User talk:Stifle/Archive 0211

Second attempt
Dear Stifle. Please let me know what you think about the "request for undeletion" that I posted above several weeks ago. If you are not the right administrator to ask, please refer me to the correct address. Thanks for your time. Aborig (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't seen the message. Please write a userspace draft of the article you would like to appear and then file a listing at Deletion review requesting it be restored as an article. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Stifle. Here's a draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aborig/Ghil%27ad_Zuckermann. Please let me know what you think of it. Sorry I don't know how to file it properly (deletion review? request for undeletion?) Would it be too much to ask you to file it for me? I would be happy to improve it in case you feel there's some info missing. Thanks for your time. Aborig (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the references are to the University of Adelaide. Normally third-party sources, independent of the subject, are desired. I would suggest you add those before I file it, but if you want me to file it now, I will. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Stifle. I've searched the Net and added sources as instructed. Please tell me if you would like me to improve it further.Aborig (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems OK to me. I can't guarantee it'll be approved at deletion review, but it's probably good to list. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Please tell me when you file it and what the response is. Aborig (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It has now been filed and you can follow it at Deletion review/Log/2011 February 5. I will not be notifying you of progress with the request as you can check for yourself. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

How should I handle a this type of Wikipedians?
Hello, Stifle. I need an advice. How should I handle a Wikipedian who puts a link to a Wikipedia policy, writes something between a pair of quotation marks that doesn't exist there and then asserts that it is in the linked policy page? Surly, shouting "you're a liar" isn't my option, is it? (Though he has the cheeks to call me a liar and his quotation is already affecting an AfD.) Fleet Command (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Either withdraw and ignore or go to DR, I would say. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Er... DR? You mean ... Deletion Review? Dispute Resolution? Deny Recongnition? Fleet Command (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DR, not WP:DRV or WP:DENY :) Stifle (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa! Thanks a bunch! I guess I'll ignore. :) Fleet Command (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dave Chalk (entrepreneur)
Hi Stifle. Just wondering if you can revisit the article issues you noted for Dave Chalk (entrepreneur). A number of Wiki contributors have made changes to address your valid concerns. This has been a huge learning on how to create neutral Wiki biographies. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monmorong (talk • contribs) 18:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done; please leave future messages at the bottom of the page. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sante Kimes
Hi, I see you opened an AfD about Sante Kimes due to an OTRS ticket opened by Kimes' attorneys. You may also be aware of the ANI thread and SPI. User:Jfaia (the suspected sock) has been inserting an "official link" to a newly created page apparently having something to do with Kimes. Do you think you could check with the attorneys that the site is actually under her control and that she wants it to be designated as her official site? Thanks.

71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We are under more sock attack. If you do contact the lawyer, it might be helpful if you can ask them to call off the socking. Thanks. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Confirmed that it is an official site. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

