the file File:Fameballjustdance.jpg. But since a same named different file exists in common, I want to rename this one. Can you tell me how to rename it? Please reply back asap. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There used to be an option for sysops to rename files, but it's been disabled for some reason. The only way is to reupload the file under the new name and mark the old one for deletion with {{db-author}}. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Stifle. I have uploaded the file as File:Fameballjustdance2.jpg and tagged the former file. Can you please delete the former one? --Legolas (talk2me) 08:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#John_R._Talbott. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted; I'll have a look. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#pokerverdict.com

Hi, please see the discussion, thanks. Gary King (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

ACC- JR

I was under the impresion (From the emails on the mailing list) that John Reeves was not to be demoted because he is a mailing list admin, has explained his absence and will be back within a month?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't read any mailing lists and was not aware that he will be back within a month. As I mentioned, it is purely a security measure and he can be repromoted on request, but if you think it's appropriate, I can repromote him now. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
On second thought just leave it as is. I noticed Arctic Fox has requested an ACC account, I wish to make note that I'm seriously concerned of the probabilty of him abusing it due to activity on other wikis, can you please wait while I discuss this with a few people...   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Luv-emo.com

Hi, Missed your reply because I had some exams. To answer you, the '- emo.com/what-is-emo.html what is emo article could be useful as a resource on wikipedia's emo article. If it wouldn't be, at least it is pretty close. :) I just aim to get removed from the blacklist though, don't have ambitions to be mentioned as a resource yet.

P.S. I edited the link to avoid the filter! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mircixy (talk • contribs) 18:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Wisdom University"

Thanks for your explanation. It was this review that I was looking for. Yes, I intend to appeal it, since I don't think the people on it understand that the school is, or has been, actually kind of important. (Heck, the current pope was involved at one point!) Dawud (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Speed Gamers

Greetings, Stifle. I truly am not sure about the facts about where to leave the message, and if this is the right person to talk to, so hopefully this doesn't cause any inconveniences.

My subject is about the deletion of the article "The Speed Gamers". The only thing I'm asking is the possibility and chance to recreate the article, with, hopefully, better results, such as the thing with the resources and references. I am willing to now try to boost it to maximum, as their Mother/Earthbound marathon is now on going, and there's been some, discussed, signs of their notablity recently, again, such as the contacts with the Susan G. Komen foundation, and Starmen.net contributions to them, which is probably the largest Mother/Earthbound website in the world. There's been a lots of businesses with these certain organizations, such as diploms and donated prizes from these websites and charity organizations.

They're, at the moment, actually on the half way of their marathon. They managed to reach the $6,000 goal of donations in less than in 40 hours, the marathon lenght being 72 hours, and the donations are still going up, a great thing for Susan G. Komen organization, which all the donations will be going for. The spectators for the marathon are about in the 1,000, as usually. And I strongly recommend you, or whoever kindly would response to this request, to visit their website at www.thespeedgamers.com, just to verify these things.

I am requesting a permission to recreate the article with better references, expecially the 3rd party ones. Their significance can already be seen by their marathons, so, I'm only asking you to make a refresh and give me the change to create the article, with hopefully, better succeed. Heroblue (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Next time, rather than jumping immediately to the "other" option, please read the available selections and choose the right one. The section you were looking for was User talk:Stifle/wizard/deleted/undelete1#Articles_for_deletion.
This article was deleted following a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Speed Gamers. I did not take the decision to delete the page; this was decided by a consensus of the community that the Speed Gamers do not meet our notability criteria. You can read more at WP:N.
If you feel that I have not correctly followed the deletion process here, please make a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

sterling renecance festival

I wish to challenge the deletion of a page that you deleted.

