User talk:Stifle/Archive 0306

This page is an archive. Please add new messages to User talk:Stifle. Messages left here will not be noticed.

Demilich (band) and my RFA
Thanks for your contribution to my RFA. I just wanted to clarify the situation that you described, which has arisen earlier today.

While on new pages patrol this morning, I came across Demilich (band). At 10:05, I tagged the page with a speedy deletion tag under CSD:A7 as it was a repost of deleted material. The speedy deletion was contested and after discussion on the talk page, I removed the hangon tags (which say they should be removed once the contester has placed their objection on the talk page)  at 11:14, and removed the speedy deletion tags  at 13:22 as it appeared that the article's speedy deletion was contested, and it probably did not meet CSD. I then listed the article on AFD here at 13:31.

Meanwhile, at 12:00, Johnson542 listed the page on WP:DRV here. I was not made aware of this until I checked my RFA a short while ago. I don't know if it's correct to list articles that have already been recreated on DRV, but please accept that listing the page on AFD was not an attempt to venue shop — I was genuinely unaware that a DRV existed and updated the AFD page immediately with this information.

It is obvious to me that you consider this a very serious matter as you have opposed my RFA on account of this alone. I thank you for your feedback and I would greatly appreciate if you could tell me what I should have done in this situation so that I can do that next time.

Regards, Stifle 15:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It was put on WP:DRV after I mentioned the process. Recreated pages should be deleted on sight unless they've gone through WP:DRV.  That's what db-repost is for.  Otherwise, what is the point of having WP:DRV at all?  I went through the work of originally listing the page on Afd and it sat out there and got a unanimous delete --- why would we need to go through that again just because now there's someone yelling louder?  Page re-creation should only happen after WP:DRV, not before.  Exceptions should only be allowed by someone who is already an admin, not by a non-admin - and only with a reason better than "suddenly there's a really adamant guy".  Just my opinion.  If you can cite a policy that disagrees with me, let me know and I'll reconsider my vote.  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I still think it should be deleted. I did not "allow" someone to recreate the page. The problem is that the content is now significantly different from what was previously posted.
 * The policy that appears to disagree with you is WP:CSD, criterion 4. To be eligible for speedy deletion, a page must be a "substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy". Therefore, unfortunately, it cannot be speedily deleted. Stifle 17:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe it's my ignorance. How can you see what the content was previously?  I thought all versions of deleted material were gone forever except to admins.  I never paid attention to that clause because I didn't think I had access to see what it was previously (and my memory isn't good enough to recall one article from six weeks ago that was deleted without any fight).  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see the previous version of the article, but seeing as a load of additions were made to it between 11:00 and 13:17 today, I assumed good faith in guessing that it would not be substantially the same. Stifle 18:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Well I'll remove my objection since you've at least tried to clear things up - and because now suddenly everyone loves this article (go figure - I'm not sure where all these supporters were when I first nominated all of 4 weeks ago).  I'll be keeping my distance from Afd in the future since the process is clearly a total disaster and can be undone so easily - but I won't hold that against you...  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't know where they came from either, but it may well have been the RFA :/ I'll leave you with this: the idea of AFD isn't to salt the earth against any future version of the content, simply to remove articles that are poor or non-notable. Comparatively few pages are permanently excluded from recreation. Stifle 18:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore gay personalities
Per your participation at the above AfD, I was wondering what your take on Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties and the related articles would be. I respect your opinion and do not assume that you will necessarily agree with me. The discussion seems to be fairly split with minimal particpation. -- Krash (Talk) 19:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've voted on this AFD. Stifle 09:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!
And thanks for being fair. I struck my oppose vote and added a support vote! +Johnson542 22:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi
I would like to ask one person who voted on True Combat: Elite deleting. Do you even play games? Have you even heard about the mod? Have you checked anything about it? Have you seen my phat and big comment where I mentioned a lot of obvious reasons for notability. You don't have to answer. I know the answer. -- nlitement [talk]  00:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I voted, further evidence of notability has been added so I have changed to a keep vote. Stifle 09:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

make a wish!
Hey, you're one edit away from 7777 edits. That's, like, uber-lucky. Don't forget to make a wish :D

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Plag
Ah! So that's how it's done. I'll remember it in the future. Thanks again! :-) CrypticBacon 12:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No probs! Can you add in the URL for that page too when you get the chance? Stifle 20:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Workshare question
In your comment wrt deleting Workshare you say do not userfy. What does that mean? Just curious. JonHarder 14:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean that the page should specifically not be moved to the User: space, which is an option that is often considered in AFDs involving material that may belong there. See Userfication for more information. Stifle 20:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I learned something new. JonHarder 21:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties
Regarding your participation in the aforementioned AfD (which resulted in no consensus) I would appreciate your opinions in the following AfD discussions. Thank you for your time. -- Krash (Talk) 15:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Singapore public gay parties (second nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Singapore gay literature
 * Articles for deletion/Singapore gay art
 * Articles for deletion/Singapore gay theatre
 * Articles for deletion/Singapore gay films

My vote and comments on your rfa
Hi, just a personal note to let you know that I have nothing against you personally in the light of the above. My vote would not make a difference in terms of vote count or the outcome but I'm definite that you will heed my comments because I've seen you respond to the comments of other editors in a great fashion. All the best, --Gurubrahma 17:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your replies and message. I will definitely keep an eye out for the things you've mentioned and if you spot me screwing up or the like if/when I become an admin, please call me on it.
 * On a technical note and FYI, the edit summary counter thingy doesn't count the project namespace. Stifle 20:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

CAM
Thank you for giving me the heads up :) Cao An Min 12:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA/Christopherlin
Thanks for taking the time to vote and reread my RfA. I actually meant for the replies to be for all the oppose and neutral votes, but you're the only one who followed up. Anyway, next time I'm up I'll have more demonstrable knowledge of "the process", so I hope you'll support me then. --Christopherlin 17:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You're a sysop!
Hi,, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp  «Talk»=  Please also add your name to WP:LA  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats! You deservr this and good luck for the future! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  17:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My congrats as well. See you in AFD. PJM 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I hope I will continue to be a good Wikipedian both as an admin and as an editor. Stifle 17:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, good luck and welcome to the mop and bucket chores.-- Dakota ~   °  17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats and good luck Stifle! -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice one Stifle. I never see your noble Celtic name attached to anything but fair comment. Deizio 22:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why didn't I get a barnstar? Pff! :( --kingboyk 09:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Demilicious
Dear Sir or madam,

I've just been linked here from the Demilicious homepage. Why on earth would you want to delete their entry on Wiki? They are a band, they play shows, they have releases. That's it, surely. They are part of a music scene and worthy of entry. I want to find all sorts of things on Wikipedia. Dont start taking things down. What would Wiki REALLY be worth if you went round doign that all the time?