FAC
Hello, thanks for your recent work at FAC! I'm going to be going through soon to promote/archive. Could you please revisit the various nominations where you opposed and see if the nominators have addressed your concerns? I'm looking at Featured article candidates/Adenanthos cuneatus/archive1 in particular. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. Feel free to poke me anytime if you need an image copyright review for one or more FACs. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have any time for these, your review would be much appreciated. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Trainwreck?
Hi, I saw that you added "trainwreck" as outcome of a discussion. While I agree in principle, I think it would be good if you could be more specific. If "trainwreck" is a commonly used Wikipedia term, you could link to an explanation of it. If it is not, then the choice of term could be further explained on the appropriate pages. Mlewan (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's uncommon on Wikipedia, but a well-established idiom in general. Personally I'm concerned that people may take the closing remarks and lack of a "no consensus" to mean that if they entrench, they'll get another shot at deleting the article. Or make no real effort to resolve the differences, then spring up a few months later to announce that the article has not been fixed and take another shot at deleting it. It's already survived AfD thrice; a fourth attempt would tip from "circumstances can change" to "hammer it until it gives." Enough rambling. I'm not too concerned to thank you for going through that mess, so thanks, and I'll give my attention to the article's talk page. --Kiz o r  12:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Mlewan: What Kizor said, basically.
 * @Kizor: Apologies for being cynical; I tried to counsel against entrenching in my closure comment but I think if people fix their minds on something, then that's bound to happen. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cynicism on this is nothing to apologize about (least of all to me - I've been blocked for fighting a hopeless battle!). If anything I was too whiny in my message to you, since RL intervined when I was preparing an elaborate "keep" about how the article is based on reliable third-party sources without the personal conclusions of the editors. --Kiz o r  13:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please re-edit to include the standard outcome text "The result of the deletion discussion was No consensus.  in bold as the outcome in the closing notes and top of Talk page, and include "trainwreck" nonbolded descriptively. It would have been a trainwreck if discussion had veered off into incivility and dispute resolution. I empathize with your frustration with the SPAs and ATA arguments, but wish it had not spilled over into the usual closing procedural stuff. Not all deletion discussions can be as short and sweet as WP:Articles for deletion/Nylon (magazine), or as stimulative and productive in terms of direct article improvement.  But this AfD resulted in discussion of, and addition of, explicit inclusion criteria at the top of the article, per WP:LIST, and the discussion of more, which has appropriately moved to article Talk. --Lexein (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Stifle (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because there's no such thing as a trainwreck AfD discussion - it's simply consensus or no consensus, and this doesn't qualify as a figurative trainwreck, for the reasons explained above. --Lexein (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed the talk page message (because it wasn't showing up correctly on the template). I'm happy with the description of the closure on the AFD page — I feel that "trainwreck [from which] no meaningful consensus can be derived" is a better description of the debate than "no consensus". I'm happy to debold "trainwreck" or bold "no meaningful consensus" if that would assuage your concerns. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Changing the bolding would be excellent. Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. A tactful cynic, the best kind. Thanks. Have a random uplifting video. --Kiz o r  17:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't feel passionate enough about the subject to bitch much...certainly not to a DRV of all things...but I'm curious as to what the outcome could be if all the xkcd fanboys and other SPAs were ignored 100% ? Different? Tarc (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not drastically different. As I noted I could have reasonably closed the debate either way, and a DRV would not have reached consensus to change it. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, I just did a rough count of about 21-20 delete-to-keep...discarding the new user cruft, "i like it!" and "IAR!" junk. 9 times outta 10 I think no consensus findings are a cop-out, but this is one of occasions for the 1's to pop up.  This is a thankless task y'all take on.  Sometimes I'm glad I've earned such a reputation for being an insufferable prick, no one in their right mind would ever make me an admin. :) Tarc 16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, someone mentioned the AfD on the xkcd forums and wondered if peopke should join in. The next poster told him no, the regulars wouldn't like it, and I went there and recommended against it, because AfDs revolve around an indecent number of acronyms. Not much else was said about it. I'm not aware of any solicitation. --Kiz o r  17:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Painting and the environment
Ok, I'll merge. Please let me see the old one. Johnbod 13:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's undeleted under a redirect. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Inexplicable and sudden deletion of Bruce Copley
How is it possible for this page to be suddenly deleted without warning and before community consensus was reached to allow the deletion process to continue? The discussion was still very active and I myself was busy replying to criticisms but next thing I knew, the page was deleted without warning or explanation? How many poeple were involved in deciding if the arguments had merits and where do they explain their reasoning? (new article creator) ChrisStefan 14:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There was nothing sudden, inexplicable, or without warning about it. Deletion discussions are normally only a week long (see WP:AFD), and this one had gone on for ten days. You were the only user seeking to retain the page (random new users who pop up to support a point and then vanish aren't generally counted for anything), and therefore the article was deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read your own source you would see that deletion discussions are NOT NORMALLY a week long - they are AT LEAST a week long - THEN consensus has to reached before the process can continue. This did not happen.  You don't think you could have at least given warning and adequate reasoning for your decision?  As far as I know, the process consists of unbiasedly considering the arguments and proofs offered before you can decide to delete the page. Where can we see a report of the arguments and reasoning you used or agreed with, to decide that the page should be deleted?  Please list those arguments that you feel empowered you to do this.  Thank you. ChrisStefan (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement — nor is it normally done — for an administrator to give notice before closing a debate. There is a clear consensus on the discussion that the page should be deleted — you are the only user besides single-purpose accounts to say that the article should be kept. Debates don't work on a "last man standing wins" basis, nor does the person who writes most win.
 * We do not provide "reports of the arguments" for deletion discussions except occasionally when the debate is finely balanced.
 * Please tone down your rhetoric if you would like to continue to discuss this matter with me. You have as an alternative the option of filing a request at Deletion review if you feel I have not followed deletion process correctly. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Review
I really hate to bother you about this, but i didnt see a response back on deletion review of Casual (rapper). i normally would not be this annoying about it lol but i have asked several admins to help me restore the article and they have ignored me. Please help me, this article was deleted unjustly and now the article has been edited beyond deletion concerns. i just want to sleep at night knowing the article is back on here haha. thank you. AlexLoeher 16:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't given a valid original article name. You wrote Casual, which is an existing article. I can't overwrite that. You need to give me the right destination name. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Dragon Quest X
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dragon Quest X. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 陣 内 Jinnai 17:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Extravagance
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Extravagance. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Keeani Lei
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Keeani Lei. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Spam whitelist
Hi. I posted a request for something to be whitelisted. It was Not done due to lack of reply.