  • The page title is Sterling Renaissance festival.
  • I have read the reason for deleting the page and I feel it was incorrect because pop events lie this, which are ideal coverage material for wikipedia due to the pop nature of the internet can not be held to the same documentation standadrds as a print encyclopedia, and your rulling tries to do just that. Sterling is one of the older faires of its kind and as such, illustrates many of the points in the ain ren faire article, whilst allowing oprotunity to go into more specific detail than the main article, because it is a specific fair. by leavingit here there is an oprotunity for a future contributer to add those sorts of details later, but by deleating it, you face the dreaded doom of making wikis info on the subject no better than something inoan obsolete dead tree encyclopedia, and not even as good as britanica, the best dead tree `pedia of its kind.

basicly, you kill the discussion, and scice wiki is built onthe thing your killing, you need to resurect it. perhaps, instead of deleting the article, you need to be the one that expands its notabillaty. it already has a lot of notabillaty to start with, and you can make it bigger.

  • The following sources back up my claim:

www.democratandchronicle.com (look in the achives)

    1. SOURCE 2 your own visit to the faire- when you do it....

Please consider restoring this article. Matthew C. Darby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.153.83 (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
Thank you for using my message wizard. You actually chose the wrong section; instead of "speedy deletion" you should have chosen "proposed deletion".
Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and only notable topics are covered. We usually recommend writing about minor festivals and events on your own website, where you can give it the appropriate coverage and promotion.
In the circumstances of this page, however, I am bound by Wikipedia policy to undelete this page. It will shortly be nominated for deletion again. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Waverly Health Center deletion

I would like you to reconsider the deletion of the Waverly Health Center page. Much of the discussion on the Articles for Deletion page was prior to the addition of additional references and editing of the text.

I also have additional references and national awards to add. Please consider the page as a work in progress and undelete.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waverly312 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
Having reviewed this matter, I can see that none of the references you added were to reliable sources, and indeed most of your edits after the nomination were copyediting only. As such, I am declining your request to restore the page. You can list it at Wikipedia:Deletion review if you feel I have not followed the deletion policy properly. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources included comprehensive hospital listing and national non-profit focused on patient-centered care. Edits after the nomination removed promotional language and added notability. Please see "List of Hospitals in Iowa" for similar sites. Thank you. --Waverly312 (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
No, reliable sources are things like articles in major newspapers, academic journals, and books. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have additional reliable sources to add, including:

[1] [2]

Hosptial data changes quickly, and much of the information available is from internet sources. Thank you. Please reconsider and reinstate. --Waverly312 (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
That first one looks like an advertorial, and I'm not sure what the second is meant to be, but it doesn't help me decide that the hospital is notable. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The first article is in a respected trade magazine. We did not solicit the opportunity and it was written by a outside reporter. The article demonstrates that Waverly Health Center has been recognized for outstanding patient care and unique services. The second link demonstrates accreditation and quality information. --Waverly312 (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to read about our conflicts of interest policy. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have read the policy and understand potential issues involved. Through this entry, I am not attempting to promote Waverly Health Center at the expense of another hosptial. The health center is a notable part of Waverly, Iowa. If you will not reinstate, will you allow the article to be recreated, strictly following wikipedia guidelines?--Waverly312 (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome to recreate the article if you can overcome the cause for deletion. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

First attack barnstar

Congratulations your barnstar to Fram User_talk:Fram#Barnstar_notice is probably the first barnstar I have ever seen which attacks another user. I would suggest rewriting it. Ikip (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll consider it if A Nobody feels offended. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it's helpful. Imagine if Ikip gave me such a barnstar replacing my name with yours. We shouldn't be putting gasoline on the fires here. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll amend it. I'm aware that many people don't agree with me, and would not mind the scenario you suggested though. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least we both agreed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Farooj Fresh. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

bilateral AfDs

hi, good pick up with your comment here [3]. Anyway, would be interested to hear your thoughts on Talk:Belgium–Malaysia relations. thanks. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review of bilateral AfD

since you have have been involved in many of these bilateral AfDs, you might be interested in commenting on this as an admin. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 20. thanks LibStar (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 19#DataObjects.Net

Done - sorry for delay. Alexyakunin (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Best-Looking Boy

Hi there Stifle!