Regards,

Andrew Smith


 * I think you're a couple of days out of date. Assuming you're referring to Demilich (band), I have asked that it be kept. If your request is about something else, please say so and include a link. Also, please add ~ on the end of all your messages to add your username and the date. Thanks. Stifle 15:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:


 * 1) Remember you will always save the wrong version.
 * 2) Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
 * 3) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
 * 4) Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
 * 5) Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
 * 6) and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Stifle 17:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

KENU and My talk
===>Thanks for the instruction I sometimes get a little too far ahead of myself on new page patrol. Thanks for keeping me accountable. -Justin (koavf), talk 18:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on adminship
Hi, Glad to see you made it (even though I voted neutral, we Irish don't have agreat tradition of supporting each other do we?). Good luck, I have no doubt you'll be an excellent admin. Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk   18:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and congratulations! Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've considered you a good candidate ever since that I.J.I.D. trollfest that plagued my first month on job. — Mar. 7, '06 [20:04] 

Congratulations Stifle, good luck --Ugur Basak 21:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats. Use your buttons for good :)  — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats. Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 01:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and good luck —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-08 10:27Z 

Congrats! You deserve this! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Gifts for Soliders
Thanks for the reminder, however I'd already reverted my edit after noticing my initial mistake (see the page history) - I'm not sure why you're sending me a reminder after the fact. Thanks anyways, I guess. Cheers. Yankees76 20:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I got there a couple seconds before you in the history, but meh, it's all good ;) Stifle 20:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem - just confirming :) Yankees76 20:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Am...
Am familiar with Wiki-protocol. By the way, I do have a list of Wiki-protocol that you may find useful. It is a list of wikipedia shortcuts. This will allow anyone to access various wiki-links without having to go to WP:AN and asking a Admin for the correct link that they have a interest in, such as reporting that a bug has made a mess in Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Martial Law 00:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Speedy Deletion
While working on layout for an entry I was working on (my first from scratch mind you) I saved the article and it immediately got a speedy deletion tag. I continued adding pertinant information and deleted the tab. I hadn't finished the article yet but it was deleted. It was both relevant (An American Roshi publically active in both American Prison Zen teaching, and the Abolition movement against the death penalty. I don't have a lot of spare time but this article is both infinately cross-linkable to relevant other wikipedia articles, and is encyclopedic.  However due to speedy deletion before I could finish it I have no real desire to ever do a wikipedia edit again.  Thank you for nothing. Trelane 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just poking my head in here. I've had the page restored and moved it to Trelane's userspace to avoid having it zotted again before he gets a chance to include more information. In the future please don't edit war in speedy tags against named users who are available for a discussion. --Gmaxwell 05:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to piece together what happened here. I can't see if somebody is "available for a discussion", and if I have to welcome a new user, then chances are they may not be fully aware of policies such as not removing (speedy) deletion tags. It's a good idea to only put up articles that at least pass the guidelines for inclusion (which in the case of biographical articles are WP:BIO), or to work on articles in your userspace before moving them over to the main space. I'm sorry that your early experiences of Wikipedia were so negative, but I would hope that you will continue to edit and enjoy your Wiki experience. Stifle 13:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion
While working on an entry I got a proposed deletion tag. Can we talk about it here? evrik 17:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is now sorted :) Stifle 09:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh. Well done! Stifle 09:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: User_talk:Waggers
Thanks for that; I was getting confused with the various deletion procedures. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, and sorry to make work for you! Waggers 13:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for helping clear this stuff off Wikipedia. Stifle 13:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Torenbreskens.jpg
Thanks for your advice and message. Since we are both contributing positively to the project, I would have appreciated a slightly friendlier tone. I assume that you did not mean to sound rude, but it is easy to misinterpret discourse without paralinguistic cues. Cheers. The JPS 13:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hope the above didn't cause any offence. You must know how disheartening it is, though, when you trawl through dozens of articles to correct various things, and the only feedback is about what you've done wrong. The JPS 14:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it applies to both of us. Apologies for being blunt. Stifle 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ishmael (Small God)
Sorry that was my sense of over subtle humour getting the better of me - anyway someone beat me to the main page deletion idea. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page)  17:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

State Route 15 (California)
Gateman1997 specifically edited and then reverted this page to prevent moving over it. In my view, that is very dickish. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 17:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that. However, I specifically can't speedy articles to facilitate a move unless it's non-controversial. You will need to take it to WP:RM. Stifle 17:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Typical Earth Alliance Permanent Space Colony
I've clarified and expanded (far more than the article deserves) my reasoning for the speedy deletion request on Typical Earth Alliance Permanent Space Colony. I hope that this helps you to understand the rationale for this nomination, and the entirely non-encyclopedic nature of this article. I have a feeling that some people see the word "fancruft" in a nomination and assume that the nomination is being made on that basis. Red-read my rationale and you will see that I was poiting out that, even as fancruft, the article could not be seen as meeting the notability requirement stated in CSD/Articles item #7. Thank you for your time. I was under the impression that speedy nominations should be marked as minor, and I have done so for the last year or so, but I'll look into it and change as required by the policies involved (which may have changed). -Harmil 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While I may agree that the page should be speedied, CSD A7 refers to real people or real groups of people. This article is about a fictional group. I'm afraid that it will have to go to AFD or some other venue. Stifle 19:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/DJ Sharkey (2nd nomination)
Hi Stifle. I'm just letting you (the sole delete vote) know that I closed the above debate as "Keep (withdrawn by nominator)". Any objections please let me know, but do note my outlining of how the article already asserts notability. Cheers! --kingboyk 23:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sunnydale High.jpg
Hiya, does an image of a high school have copyright ownership to anyone? Have I put it under the wrong label, what's your advice? Thanks -- Paxomen 11:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

BIYC
Hi,

I was wondering why you saw fit to delete the wikipedia page:

BIYC

The record label the page references may be slightly satirical and have a tongue in cheek attitude, but it does exist and is both popular and successful in the area of music that it aims to cover. People have described it as the V/vm of netlabels. It has recieved critical praise from fields as diverse as Ninja Tune and "We are the Music Makers".

Although I'd rather not publicise it on the main BIYC entry, the record label has a few "stars" of electronic music (from Warp Records, the same label as Maximo Park, who even if you have no interest in electronica, are likely to of heard of)recording for the label under pseudonyms (to avoid contractual infidelity). This isn't the bedroom project of a few stupid teenagers, visited solely by their friends; We have a large fan base and it's a legitimate project of at least as much validity as other small/indie record labels who have entries on Wiki. Quite why you deleted the entry for this label, yet still have entries for Mego and Merck, both of whom folded and one entry of which is a stub is unclear.

The article itself was informative, clearly written and free of S.P.A.G errors. Aside from giving away enough of the title that people old enough to know could work it out, it also had no content worth censoring.

I'm a moderator myself at XLTronic, so I know it is a nuisance responding to these sort of "why did you delete my.../ban me" posts, but in this instance I genuinely feel it is unjustified.