I take this to mean that I am supposed to have replied to something, but I'm not sure what. Or does it mean that no one responded to the request so it lapsed?

Thanks for your help, BillMasen (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why I did that. I suggest relisting it. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have done that now. If you have a chance I would appreciate it if you took a second look; traffic on that page is very slow :/ BillMasen (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will next time I go through it; the reason for the slow traffic is that it's not a well-known page and adding anything to the whitelist is a pain in the neck. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films
Hi, thanks for closing the AfD. I have raised the page for user talk:Moonriddengirl's thoughts due to the copyright issue remaining outstanding. You may not be interested in expressing any opinion, but might want to keep an eye on the issue for reasons of precedent and how best to create an on-going positive consensus. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films
The header that you added to Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films points to an older discussion, Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, not the discussion that just finished, Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd nomination). Also, how was the final result reached? BollyJeff ||  talk  13:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That appears to be a script error. I'll see about reporting it.
 * The keep closure was because there was a consensus in favour of keeping the article, in my opinion. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI
You closed Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd nomination) on the 15th but it is being edited still by an editor today and the SineBot is autosigning their comments. History. Not sure if it is somethng that needs admin attention or not. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've left him a note. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mike Da Poet
Would you delete and salt Mike Da Poet? You participated in a DRV in July 2010, where you suggested that Mikie Da Poet be listed at WP:DEEPER (which it now is) because of the considerable disruption of the DRV process (see the DRV links at Articles for deletion/Mikie Da Poet). Deletion has now been circumvented at the title Mike Da Poet. There also appears to be sockpuppetry going on per my comments at Sockpuppet investigations/6stargeneral. Cunard (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gone. Sigh. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This promoter is very persistent. Cunard (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning, I'll take it under advisement. Do you happen to have any links to the strong consensus, all I've seen is that AfD. Worm    TT   21:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just found the ... 7 deletion reviews, ANI thread, requested article and Perennial request. . Well, I'll give him a chance but I'll keep the previous thoughts in mind and the article will need to meet a high standard.  Worm    TT   21:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/David_Kenny_(2nd_nomination)
Stifle, I would like you to please reconsider your decision to close this AFD as a keep. Your decision appears to be based that more editors than not have a desire to keep the article. I would argue that type of decision is based on votes. In every keep vote, they were asked to explain how the subject meets any notability guidelines, the primary one being WP:GNG which is clear that multiple independent reliable sources are needed to verify notability. After two weeks of being on the chopping block, no one has been able to improve the article with additional references. The subject also has not met any of the criteria in WP:BIO. One of the editors in particular engaged in discussion with me about their keep !vote and they could not explain how the subject met notability guidelines ending their contribution to the discussion with "He meets WP:GNG guidelines" but unable to explain despite clear evidence to the contrary being visible at the bottom of the article where it lacks references which are the basic standard of WP:GNG. The existing references are 1) Wordpress blog, and 2) A non existent website that doesn't show up in archive.org and lacks even mention of the subject in the URL suggesting it is not significant coverage but more likely a trivial mention. Per the Administrator instructions for closing AFDs, #2 you are to use guidelines to determine consensus. You're rationale "and it is not for me to differ" is untrue. Your responsibility as the closing administrator is to weigh in the discussion to determine if there is consensus that is based in community established policies. It is absolutely within your scope to differ from the counted !votes.--v/r - TP 19:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have been an admin for nearly five years and am well aware of procedures for closing AFDs, thank you. Your query is answered in my /FAQs — I carefully consider all my AFD closures before enacting them. In particular in this case, I read that the contributors to the AFD are convinced that Mr. Kenny meets the BIO requirements; it is not for me to say "despite that people think the criteria are met, the consensus is wrong, therefore delete" and such a closure would rightfully be overturned at DRV.
 * In short, I am happy with my decision; you are welcome to DRV it but I would point out that in the last week and a half four of my decisions have been taken to DRV; three have been closed with the decision endorsed and the fourth is heading the same way. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do plan to take it to DRV, I'm not at all concerned about the previous four DRVs nor the five years of experience. Community consensus is not judged by years of experience.  It is the responsibility of the administrators to weigh the value of the remarks during a discussion.  I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you judged that discussion wrong and I wish I could've convinced you otherwise here before bringing this to DRV.--v/r - TP 21:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like DRV didn't agree that I judged the discussion wrong [sic]. 5 from 5 for me; I must be doing something right :) Stifle (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for David Kenny