I was slightly puzzled by your deletion of ^^^ as patent nonsense. From what I recall there was some kind of "structure", giving his name and a non-credible claim of importance. decltype (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, there is a typo in User_talk:Stifle/wizard/deleted/why (last line). decltype (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it should have been an A7. I'll restore it and redelete it with the right reason.
Thanks for pointing out the mistake in the wizard; I've fixed it. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh okay, no need to go that far, though. Sorry for the trouble. But your conscientiousness is duly noted. decltype (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your message re Kingdom of Jerusalem Map.. =

Thanks, I didn't upload this Image, and was actively trying to rescue it.

I suggest you contact the original uploader. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your message

Hi, thanks for your kind note. BTW, if you want to nominate several articles for the same reasons, you can put them all on the same page. -- User:Docu

Civility

Your statement that I would go out of my way to sabotage AfDs reflecting the merits of their articles is an insult, and by all appearances a deliberate one. (A bit of a harsh interpretation, but note that you also take the time to insult ARS and goad everyone on it.)

Shut up and leave me be. --Kizor 09:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon; I did not mean to insult you personally. The "you" in my first diff was a plural "you", referring to the ARS as a whole.
I do maintain the opinion on ARS, however. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, so you meant every member of a group that I belong to, and were specifically responding to my post, but did not mean to demean me. Thanks, that makes much more sense. --Kizor 22:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

WMB

The Working Man's Barnstar
For you prolific and pain-staking work with the article and image deletion processes, I award you this shiny thing. – Quadell (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Deyell

You closed this as "delete" but the article's creator is asking me about it. Probably because I relisted it. Could you jump in? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...

The record shows you deleted Abdul Waheed (disambiguation).

Could you please direct me to where the deletion of this page was proposed and discussed? Geo Swan (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
This was proposed by User:Discospinster adding a speedy tag. I deleted it because it was a disambiguation page with only one blue link. There is no need for such a disambiguation page; however, feel free to recreate it if it is now appropriate. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Nearest tube}}

Hi, I noticed you revisited this matter and changed the decision to 'delete'. I've notified WP:LON and WP:LT as the projects most affected. There's probably a few thousand instances, and in accord with the outcome of the discussion I've recommended they be changed to textual descriptions.

It is going to take some time to amend all those essentially repetitive texts, unfortunately, I'm busy in real life - and probably unable to help much. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Periodical payments

Morning. :) (Duplicating from my talk) The reason it was deleted was that the OTRS was incomplete, which is SOP so far as I know. :) On May 20th, you'd received no follow-up to Ticket:2009051210037216. Have you received a further response? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(Just to note: I've restored the history pending your reply. In case the chain of events was not clear, the matter came due for closure on May 20th. I deleted both the article and the talk page. The contributor immediately created a new article with material pasted from another part of the website. I blanked it again and left him instructions at his talk page for following up, including pointing out that he had not responded to your first note. I should have restored the talk, but it didn't occur to me.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I mistook the OTRS received with a permissionOTRS. You were entirely right to delete the page. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
So we'll just wait to see if he writes you again, then. I wondered at the time I left him the note if this were one of those "bottom posting" issues. I really think we should reconsider having the "thank you for writing" text at top, since I suspect a lot of people think that's it. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

Why do I always catch you just as you're leaving? :) Not that the above is any kind of timely. It's relisted for 7 days as of yesterday anyway. But I would like to get your feedback on another. I wrote the OTRS mailing list about this, but received no clear response: PyBlosxom. The original may be licensed under MIT (though it's not 100% clear, since [http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/~psn/pyblosxom-1.3.2/README the page itself doesn't say so). Even if it becomes 100% clear, I'm not sure if it's compatible for reasons I noted at Talk:PyBlosxom. Can you help? I don't really know where else to ask. I'm considering just rewriting it anyway to be on the safe side, but the contributor's question needs to be answered. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The MIT license is not compatible with the GFDL, which says that you can't add terms to it. And in any case, text brought in from external sites has to be CC-BY-SA too. So we can't really use this unless we get an explicit release from the copyright holder. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't think it would work, but I'm less clear with free licenses than I am with flat out copyright. I'll let him know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 17:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete move to commons

Hi, I know you are a picture expert!