Cheers,

Ceri

Biyc 14:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete the page, merely userfied it to User:Biyc. Your user page is a place to tell us about yourself and your projects. Please see WP:CORP, WP:NMG, WP:N, and WP:AUTO for details of what Wikipedia includes. Thanks! Stifle 23:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Colignatus
I disagree with your handling of User:Colignatus. He has been warned many times about personal attacks on Talk:Borda fixed point, and I already gave him a strongly-worded warning on his talk page, so even if you don't believe the threats are threats, he should still be blocked for personal attacks.

Colignatus has shut down all reasonable discussion on two articles by making personal attacks and academic threats, and he has gotten the idea that he can get away with it. It accomplishes nothing at this point to say "I'm warning you, be nice or I'll warn you again."  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  15:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. I would encourage you to use the Dispute resolution procedure, including Requests for comment if you still have problems. Stifle 23:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Okay. Here's the RFC -- could you certify it?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  05:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Stifle 00:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Thanks for the welcome message and sorry for putting a speedy deletion tag which should have been a NCT tag. --Mlino76 17:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support in my RfA. It passed, with a final tally of 62/0/1. I'm touched by all the kind comments it attracted, and hope I'll be of some use with the new tools. You know where I am if you need to shout at me. Flowerparty ? 15:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Templates
Hi Stifle, I've seen you put onto a user's talk page a long notice starting: "I notice that you tagged this page for speedy deletion, with the reason..." (i.e. a CSD decline). Are you using a template to do that, and if so where is it?

If yes, please let me know on my talk page, if no then no reply is needed :-) Thanks! Not sure if I congratulated you on your promotion or not but if I didn't, congratulations - you deserve it. --kingboyk 09:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is, for the time being, manually typed, as there are simply too many variables. I may try to come up with something in the near future, and if I do, I'll let you know. Stifle 18:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Nacon kantari  e |t||c|m 23:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. I appreciate the comments you left when you voted, and I will definitely keep them in mind. If you have any other suggestions as to how I could improve as a Wikipedian, so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! &mdash;akghetto talk 07:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

PROD tag
thank you very much for reminding me about this tag, Ive been looking for it... once againg, thanks! American Patriot 1776 23:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats
Congrats on becoming an admin! I was hoping you could help with something. In deletion review (and the deletion process for that matter) and article was deleted that I believe should not have been. User:Tony Sidaway agrees. The article was deleted for notability, but the person in question was mentioned in about a dozen different mainstream media articles, included a recent front page article in the New York Times. Can you take a look and vote accordingly? The review is here. Deletion Review. Thanks. -- Alpha269 04:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I've voted to endorse the deletion, as process was followed completely. Stifle 11:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Allen Boyd.jpeg
''I noticed that you tagged the page Image:Allen Boyd.jpeg for speedy deletion with the reason "Allen Boyd has a better picture that is also in public domain. this pic serves no purpose". However, "Allen Boyd has a better picture that is also in public domain. this pic serves no purpose" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use one of our other deletion processes, proposed deletion or articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Or, in this case, you can use WP:IFD giving the reason "orphaned" (OR). Stifle 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)''


 * Thanks, this is the first time anyone has pointed that out to me, even thought I've used the speedy deletion path many times to get rid of orphaned/obsolete images I've personally encountered/obsoleted. Honestly though, it is little nitpicky rules and procedures like this that make the more complicated aspects of wiki difficult for regular users to deal with.  I don't blame you, but administrators and higher-ups, in general, have made honest, hardworking, proper-copyright-respecting contributors jump through hoops to improve this encyclopedia. I’m not blaming you, its just that frustration can sometimes get the best of me.  G'luck and happy wikipedia-ing.  Cornell Rockey 17:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. It's close to CSD:I1 (image redundant), but it does not appear to be an exact copy in lower resolution. I'm loathe to speedy images when there's even a shadow of doubt that the image is not deleteable, because image deletion is not reversible. Stifle 19:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Guyanamap.gif
Hello Stifle, Thanks for your advice for Redundant image deletion. I will be following the same procedure as you stated. But concerning the image which you are telling about that author did not make a request for deletion is quite confusing for me because on the image page itself he stated Delete this map; it has been superseded. So i think he wants to request deletion. Regards, Shyam  ( T / C ) 21:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You posted the speedy tag, but you are not the author. Kelisi is. Since he posted the map originally and then the request after that, I will now speedy it. Stifle 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for commenting on my RFA. I appreciated the comments and will endeavor to improve with my new sysop status. If there's ever anything I can do to help, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Myles Long 15:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

lol!
I forgot about that! that was my first rfc. Can it be un-done? In any case, could you give me a copy of the page and talk page? Thx and peace.--Striver 23:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would like a copy of the rfc and rfc talk page on my userspace. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 00:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's up at User:Jersey Devil/RFC and User talk:Jersey Devil/RFC. Stifle 09:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to strongly object here; I realize that I didn't sign the Cerify section, but had I realized it hadn't been done I would have done so immediately, and I am reasonably certain there are 3-4 other people who would do so. Stifle, you may have acted in accord with the letter of WP policy, but you have done the spirit a huge disservice here.  This was an active ongoing discussion, and the particular subject of it (Jersey Devil AfD'ing stuff) just happened again with another dozen or so nominations of striver's articles.
 * The letter of WP policy should never be used to destroy something which is important and in active use and not harming anyone.
 * This is already blowing up in AfD again, and now has nowhere else to go because you killed the RfC page. This is incredibly frustrating.
 * I strongly urge an undelete. If you do so, I will certify as soon as it happens and I am next logged on to WP.  If necessary I will contact others and get someone else to attest here that they will certify if you do so.  Georgewilliamherbert 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's already undeleted and userfied, see the above links. I'm sorry that you did not follow the instructions to certify the RFC, but there is no way that I can "assume" two people will support it. If you get two people to sign it at User:Jersey Devil/RFC then there's nothing at all stopping you from moving it to Requests for comment/Jersey Devil. Please remember to assume good faith and be civil. Thanks! Stifle 21:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I question whether it would be appropriate to permit certification of the uncertified and deleted RfC just because it was moved to both parties' userspace subsequent to deletion. This would seem to go against the boldly emphasized 48 hour limit.  I think a new RfC ought to be created if it is going to be pursued, with citations to attempts to deal with the problem occurring after the deletion of the uncertified RfC.  I think cutting and pasting from the prior RfC could be allowable, though the policy is silent on that point.  I note this not as an attempt to be obstructive, since I think it would be possible to find support for an RfC on either user.  I also note that any attempts to describe the failure to certify the last RfC as an oversight are disingenuous, since the fact that it had not been certified had been noted on both the Project and Discussion pages of this RfC in some detail.  Esquizombi 05:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Poloyoe
Are you handling this case? --Scaife   <font color="Red">(Talk)   <font color="Black">Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 13:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm just about to block him for 3RR. Stifle 13:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Most of the sysops logged of flast night and it seemed as soon as an article was deleted, he'd recreate it. I appreciate it, hopefully next time "cooler heads will prevail." --<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Black">Scaife   <font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="Red">(Talk)  [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.svg|18px|]] <font color="Black">Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 13:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiDefcon 1
Hello! FYI, the WikiDefcon 1 is reserved for really extreme cases of vandalism. If you feel that there is some increase of activity (I did a quick check with CDVF and couldn't spot it) it rather qualifies as 4. 3 and 2 are used when Wikipedia is assaulted by massive attack by automated/bot attack (such as SQUIDWARD). Finally, I don't know if level 1 (formerly known as "Overwhelming level of vandalism. Database lock recommended.") was ever legitimately called. Thus, I have reverted it back to 5. Please be careful in judging the situation in future not to cause unnecessary panic. Thank you, Misza 13 T C 13:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ...um... what? What did I do? I presume it was an accident, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. Stifle 13:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you got me mixed up with User:Scaife. Stifle 13:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, yes... Sorry... Actually, I'm wondering now which links did I follow to make that mistake. ;-p I'll bug him now then. Sorry again. --Misza 13 T C 13:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome new admin!
Congrats on your adminship Stifle. I'm sending you and all new admins a quick request for you to put your new admin powers into effect to assist in an important area: deleting images that have been tagged as having no source info after 7 days. The category is at Category:Images with unknown source. Most of the images have been removed from articles, but some may have been skipped. It would be fantastic if you could assist in this matter! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Snake charmer image
Hi, Stifle. Can you tell me why was speedied? — BrianSmithson 15:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup. It was a non-free image, licensed only under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs. Images uploaded since May 19th, 2005 with a nonfree license are speediable. Stifle 17:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Are CC without the non-derivs, non-commerical restrictions keepable? — BrianSmithson 18:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. All versions of CC-by and CC-by-sa are fine. With nc it's immediately speediable, and with nd I think it gets seven days for some reason. Stifle 20:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up! — BrianSmithson 20:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Orlando Eastwood
I've re-tagged this as, due to ongoing consensus to delete among registered Wikipedians, and a complete failure by supporters to produce evidence or arguments favoring notability. Unfounded dissent shouldn't automatically extend the life of an unambiguously non-notable article :)