An editor has asked for a deletion review of David Kenny. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. v/r - TP 21:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Irreparable damage to Microsoft WebMatrix
Hello, Stifle. I could use an advise regarding. User:Peterlaeshen damaged the article to such extent that after eight edit attempts, I gave up and restored the last version by ChrisN. The main issue that concerns us here is copyright violation and copy-pasting, as well as a sudden drop in contents quality. I have sent Peterlaeshen a warning but I strongly feel it deserved the attention of ANI. On the other hand, this user is a newbie and I feel I should not bite him so hard that is beyond recovery; maybe he has done so in Good Faith. So, I though I could use your advise. Fleet Command (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not in the habit of intervening in others' disputes. Historically this has led to anything between me getting overturned, having to take a Wikibreak due to the stress, and an RFAR. I've learned from my mistakes and will no longer be getting involved in disputes that don't concern me at the request of others. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I gather you say this when you don't consider the issue a case of blatant vandalism. Thanks, anyway. Fleet Command (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Vandalism is the insertion of nonsense, obscenities, or blanking of the article. Good faith attempts to improve an article should never be referred to as "vandalism".  Now, since you accused the editor of something they didn't do, they're less likely to trust your judgment.  I didn't look at the changes carefully, but if there are copyright violations from copy-pasting, then just explain that to the editor.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And that editor only made one edit - 4 days ago and hasn't edited since. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm removed the vandalism warning and replaced it with a welcome message. I suggest that if this editor returns and continues to make poor edits, then just explain how they're copyright violations.  Work with them to improve the article.  It's a PITA, I know, but we all start off as newbies.  If you need help, feel free to let me know on my talk page.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of List of unverified longevity claims
Hi, you deleted this article. I wasn't aware that the discussion was taking place. I think as the article's creator I should have been informed? As you may be aware, this happened while an ArbCom case on the topic was ongoing. One of the ArbCom outcomes was that WikiProject World's Oldest People has been asked to seek help from experienced, uninvolved Wikipedians. I actually created that article in a good faith attempt to clear up the very messy series of articles belonging to the project. My logic was that an article on a topic should be that, while a list should be a list. I therefore split Longevity claims, removing the list items into the article created. User:Nick Ornstein copied the list items back, hence the duplication that was commented on in the AfD. Would you be able to comment, preferably at WP talk:WOP on what you do see as a logical format for the series of articles on long-lived people? Thanks very much. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You ought to have been notified by the nominator of the AFD. I don't know why that didn't happen.
 * I'm aware of the Longevity case, but I have no desire to get involved in it (see the post above this). Stifle (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Take a gander
I would issue a warning but as it is seemingly about me I wanted an uninvolved party to take a look. FOund an image of an article - sourced to the Associated Press. Tagged it for deletion. The dif (dif) appears to be an attack on myself. (Please please, please take the time to learn about copyrights. You can even go to a place called Wikipedia if you don't want to take college level classes or get a law degree.) Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am trying to avoid getting involved in anything involving Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), as I have had enough run-ins with him in the past. However, if I had not, I would be inclined to let it be for peace's sake. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard
Hope you don't mind me asking you to take another look at this: I welcome further discussion. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Eagle School
Please change or withdraw your close of Articles for deletion/Eagle County Charter Academy. Longstanding consensus is that elementary schools are not notable in the extreme. The "award" that the school won is nowhere near important enough. Abductive (reasoning) 15:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read my /FAQs? Your question was answered there.
 * You are of course welcome to (a) go to DRV, or (b) merge and/or redirect the article to the school district or place where it's located, per WP:BB. I recommend the latter :) Stifle (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually would argue a different reason for why the result should have been interpreted differently (in my opinion, of course.) Of the people supporting a keep, besides for the one weak one, the others seem to have been brought over to the AfD by another user due to a personal connection with the subject here and here here. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Canvassing at the discussion is a serious matter. Do you think it materially affected the outcome? Stifle (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly always reluctant to assume bad faith, and so I wouldn't want to make a firm accusation of canvassing without getting a second opinion on it first. But yes, I do certainly believe that bringing these other editors in did affect the outcome, given that the support for keeping the article would have been very limited had those new editors not been involved.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In those circumstances I would normally suggest relisting due to socking. However in this case I think the article should just be redirected to the district. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I was bold and went for it. But just as a note in advance, when this is most likely contested it'll probably have to be taken to DRV. Thanks for the input!--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Lulu Popplewell
Dear Stifle,