In the case of File:Through the Back Door DVD cover.jpg it has two images in the history, but only the latest was moved to commons. What is the correct way to move the old edition (at [4] to commons? Should we give the old edition a new name as it is obviously different? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would seem to make sense. Traditionally, one uploaded the images in order, oldest to newest, but that's not relevant here. Stifle (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there a special way to tag the image for this, or do I have to take care of it myself? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any. Stifle (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

I would appreciate it if you restored the full revision history of Abdul Waheed (disambiguation). Geo Swan (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Done, for what it's worth. Stifle (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

FfD

After reviewing your history on FfD, I just have to ask, have you ever voted to keep anything?

Also, have you ever come up with any other reasons than the ones you list which seem to deem everything regardless of it's importance to the subject matter as having no significance to the subject matter, even things covered by major media and thought of as cultural touchstones?

I just have a hard time seeing any logic in your blanket-statements, they really don't seem to do anything positive or constructive for the process of deletion, I wouldn't mind understanding the reasoning behind it, because as of now I'm at a complete loss. Revrant (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your paragraphs in order:
  1. See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_22#Raffaele_Diana.JPG; I know there are quite a few others.
  2. I feel that non-free images of dead people, one album cover per article, and one company logo per article are automatically acceptable. Other non-free images must significantly aid readers in understanding the article by their presence. I didn't make the rule, the Wikimedia Foundation did and this is our implementation of it.
  3. See that caption to Wikipedia up in the top left hand corner of the page? It's "The Free Encyclopedia". That means we want the encyclopedia to be free for anyone to use. Because any non-free content we add weakens that, we must keep our use of such content to an absolute minimum.
I hope that clarifies my position for you. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz

Since you commented in the Great Clay Belt deletion review, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Maury Markowitz and redirect deletions. Feel free to ignore or remove this if you're not. --NE2 13:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

bilateral AfDs

you've accidentially voted twice here [5], you were the nominator! LibStar (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD relists

Thanks for informing me about the proper process behind relisting AfDs. I'll readily admit that I'm not completely up on current wiki syntax since my nearly half-year long leave of absence. One two three... 15:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press photo

Hi. Thanks for the barnstar. But I believe this closing was a mistake (it's not one of my nominations). Associated Press would be interested in licensing this image for us. We can't claim fair use on it. Fair use does not mean "using for free instead of paying". Our use is not transformative, we're using the image for the very same purpose as USA Today, for instance, and they paid AP for that use. Please, reconsider. This is pretty much a clear cut case around here. See this recent well put argument, for instance. --Damiens.rf 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought someone would suggest amending. Unfortunately, a delete closure would be straight to DRV because everyone other than the nom supported keeping. I have no problem with you going to DRV, but I had effectively no choice. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as an admin, you always have the choice to ignore votes enforce the police. لennavecia and BQZip01 simply argued "yes we can", and the other two votes talked about "deceased people" (that's reflects the common mistake that our living people replaceability criterion has anything to do with the law). Please, be bold, go there and delete the violation. Save us from a stressing deletion review. --Damiens.rf 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid neither I nor any other admin is entitled to close a deletion discussion as delete when none but the nominator supports doing so. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes you are and you should. The nomination itself is an argument, and the "keep"s (should be) counter-arguments. The number votes is irrelevant: The arguments should be weighted. See this, this and this for recent examples. Please, don't be ashamed to undo your decision. --Damiens.rf 12:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It'll end up at DRV either way; you may as well be the one to list it as any of the keep !voters. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have listed this at DRV; no point in drawing things out further. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Karheim