Cheers! — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Consensus wasn't there when I untagged the page; I should prefer to see it deleted anyway. Stifle 13:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Banned for one month?
Just a question. Yoa have banned me for one month (!) from Elvis Presley, Memphis Mafia, and Elvis and Me "for violation of probation by tendentiously adding links and poorly-referenced claims." See. I do not think that this was necessary. I have only discussed some newly discovered sources with other users on the Talk:Elvis Presley page. See. As for the other pages, I only reverted repeated edits by Ted Wilkes. Certainly this is part of a long edit war. His contribution to Elvis and Me includes false information. Original quotes from Priscilla Presley's book, Elvis and Me undoubtedly prove that the following paragraph Ted Wilkes has added to the Elvis and Me page is a fabrication:
 * She says Presley was a very passionate man, however, because of attitudes at the time, strongly reinforced by his Pentecostal upbringing, he told her that her virginity was a scared thing to him. Presley's generation still had a double standard that cheered men for their sexual prowess with women, but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she was labeled a slut.

The words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" (included by Ted Wilkes) nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon search shows. See, and. I corrected the text but Wilkes repeatedly reverted my version to the fabricated one he has written. See, , , , , , etc. For direct quotes from the book, see. On the Memphis Mafia page, Wilkes is frequently deleting two external links to sites related to the Memphis Mafia arguing that these websites are "improper" and personal websites. See, , etc. etc. It seems as if Wilkes does not like the content of these pages. Significantly, the two external links to websites he had inserted are also links to personal websites. Isn't this double standard? See also this comment by administrator Tony Sidaway and Talk:Memphis Mafia. So I don't understand why you have blocked me for one month from these articles, especially since my opponent in the edit war is also on probation for his contributions (and for harassing me) (see ) and there is much evidence that he is identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack, etc., who was constantly gaming the system in the past. See. I am not sure whether User:Count Chocula, who claimed that I violated my probation, is somehow related to Ted Wilkes. Their editing interests are very similar. Onefortyone 00:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why you were banned from the articles — the ArbCom has previously found that you tendentiously pushed your own opinions on them. There does not appear to be consensus to support your own version of the article. If you feel other people are tendentiously editing, POV pushing, etc., feel free to start an RFC or RFAR. If you start an article RFC on any of these articles, then you can consider yourself unbanned from their talk pages. Incidentally, the remedy states that you may be banned if you insert poorly-sourced material, and that is what has happened. Stifle 13:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As Ted Wilkes has now been blocked for one year and I have been banned by you from the Memphis Mafia and Elvis and Me articles for one month, may I ask you to have a look at the last edits Ted Wilkes made. In my opinion, the two external links deleted by Ted Wilkes (see ) should be included in the Memphis Mafia article, especially since Wilkes has also added two external links to personal websites to that page. As for the Elvis and Me article, I think that my version is more NPOV than the version included by Wilkes, as it is based on direct quotes from the book and includes a different view based on the writings of a reputed biographer. For arguments supporting my view, see my statement above. However, you may feel free to change the wording. Thank you. Onefortyone 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm?
On the ZERO-ONE (Pokémon Snap) page, you replaced my db-bio with a redirect. However, when I clicked on the page itself, it still reflected my version (the last changes I made), and it was only by looking in the "diff" that I found out what you had done. Did Wikipedia...somehow...preserved your edit differences, but actually didn't store the edit to teh actual page itself? Or is it my browser? - Hbdragon88 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Chances are there is an issue with your browser caching the page, or that you may have somehow looked up an old version. If it persists today, try reloading the page by pressing Ctrl-F5.
 * Incidentally, db-bio can only be used for articles about real people, not fictional characters, not vehicles, and not fictional vehicles. I find prod useful for this, however. Thanks! Stifle 13:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

users that are sockpuppeting
Hiya Stifle,

I've been trying to make contributions to wikipedia, which have been constantly monitored, distorted, deleted and or vandalized by user NoToFrauds, and user Chai Walla. I think that there's a whole lot of sockpuppeting going on, which I've reported for investigation. But in the meantime, Chai Walla (aka Baba Louis aka Adityanath, I think) is guarding certain pages from constructive, verifiable edits, while simultaneously creating unverifiable edits on a page that I created. I'm sick of their interference, and their personal attacks - I'd like to see if we can make the sockpuppeting allegation investigation speedy - because they seem to be making false consensus on several talk pages, and bullying editors with their incessant destructive editing. If you want further details, let me know. But my user talk page is a start.

I've tried to be very level-headed and forgiving about this, but their consistent actions are what is giving wikipedia a bad name. I made mistakes early on, but learned from them and am taking the proper actions now, by contacting admins like you to attempt to resolve disputes. Thanks. Hamsacharya dan 10:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The best place to report sockpuppeting issues is Requests for CheckUser. Problems like you've been having could also go to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I think that, to borrow an Irish term, "there's a pair of you in it" — I have to refuse jurisdiction here. I recommend WP:RFC or WP:RFM. Thanks. Stifle 13:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

 * Copied from User talk:Werdna648.