I note you closed the Articles for deletion/Lulu Popplewell (2nd nomination) as a keep and then added a little template to Talk:Lulu Popplewell. This template now reads ''This page was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.'' Whilst this is true, there is a problem here with the link contained in this sentence which is to the article's first afd Articles for deletion/Lulu Popplewell when it was deleted. Is there a way to link to correct afd discussion? (Msrasnw (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC))


 * Sorry I have found out how to do it now with best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC))

Deletion review for Boroka
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Boroka. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Two questions, one specific, one general
I'm puzzled by your statement at Deletion_review, where you said: "This deletion was over a year ago."

While there was a deletion a year ago, the editor requesting the review did not work on that version (unless as an IP or other user name) but did work on the versions deleted a couple days ago.

However, I'm puzzled that the explanation given is "deleted due to the lack of information for Giridharilal, in internet", which isn't the rationale in my delete. So, on the one hand, it seems obvious that the question is about the version I deleted, on the other hand, it clearly is not.

However, part of the reason for writing to you is to make sure I understand how to restore an earlier version, if required. It appears that if an article is deleted more than once, the redlink is to the entire history. Am I correct that if one wanted to restore the 12 January 2010 version, one has to check all the boxes in the page history and then manually uncheck all edits after 12 Jan? I think an alternative would be to restore everything, then go into the history and use the restore this version option. I'll emphasize I have no intention of doing that in this case, but I have had some requests for restoration of deleted articles, and it occurs to me I wasn't sure what to do if the request applied to a prior version.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice there was a subsequent deletion.
 * To restore the 12 January 2010 version you need to check all the boxes below and including 12 January 2010. It may be easier to click Invert selection and uncheck the ones after that. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both answers.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