Admin Stifle. I would like to thank you about fair result of discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Psikxas/Karheim. In the beggining i thought that admins here are aggresive towards new members, but thats not true! Promise ill do my best to make wikipedia better and try not create any troubles anymore. Thank you!!Psikxas (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope you can look past this negative moment and enjoy contributing. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

harry potter stamps

I am puzzled that you just deleted the file 'harry potter stamps'. This file seems to have existed for two years without deletion, so perhaps you could explain the grounds for speedy deletion? Sandpiper (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
I regularly delete a lot of pages, so it is of immense help if, when querying one particular deletion, you mention the exact name of the page in question. I am assuming you are referring to File:Harry potter stamps.jpg.
As you could have found out from the deletion log, this file was deleted because it violates our non-free use policy. You will note that in section 2.1.3 of that page, it specifies that non-free images of stamps can be used only for identification of the stamp, not its subject. As a result, after the image was tagged with a warning notice for eleven days (four more than the normal period of four days), it was deleted.
As regards the delay, unfortunately the folks who patrol fair use and other images for inappropriate content don't have as much time as they would like to dedicate to the process, so some invalid images stay up longer than others. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Off hand, I'm not convinced that investigating your reply wizard and how it works would have speeded up this conversation.
I checked the deletion log before querying this with you. It merely refers to criteria F7, invalid fair use claim, without any further explanation of exactly why, as you have now given.
In this instance the stamp image is not used simply as an illustration, where as per policy an alternative illustration (for example, by scanning the covers and creating a similar collage) could have been created. It also makes an important contribution to the discussion of the series, by demonstrating that it is sufficiently important for a stamp to have been created depicting the series as a whole. The existence of the stamp itself is noteable for a mention in the article, rather than it being a simple illustration.
I note that criteria 2.1.3 is not a wiki policy but merely a guideline, and is stated to be one example of acceptable usage, not an exhaustive list. The guideline also states that usage must follow the spirit of the policy at the top of the page, not the guideline list of examples.
Regards. Sandpiper (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm that I am satisfied with my decision to delete this file, as it represented a decorative use of the image rather than a use that actually improves readers' understanding of the article. The free text "Harry Potter was depicted on stamps" suffices to explain this to a reader, so there is nothing further needed. Remember, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, so we need to think long and hard before including non-free content.
Just a reminder that while guidelines are not hard rules, they've been agreed upon as good ideas by the community and exceptions should be occasional. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Lnlwedding.jpg

Hello, Stifle. I know that I brought issues to the deletion debates there, as did others, that were better discussed elsewhere. But I feel that this image is very valid within the Supercouple article, and that it is significantly lacking without this image. Will you at least reconsider undeleting it? As I stated in its deletion debate: "...it is not decorative in the Supercouple article, in which it is used as the main image. This is the couple who started the term supercouple, which is very much sourced and commented on within the article. There is no free alternative image to use for this couple at their wedding (which started the initial supercouple era), and using any other couple as the lead (intro) image in the article simply because that image is free would be ludicrous. A free image of a celebrity supercouple as the lead image will not do, when taken into consideration that celebrity supercouples did not define the term and came after soap opera supercouples (at least when referencing the term supercouple)."

In addition to that first argument of mine about this, I must also state what I stated on my talk page: "I do not see at all how it is against Wikipedia's image policies by being used as the main image in the Supercouple article, considering that it is displaying the appearance of a fictional couple who 'created' the term and the event at which the term was coined, as noted in the lead and discussed within the article. Its use is more valid within that article than any other fair-use image there."

Also, one of the administrator's in the deletion debate for this image voted a "Weak delete" and in a way that seemed to suggest I do something with the lead to better validate this image's use there. In your closing decision for this image, you also did not seem to feel that this image necessarily fails Wikipedia's image policies. All of this tells me that there is some validity in keeping this image as the lead image for the Supercouple article.