Regarding the article Image:Jeffries anglo concertina.jpg, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "Untagged image - 7 days passed.", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because It must be tagged for seven days, not just existent for seven days.. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:IFD process. Thanks! Stifle 14:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my mistake. I read the tag as "it should be deleted on the 17th March", rather than "this image was tagged on the 17th of March". Haven't done WP:UI before so I just made a mistake with that and forgot to go back to rv. Thanks for letting me know that you've dealt with it. Werdna648T/C\@ 14:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

BooshTukka
I'd like to point out that it wasn't the number one spot on any chart, it was the "number one spot" on getoutthere.com, a radio webcast with an Alexa rank over 3 million, so I don't think that's a notability claim. But I'm not going to push. If this doesn't change your mind, let me know and I'll prod it later. Mangojuice 15:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a claim of notability that's required to stop an A7 speedy - it's intentionally narrow. I've gone off CSD patrol now and I'm over at CP, so if you re-speedy tag it some other admin will probably dump it, and what I don't know won't hurt me, eh? Stifle 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets violated the probation of Ted Wilkes
User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation. Although he is "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality" (see ), he edited the Boze Hadleigh article heavily dealing with the homosexuality or bisexuality of celebrity stars, thereby denigrating the author and reverting the edits of another user. See. Based on recent checkuser evidence, Ted Wilkes, Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike appear to be the same. See. As both Danny B. (usurped) and Karl Schalike have contributed to articles related to the alleged homosexuality or bisexuality of famous personalities (see, , , , , , , , , , etc. etc.) thereby violating the probation of Ted Wilkes (see ) more than five times, Ted Wilkes, who has wasted the time of many users, administrators and arbcom members, should now be blocked for one year or hardbanned indefinitely, especially in view of the fact that he also seems to be identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack. See. The arbcom ruling says, "Should Ted Wilkes ... edit any article from which (he is) banned (he) may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year." See. On 28 February 2006, administrator Jtdirl admonished Ted Wilkes not to breach arbcom rulings again: "You have now made 3 breaches of the arbcom ruling, the two that caused this weeklong ban and the one that caused the earlier ban. If you make 2 more at any stage before the expiry of the arbcom ruling, or its amendment, ''you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for one YEAR. " See. Onefortyone 16:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ted Wilkes had been blocked for a year by the time I got to read this, so the point is now moot. Stifle 23:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hi. I would like ask you to reevaluate your desicion on Articles for deletion/Shrines, mosques and graves, since allmost all of those delete votes was made before the article was updated. Just take a look at the afd page and you will see a clear shift in voting after i updated the article to over 100 times the volume it was when nominated. --Striver 00:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, please rename it to Salafis and Traditional Muslims reagarding graves, shrines and mosques


 * I can't second-guess the decisions of voters. If you feel that I miscounted the votes or that the deletion process was not correctly followed, feel free to use WP:DRV. Stifle 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you not agree that the article being transformed so radicaly could result in some people voting delete on something that the article was not at the end?--Striver 00:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on that. My job is not to assert opinions on the content of articles or on the reason for users' opinions, merely to properly count votes and determine consensus. Again, if you believe I have not followed the deletion process correctly, use WP:DRV. Stifle 00:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletions of images
Hi there, I notice you tagged a number of images for speedy deletion with the reason "Now useless". However, "Now useless" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I am -- Cool CatTalk 14:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)removing the speedy deletion tags.

If you feel the images are redundant copies, in the same image file format and same or lower resolution, of something else on Wikipedia, please tag them with. If you feel that the images are not useful on Wikipedia, please list them on WP:IFD. Possible reasons for this would be that the images are unencyclopedic or orphaned. Thanks! Stifle 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont have time. Notice they are orphans and I uploaded tens of better coppies. They can waiste wikipedias hardrives for all I care. I have cleaned up the images and uploaded them to commons or uploaded better coppies. Never the less its all beter now and those images will not ever be used. -- Cool CatTalk 01:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you delete the images. -- Cool CatTalk 01:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have any valid reason to unless I can see what image on Wikipedia (not Commons) that they are redundant to. Stifle 01:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You are hesitating to delete unused images.... Starfleet ranks and insignia shows all starfleet rank insignias on commons, some are red (as they are unfree images at the moment). I speedied tens of images I moved. I do not have the time to tag them one by one. Also take a look at Starfleet ranks and insignia. -- Cool CatTalk 01:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Unused" is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Nor is "now on commons". Please read WP:CSD. Thanks. Stifle 01:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See this diff for the old image for deletion and replacement image. This is the best I can do. -- Cool CatTalk 01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are just going to chant policy like that you should definately not be processing speedies. The point of spedies is to evade redundent burocracy which you seem to request me to get indulge with. -- Cool CatTalk 01:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that you understand the speedy deletion process. The point of speedy deletions is to avoid putting articles or images through time-consuming process when there is already a consensus that this category of content should be deleted, for example articles about bands that don't assert the band's notability. There is no consensus that images which are useless should be speedily deleted, unless they fulfill some other, more strict, criterion for speedy deletion. Examples include images uploaded under a fair use claim which are not used in any article and so tagged for seven days. Public domain or free license images do not qualify unless they are redundant to a higher- or equal-quality image of the same thing in the same format elsewhere on Wikipedia, and that image is specified. For example, the following cannot be speedily deleted:
 * Images that have now been uploaded on Commons
 * Images that have been reuploaded under a different license (unless the original image was fair use and the new one has a free license)
 * Images that have been reuploaded under a different format
 * They can, however, be deleted by just listing them on WP:IFD. Stifle 13:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch that. Given the diff that you specified, I can now proceed to verify the redundancy and speedily delete the old images. Thanks for your help. Stifle 13:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, the replacement images are on Commons, so unfortunately this doesn't apply. You're free to use WP:IFD or mark the pages as NowCommons as I have done here. Sorry. Stifle 13:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My bad I should have explained better. Sorry for the additional stress.
 * I uploaded the images to commons (I did not have to)
 * I renamed every referance to the en copy of the commons image (I did not have to)
 * I also speedie tagged images now wont be ever used (again I did not have to)
 * The images on commons are all pngs. Some en images were jpegs which I cleaned up and added transparancy.
 * Images had a pd license and still has a pd license.
 * The images are as redundent as it gets. They are orphaned with no hope of usage as a better copy exists in commons.
 * In the best interest of wikipedia servers the images should be deleted.
 * -- Cool CatTalk 14:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. However, they can't be speedily deleted, which is the original locus of the problem. The correct procedure is Images and media for deletion, so I did this. Stifle 16:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Interstate blank.svg
In that case, I'll just remove the category and leave a blank page, as images shouldn't be in categories like that, whether or not they're on commons. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 14:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Stifle 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't they now be deleted because they're blank? Common sense would seem to say that having no page is better than having a page - deletion policy doesn't seem to deal with the case of a description page for a commons image. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 14:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, it doesn't. However, what it does mean is that if you type in Image:Interstate blank.svg into the search box, the image and its description page come up. Try that with Image:Star Trek TNG S1 WO5.png (which is only on Commons), and you get an error. For the moment I'm inclined to keep the blank pages, if only for that reason. Stifle 14:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Llamacon (2nd nomination)
Good morning. You participated in a prior deletion discussion of this page. The page was reviewed at Deletion Review and subsequently relisted on AFD. I noticed that you don't appear to have commented in the second AFD discussion yet. So far, there has been scant participation in that discussion. If you feel it's appropriate, please join the conversation. Rossami (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Stifle 22:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfair block of Duffer