One notification
I posted a request at Wikipedia:Blocked external links/Current requests. Since you created that page, I'm hoping you can address the request. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. The page was never enacted. I've moved your request to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought something was up when there were few requests at that page. I had spent a while trying to figure out where to post such a request. I even saw MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, but that didn't clue me into posting on its talk page, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. (Would you mind editing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist at the top and adding something like ) I ultimately followed the instructions at Blocked external links. I just modified that page to lead others to the correct page. In my quest, I also ran across Spam blacklist, which I just modified to provide better info. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also, it looks like no one is responding to posts at Wikipedia talk:Spam blacklist. And should MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist be added to Template:Noticeboard links? That template is posted at the top of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist but MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist doesn't seem to be listed in the template. Sorry for peppering you with so many request. I had a hard time trying to find MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and perhaps others might have run into the same problem. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the noticeboard links is already too cluttered. The Wikipedia talk:Spam blacklist is probably too out of the way for anyone to notice. You've encouraged me to restart my efforts to migrate this whole sorry mess to Blocked external links. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Blocked external links" - that says it all. I struggled to figure out what really was going on with this: blacklist, whitelist, MediaWiki, Wikimedia, Meta-wiki - whatever happened to plain English? And where are we supposed to post External links/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist? While the mechanism to carry out the block resides in MediaWiki namespace, the actual URL block appears in Wikipedia namespace and that is where the discussion regarding the block should take place. Also, using Blocked external links instead of the MediaWiki talk page of the blacklist will make it that much harder for the URL bad guys to figure out what is going on. Hopefully, your efforts will be successful. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Image Dispute
In reference to "Possibly unfree images"File:Abirc.jpg:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_February_23#File:Abirc.jpg Here is the story, I am new to wiki and have never done all these, so I am sorry as I have also sent an email to you,meant for only urgent issues. My issue is not that urgent per say, but I need help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achau24 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't email me for non-urgent messages, and please add your message at the bottom.
 * You need to post your response regarding the image to the "possibly unfree files" page, as that is the only way it will be taken into account. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop emailing me. Please use talk pages only. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already posted my response in the "possibly unfree files" page. Sorry for the email, got a little confused with using wiki for editing for the first time. What can be done now from my side? Are we waiting for additional feedback from others? Thanks for your help in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achau24 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An administrator will review the matter in a few weeks and take into account the contributions of us and others when deciding whether to delete the image.
 * One last question, why did you think it had copyright violation? Just for my information. For resolution or anything else? Achau24 (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Certain factors tend to point towards images being likely copyright violations. Low resolution is one of them. Unfortunately I am unable to discuss the others as if they were publicly known, users wishing to upload copyright violations intentionally would know what to do to avoid detection. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have updated with my response, if acceptable let me know if I can email with screen shots. Also I don't see many uploader's whose image is in dispute, respond the way I am doing, are they contacting the disputer directly? Achau24 (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no point emailing anything to me. You must post links on the PUF page. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded the screen shot doc, please have a look at my response in PUF, have updated it with the links. Please go through my whole response(I know its a little long) to make a fair judgement.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_February_23#File:Abirc.jpgAchau24 (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Bless the bride (musical)
Perhaps I am missing something on this one? Why would anyone want to delete the illustration? This one includes portraits of the stars of the show and is surely much more informative than the average illustration for a musical (typically a reproduction of the album cover or a show poster with LESS informative matter)? Just interested in what is special about this particular case, as it would seem to otherwise lay a precedent for rendering wiki "picture free", except perhaps for charts and diagrams. Isn't "decoration" a worthwhile thing in itself at all?? If not then many thousands of pictures on wiki would seem to need immediate deletion! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the image is copyrighted and non-free. Perhaps I should have made that clearer in the nomination. It therefore has to meet the stringent criteria at WP:NFCC, and I feel it doesn't comply with number 8. Of course there is no problem having decorative images once they are free to use. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil
Hi, Stifle. Do you plan to return to Maria Amélia's FAC nomination? I answered your remarks there. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You made a mistake back there. The painting you mentioned is not being used in the article. Another version of it is being used and it has source. --Lecen (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Omani football clubs
Hi. I noticed you tagged Al-Khaburah for deletion. I've also nominated Al-Shabab (Oman) for AFD. There seems to be an arguement that these clubs are inherently notable despite major concerns about actual lack of solid sources or coverage.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

1001 Internet Jokes II
Hi Stifle! When you closed Articles for deletion/1001 Internet Jokes as delete and deleted 1001 Internet Jokes, you didn't delete 1001 Internet Jokes II which was part of the AfD - not sure if it was intentional or not (but am guessing not, as you didn't mention deleting just one of the articles when you closed the debate). The AfD link on 1001 Internet Jokes II was broken by an edit a couple of days ago but it seems very unlikely that that could have prevented any interested parties from participating in the discussion. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 18:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gone now; for future reference please tag such pages with db-afd. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

re: Al-Khaburah
Hello. I wanted to let you know I contested the proposed deletion of this article. This club has played many seasons in the top flight league of Oman and finished third in the main cup competition a few years ago. I've expanded the article slightly and added some references, but feel free to take it to AfD if you disagree. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)