I know that you are a well-respected editor here and go over things before making a decision, and I wanted to respect you in bringing this to you first instead of running to deletion review. All I ask of you is that you reconsider undeleting this image for the reasons and additional reasons I have brought up about it. I am also open to listening to any suggestions you have for making this image even more valid as the lead image of the Supercouple article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
I felt that the consensus of the debate was to delete the image after discounting !votes from unregistered users and those lacking basis in policy. The image is clearly replaceable by a free image in the Supercouple article, and was decorative in both its uses. You're welcome to take it to DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not feel that it was simply decorative in the Supercouple article, any more than a non-free image of a fictional character used as the lead (intro) image for a topic. Sure, the Supercouple article is not solely or even mostly about Luke and Laura, but they are the couple who started the term/"gave birth" to the term and the article is based on that/on them. I also explained about using a picture of TomKat or Brangelina as the main image. But I will take this DRV. Thank you for at least reading what I had to say. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for AccountCreator account re-enablement

Stifle, I'm sorry that I never used the account. I didn't know it was up with permission. I would like to use it again. Thank you! —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, just use it once in a while (-: (Accounts inactive for over 45 days are generally suspended.) Your account has been reactivated. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Estonia-Luxembourg again!

you'll even notice a not so subtle attempt to restore the original article today here [6]. so from clear consensus in original AfD, to very strong consensus to deletion review to this?! LibStar (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already !voted to delete in the discussion and am going to warn Richard Arthur Norton about his edit. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
someone else is trying to do this again [7]. this is making a mockery of the whole AfD and DRV process! LibStar (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
now another user is trying to restore the original article [8]. I really think is a true circumvention of DRV and AFD. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Protection requested. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your action on this. I think some users have lost the plot on this. obviously some believe AfDs and DRV can be totally ignored. LibStar (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR merge

Your comment on the proposed 3RR merge suggests possible confusion: you mention "removing it". The 3RR rule and shortcuts will remain. See the proposed 2 drafts at the top of that section for how that will look. Rd232 talk 09:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll reply over there. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Transcluded signature

 Done--Liangent (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Champions eague final 2009.jpg

This copyvio is back. I tagged it for speedy, would you do the honours please? – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

He'll never get the chance, mwa-ha-ha! :) – Quadell (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You know...

For a "rogue" editor you surprise me. You call for me being blocked for "disruption" for trying to improve a page under consideration for deletion? [9] And as you can see, I was trying to improve the page as you can see from my subsequent edit.[10] There was no consensus ever found that that page could never be recreated, only an Admin's capricious decision that the page should be turned into a disambig page of all things, after I admit a consensus was found to delete, but that's hardly set in stone. Good pages are created all the time from old deleted pages, this page was obviously not at the time deleted, and clearly, there was info out there on relations between Estonia and Luxembourg that hadn't even been looked for by the people willing to delete it. Whatever happened to WP:IGNORE (not that that's what I was using)?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cdogsimmons, you cannot ignore established procedure in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has rules and procedures. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You knew exactly what you were doing. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You give me a lot of credit for knowing exactly what goes on around here. It's not every day that I find an article people have decided cannot and should not be improved. As for established procedure, I see no such established procedure in these circumstances. It is only implied that an Admin's determination that a page restored as a disambig after an Afd should remain as a disambig. I understand your concern, that it seems to flaunt the determination of the previous Adf process (which I freely admit I disagree with). However, due to the fact that new relevant information was capable of being added to the page, it's appropriate to rethink that first Afd. I explained that on the discussion page. Stifle, you think I was being disingenuous? You think I should be blocked from editing (which seems like an extreme to me). There's probably nothing I can say to convince you otherwise, suffice to say, I disagree. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Internet Connectivity Group deletion

I wish to challenge the deletion of a page that you deleted.