 * +Moved to User_talk:Duffer1 per Administrator Stifle's request.+*


 * Take your dispute off my talk page. WP:RFC and WP:RFM are good choices. Stifle 14:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am having no part in this dispute as I am too prejudiced in the issue to be impartial. Stifle 14:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a hint
See, covered by CSD I2. A real census sheet looks like this. Lupo 07:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Anyway, it's gone now. Sorry for holding you up. Stifle 11:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich
The above arbitration case has been closed and the finall decision published.

For the arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Article
About your message here. The language of the article is definitely Persian. The title is IRNA, Islamic Republic's new agency. Let me know if you need more help on anything. AucamanTalk 11:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

USAA
I'm going to unsprotect this now, since it's been a good while since you sprotected it. Since WP:SEMI is for dealing with serious current vandalism, 9 days seems longer than "current" can really be stretched to. Can I ask you to take a cruise through your protection log and see if you have others that got left protected? Thanks. -Splash talk 23:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Save the Game!
Help us track down verifiable sources to bring The Game back! Go to SaveTheGame.org! Bkkbrad 20:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I don't care for the article. Please don't spam. Stifle 14:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Unsepthexium
This element does exist. It doesn't matter that its name follows the standard nomenclature--after all, what else could it be called. Your reson for deletion is insufficient, and this should not be deleted.

PS: how did you get this article so fast? I only wrote it 5 minutes ago? Theonlyedge 21:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have proposed it for deletion. You can contest that by just removing the prod tag. See also Special:Newpages. Stifle 22:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Platform Sandal wood Buffalo brown.jpg
I noticed that you tagged the page Image:Platform Sandal wood Buffalo brown.jpg for speedy deletion with the reason "Image is on Commons, and the description here duplicates its information there". However, "Image is on Commons, and the description here duplicates its information there" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use one of our other deletion processes, proposed deletion or articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! See also NowCommons. Stifle 20:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice, but I do believe it can be speedily deleted (I will bring up adding a specific line item on the CSD talk page to cover this type of deletion). The image has not actually been uploaded to Wikipedia; only its description page has been edited here. Since there is nothing in the description page to warrant a seperate page on Wikipedia (i.e. categories), it can be deleted. I should've phrased my reasoning a bit better I think. Please do not delete the image now though, I will use it as an example for the proposal. &#126;MDD4696 22:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR Block
Please unblock this account User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie. Even though it technically violated 3RR, the edits are done just to revert vandalism. The account should not be blocked. JaimeitsOhNO 00:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The edits were not to revert simple vandalism, they were making noticeable changes. The 3RR applies equally to everyone - if there is a true consensus on what should be on a page, then you won't need to violate it because other people will be chipping in. Blindly reverting pages leads to edit warring and is exactly why the 3RR was instigated.
 * Because you've created another account to circumvent the blocking, I'd be within my rights to reset the block for another three hours or more. I'm not going to do that, not least because the block has now expired, but please bear it in mind in future. Stifle 00:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Imposter
JaimeitsOhNO is an imposter. I certainly would not create a sock to circumvent policy. I never claimed that the reverts were simple vandalism reverts, either. In fact, I'm guessing that an IP check would probably show that the imposter is using the same IP address as the sockpuppets mentioned in the original 3RR request.

I wasn't concerned about the three-hour time period; I'm more concerned about having a block-log record associated with my account. (See talk page note).  OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apologies concerning the incorrect suggestion of circumvention. That is withdrawn. Unfortunately, block log entries can't be deleted.
 * I'm aware you never claimed the reverts were simple vandalism reverts - that was addressed to the impostor. I hope we can put this issue to bed, at least for the remaining 15 hours of the other party's block, eh? :) Stifle 00:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Block JaimeitsOhNO IP indefinitely; if it isn't an imposter, we may find Ohnoitsjamie having difficulty accessing his account. Skycloud 09:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Already done. Stifle 12:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Image:Ealing community transport.jpg
The reason I tagged the image was because I uploaded two versions of it and I wanted to keep this one. I'm sorry for any confusion caused. --sonicKAI 15:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll assume that you uploaded it in error and delete it under db-author. Thanks. Stifle 15:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wandle Park
You beat me to it, I was on the verge of changing the CSD tag to a regular copy vio - *sigh* such is life, those with the faster pistols win :-) -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  15:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Islamophobia/Archive-1

 * Deleting Articles for deletion/Islamophobia/Archive-1 would go under housekeeping - It was a page created in error, an error which has since been rectified. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it. Deleted. Stifle 15:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Go raibh maith agat! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My first block
You blocked me for sterile reversion on Liberal democracy. I cannot complain; the two blocks produced a truce offer from Ultramarine.

I would, however, like to know how you concluded that my editing was sterile; I had intended to offer a number of different compromises, one of which stuck, in preference to a fixed text which two editors found unacceptable. Septentrionalis 15:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that things have been fixed up somewhat. Unfortunately I can't determine your intentions from the revert war. I felt that because you were both just reverting rather than discussing, the spirit and probably the letter of the ArbCom ruling had been breached. I hope that you can continue to work on a consensus version of the article. Stifle 16:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for copying onto my page. I will be more careful; I had expected the intention to be clear because I offered four different texts, one radically different.
 * One matter of detail: the actual letter of the decision was not breached; it applies only to the two articles Democratic peace theory and Criticisms of communism. I did not point this out on AN3 because the decision should have a certain elasticity, but it shouldn't apply everywhere. Septentrionalis 16:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deleting images
I don't know why you believe images aren't speedy deletable. WP:CSD specifically has a section for Images and Media. It is critically important that copyrighted material be removed from Wikipedia, particularly on breaking news stories where photos and graphics of the event made by news companies are considered vital property. This pic has also been deleted at least twice already, so it's deletion of already deleted material. SchmuckyTheCat 17:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Images are speedy deletable if they meet any of the eight General criteria or any of the five Image criteria. However, Article criteria don't apply to images, any more than image criteria apply to categories, or redirect criteria apply to user pages. Stifle 17:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio == ==

Thank you for your help. I will use the tag correctly in the future. Regards, Celcius 17:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

orton ceramic foundation copyright
please restore the orton ceramic foundation page, as I represent the copyright holder. Thank you. —This unsigned comment was added by Stuph (talk • contribs).


 * I've restored the article and listed it as a possible copyright problem. Please have someone with an email address @ortonceramic.com contact permissions@wikimedia.org (permissions at wikimedia dot org) to confirm that we have permission to release this under the GFDL. Thanks. Stifle 17:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Old version and different version
I either misunderstand the 3rr or misunderstand the presentation format. Can you tell me what I'm missing? FWBOarticle
 * The first link is to the old version, which you did correctly. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th reverts (etc.) need to be "diffs". To get these, click history, click the radio button next to the revert and the one directly below and to the left of it, then click Compare selected versions. The URL of the resulting page is what you must post as the diff. I know it's time-consuming, but it also discourages frivolous reports of 3RR violations. Stifle 22:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Milt pupique
Regarding the article Milt pupique, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "This article provides no meaningful content or history, and/or the text is unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense ( CSD G1 )", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because patent nonsense refers to jumbled words or characters arbitrarily put together, which this page is not. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:PROD process. Thanks!

Also, two other things. Please don't subst speedy deletion templates, and you're an admin, so I don't exactly get why you're tagging pages for speedy when you can just delete them yourself. Stifle 16:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello! Fair comment on both points. I've reviewed the Milt pupique article in the light of what you said and wikified it slightly.  361 Google hits might well be a case for prod, although citations and references would be of assistance in demonstrating notability.  As for your second point, I sometimes tag articles for speedy when I am paying a short visit to WP.  I do directly delete a lot of nonsense and otherwise non-notable articles, leaving warnings where appropriate.  When I know that I don't have time to follow through with warning or welcoming all of the respective authors about the criteria for inclusion on WP, I tag and leave the process in the hands of the next admin.  Regards,   (aeropagitica)   19:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hazel Fernandez
Thanks for your note. You are technically incorrect: participating in a notable activity doesn't mean that the participant is notable per se. She's a musician in a supporting band - if the article is saying the truth. I go to a notable law school and work in a notable business, both of which have articles. Should I be listed too? Regards, - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E)  17:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I did consider this carefully, and I think it's borderline. Probably better to use prod instead. Stifle 17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, prodded. Thanks. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E)  17:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Complaint about R. Koot
A short note to explain that I didn't post a complaint about administrator R. Koot. I merely responded to a section of the complaint (posted by another user) which referred to me. EurowikiJ 18:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * True. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Stifle 20:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem's Lot (disambiguation)
Could you please take a look at the conversation on the speedy deletions talk page and tell me what I can do to get this speedied? I've been trying for more than two weeks now. Nothing links to it, and the only pages it links to already link to each other. No one is disputing the deletion; it's just housekeeping. Kafziel 21:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend prod. Stifle 22:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? "Housekeeping" is one of the criteria for speedy deletions. It's a useless disambiguation page, which is actually one of the examples given under G6. Kafziel 22:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The example is a disambiguation page pointing only to one page. Not two. Stifle 22:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, are you serious? I don't think the three examples they give are meant to be the only possible instances where "housekeeping" applies. The page serves no purpose. Nobody has objected to my disambig notices at the tops of the main article pages. Nobody has done anything with the page since I rendered it obsolete a month and a half ago, except one editor today who tried to help me by putting a db tag on it (albeit, the wrong one). I had a tag on it, because it's so obviously useless that it shouldn't even need explanation; nothing links there. I'm not a vandal, I'm not a noob, and I'm not some crazy disambiguation deletionist. I know you're a little bit new at the admin thing and probably don't want to piss anyone off, but I swear - you won't. Nobody will know it's gone, and nobody would care if they did. Kafziel 00:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess a bit of WP:IAR is in order. It's gone. Stifle 11:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thank you! Kafziel 14:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cultural intelligence
Hi there. I've reverted your reversion of the redirect (!) of this page to Race and intelligence because the two concepts are totally unrelated. Cultural intelligence seriously has nothing to do with race, which a quick perusal of the results of a google search would tell you. The page should be deleted, or the article about cultural intelligence actually written. Redirects are cheap, yes, but misinformation in an encyclopaedia kind of defeats the purpose. Cheers Natgoo 22:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have returned this to a redirect. If you feel it should be deleted, please use WP:RFD. Blanking pages is bad (see No blank pages). Stifle 22:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would two totally unrelated articles be linked? It is inaccurate and misleading to have the article on cultural intelligence, an established concept in management and organisational psychology, redirect to the article on race and intelligence. There is no link between the two topics. I am well aware that page blanking is bad, but the article was created because User:Proto didn't do his research and misunderstood the concept, a misunderstanding you seem hell-bent on perpetuating. The article was created in error, and until someone has the time/ knowledge to create an article actually about cultural intelligence, the redirect is ludicrous. Natgoo 22:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then list it on WP:RFD. Stifle 22:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Have done so, but I have to say the logic is still eluding me (that misinformation is ok but deletion isn't). Natgoo 23:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Centex
I know that I'm supposed to add the website, but in this particular case I didn't have it on hand, I knew because the article itself said "From their website:" in the beginning. As for blanking the page, you ARE supposed to blank the page, see WP:COPYVIO: After notifying the uploading editor, blank the page and replace the text with

-- <i style="color:orange;">Rory</i> 0 <b style="color:orange;">96</b> 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I really need to change that back. We blank the page for regular copyvios, but not for speedies, because it saves the admin time. Stifle 22:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR
I've read the policy, but it still seems a bit convoluted. A person is allowed to make three changes to an article in one 24 hour period, correct? Changes that don't count as additional changes include 1. self-reverts, 2. rv vandalism, 3. anything else? So, if a person makes four seperate revisions in one 24 hour period that are not self-reverts or rv vandalism, then they have broken the rule, correct? black thorn of brethil 00:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Right except for one thing: it refers to "reverts", not just "changes" or "revisions". A revert is specifically the removal of material inserted in an edit with the purpose of changing the page to some previous version of that page. No user may make more than three reverts on any page in 24 hours.
 * Additionally, before you immediately say "oh I'm reverting vandalism, it's all right", please first read what vandalism is not. Stifle 11:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It is much clearer now, though still a bit sticky. black thorn of brethil 19:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion in form of renaming of account
Greetings -- thank you for your e-mail. The article you marked for deletion was, in fact, not deleted because it shows up on a lot of "Google" hits, which is inconsistent with what you stated in your note. Unfortunately, this is too much for me to keep up with, and I wish to have my moniker no longer associated with this project. Please see what you can do to speed this request along (I ask ony because it looks like a request -subsequent- to mine was acted upon). As a final aside, however, I should point out -- the original organization I attempted to create an article for is NOT mine, nor am I even a member of it. I honestly thought the article I wrote was a valid way to add to the array of various skeptical organizations out there, and though that one which has been featured in various media outlets was notable enough. If you don't believe that I'm not a member, that's fine. But that, as was everything I have and had written, is fact.