  • The page title is Internet Connectivity Group.
  • I have read the reason for deleting the page and I feel it was incorrect because I was purposely attempting to be factual about the history of the company and what we do. As this was my first article, I modeled my submission after other companies that are in the same industry such as Avocent. CDW, Ingram Micro, Minicom Advanced Systems, Scala Inc, and Cisco to name a few. We are the first company to develop a wireless infrastructure for digital signage with patents pending. I would be happy to modify the page to remove what you feel is inappropriate.
  • The following sources back up my claim:
    1. SOURCE 1 see the wikipedia pages for the companies named above
    2. SOURCE 2

Please consider restoring this article.

Thank you

Gordon Davidson [email and phone redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdavids3 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
Sources need to relate to your page, not to other companies. You may also wish to read our pages on what makes companies notable and conflicts of interest. Stifle (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

re:{{subst:npd}}

Could you be specific about what image you believe I mis-tagged? It is my understanding that content which has been published outside of Wikipedia is "sourced to someone other than the uploader" and thus needs an OTRS ticket. Furthermore, {{pui}} states Note: If the only problem with this file is that a claimed release into the public domain or under a free license is not backed up with a statement on the source website or an email to OTRS, please replace this tag with {{di-no permission|date=31 May 2009}}. To me, that is saying "don't bother starting a PUI thread for images that are simply missing permission from the source, irregardless if the person claims they created the file themselves or not. If the image has been published elsewhere, it needs an OTRS ticket, so use NPD instead of PUI to request that OTRS permission". I believe I have been in general using the tag correctly, but I could have made a mistake (yeah, it's possible ;) So a specific example could help me understand the situation a bit more. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.-Andrew c [talk] 13:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see the files you are talking about File:CaseyCagle Child.png amd File:DavidShafer.jpeg . I honestly don't remember why I tagged those images as such. Looking at the edit summary, it does appear I misapplied the tag. So I'm thinking either this is related to an OTRS ticket which I neglected to mention (but searching for these files names doesn't come up with anything) or maybe I found the images on another website, but then I might have just speedied them as copyvio or added the webpage to the edit summary. So right now, I can't tell you why I tagged them as such. I feel like I did have a good reason, but maybe I made a mistake. I agree with you that images such as these shouldn't generally be tagged as such, but I really trust myself to make better choices than that. Anyway, it's strange, and sorry if I did abuse the tag. I'll try to do better in the future, and try to remember these situations better. -Andrew c [talk] 13:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, sorry to bug you once more, I've figured this out. I was looking at the PUI backlog, and saw a discussion that had been closed as delete that had a blue-link. Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 April 18. The LG Headshot one. So I re-deleted the file and checked the other user's uploads. I figured, if this user was going to ignore the discussion and ignore warnings and re-upload previously deleted content without providing further permission, that the user's other uploads were suspect. I figured in this case, since the user had another upload of theirs taken to PUI, and they ignored that outcome and re-uploaded the file, that it would be best to ask them to provide permission for those other 2 files directly (via NPD) instead of starting another PUI that would have suggested that the user provide evidence those are his/her images anyway. I guess what I did was a short cut, and wasn't assuming good faith. Given the circumstances, my actions do make sense to me in a way, but I can also see how it was inappropriate to try to circumvent another PUI discussion based on assuming bad faith due to valid past precedent. I guess that explains what I did, not sure if it excuses it... -Andrew c [talk] 14:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem; you don't need to excuse your tagging to me :) My own interpretation of things, which may not be correct, is that the NPD tag is used when the uploader claims someone else has released the file under a free license but this is not verified, and PUF any other time. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish to challenge the deletion of a page that you deleted.

Internet Connectivity Group deletion

Please consider restoring this article.

Thank you

Gordon Davidson--Gdavids3 (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please consider restoring this article.

Those are press releases and directory entries; nothing really shows notability. See also WP:CORP. If you feel that this deletion is incorrect, you will need to file a request at deletion review. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle/Archive_0509b&oldid=1089129248"