Let's hope this request will be acted upon, and we can be done with all of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username#User:Tai_Fung
 * I'm sorry that you went through Wikistress. Your request has now been processed by a bureaucrat (incidentally, normal admins can't change usernames). I apologise if I gave the impression that you were a member of the group; as I said in my email I recommend that if you wish to contribute, you try to write articles on notable subjects, that are verifiable. Thanks. Stifle 11:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Deathrocker
Well the guy is blocked until April 20, so it would probably serve minimal purpose until then. Do we expect his behavior to improve any in the future? — Mar. 30, '06 <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">[11:16] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>
 * I'm all for giving people a chance, although admittedly his portion of WP:AGF was used up quite some time ago. My own feeling would be to try one more time, with a severe warning not to blank the page, and if he does, we can be certain that there's no point trying again. I don't think he was given much warning about why blanking talk pages is bad. But I'll leave it up to you, as you've been involved; I just happened to drop by when his RFC failed to certify. Stifle 11:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, we'll see what happens. — Mar. 30, '06 <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">[11:23] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>

Image speedy deletion
Oops, I'm sorry! —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

about the betty chan talk page
Since you are the administrator you should really look at my comments from the talk page. I see no reasons for (aeropagitica)  to delete my " betty chan" post since I have all the proof the she exists and i am a former Yew chung student, I even posted the links.. although the 120 million us dollar fortune of hers might seem to be fake, I said " believed " She is close with some of our chinese teachers and they told us while we were talking about her.. as for the address "http://www.hkt.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=PCCW%2FPCCWHK%2FCustomerSupport%2FDirectories%2FWhitePagesPost&cid=993198475060&pagelang=eng&Address=&Directory=R&Lang=A&ExpandDistrict=Y&KeywordSearch=&organ=&dept=&f_name=chan&g_name=+betty+po+king&perArea=ALL&perDist=&biz_name=&bizArea=&bizDist="... Look at the tuitition fee from the Yew Chung webpage and times it by the number of students and schools. Thank you very much, I am looking forward for your reply
 * Hi there, in future please use ~ to sign your messages.


 * Talk pages of nonexistent pages can automatically be deleted. If you feel a page should not have been deleted, please list it on WP:DRV. Thanks. Stifle 23:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already listed on that discussion page.. but i have recieved no replies..Can you tell me what to do next? I need to post that page back up...=[ do wikipedia keep backups of those pages which are

deleted? thanks Snob 00:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you post the page back up it will automatically qualify for deletion, and may quite possibly end up like this, which would not be very helpful to you. Therefore you must wait until the deletion review debate resolves.
 * All deleted pages are indeed kept as backup for Wikipedia where needed, so if the debate determines a consensus that your article should be restored, there will be no problem whatsoever doing so. Stifle 11:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Biographical study of Lawrence Kohlberg
Got your note about Biographical study of Lawrence Kohlberg being duplicative of Lawrence Kohlberg not being justification for deletion. I've since discovered via Google search that most of the text of the article was copied directly from [http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm Chapter 7, "KOHLBERG'S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT", in W.C. Crain. (1985). "Theories of Development". Prentice-Hall. pp. 118-136.]. It's not just a duplicate article and a badly formatted cut and paste job, it's a clear copyright violation and has been reported as such. --John Nagle 04:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks for your good work. Stifle 11:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion request and more
Please, delete Image:LiteraturnayaKTimesK.gif (I'm the author). I would appreciate it, if you check Literaturnaya, Emilia (Bulgarian singer) and Mercedes-Benz T2 pages and make any suggestions for further editing and formatting on their talkpages. And, what sounds right? Music career or Musical career? (I need to know that, because on my user page I placed 'Music career', but I've seen 'Musical career' on other pages here. Thanks! Stanton BG 13:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't delete that image because you did not upload it. Only LuckyAfterAll can request its speedy deletion. I have already listed it on Images and media for deletion so it should be deleted on Wednesday unless somebody objects.
 * I would personally use "music career", meaning "career in music", and not "musical career", meaning "career which sounds like music".
 * I will look at those pages soon. Stifle 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted article re-created
Hi. I put Oakwood Park Grammar School, Maidstone up for speedy deletion, and manually searching the deletion log (is there a quicker way for a non-admin to find this info?) I see that you deleted it. However, it looks like it was re-created by the same user (User:Matthewlary). Could you please let me know how to proceed with letting the user know why that's improper? Thanks much, dfg 15:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've re-deleted it (you can tag recreated articles with db-repost in future) and warned the user. You can leave a friendly message like that to anyone else too in the same circumstances.. Stifle 21:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Betty chan
Sure, I'll go ahead and unprotect this talk page. I only protected it in the first place because the author of its parent page was trying to post its content there to keep it from being deleted. Incidentally, I used to tag it. --InShaneee 20:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

InfoWorld joke programming languages
I've moved the text of the original post to WikiSource. Would take a look if you still consider the article as stands worth keeping? Cheers, —Ruud 23:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Taylor
I disagree vehemently with your deletion of the page specific to Jerry Taylor, City Manager of Tuttle, OK. The page as it was when I saw it was fact-based (and anything that wasn't could have been deleted/edited).

He is, in truth, now part of legitimate computer lore, and also deserves to be cross indexed against entries for mind-numbingly stupid government functionaries. He epitomizes what is wrong with America -- You want to know why the Patriot Act was written and continued? See "Jerry".

Wonder why Open source has issues in getting understood and adopted? Check in with Jerry.

Wonder why good Tech Support Reps are hard to find? Look at Jerry's treatment of someone trying to help him.

Wonder where your tax dollars went? There he is, in full living, bigoted, self-absorbed, power-mad color.

This is not some private citizen, acting within his private life that we are discussing. This is instead an office holder, a person who under color of that government office lambasted and threatened a person who had nothing to do with the issue, and literally *invited* the public scorn and ridicule that thankfully and rightfully was brought upon him.

His ONGOING recalictrance to admit any sort of fault is news, the whoel issue is topical, it is a clear testament as to why private citizens need to support project like Wikipedia.

The fact you censored this entry, therefore, saddens me and caused me to remove you from my list of beneficiaries of my will: ACLU, Free Software Foundation, EFF, FIRE, etc.

Shame on you.

The fact it causes him a bit of discomfort and others some schradenfraude-driven glee is not the point. The point is he grossly misused his office, his position, and stupidly invited public comment, and yet refuses to engage in dialog or apology, and he deserves ignomy for that, and the public deserves to see the facts.
 * Thanks for your message. In future, please do not remove content from my talk page, please leave new comments at the bottom, and please type ~ at the end to sign your comment.
 * The page I deleted was not an encyclopaedia article, more like an attack on the subject of the article. As such, it qualified for speedy deletion under the Deletion policy. If you object to the decision, please use WP:DRV. Stifle 00:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)