User talk:Stifle/Archive 0309a

Doctations
I noticed you declined the A7 speedy request on this article, which I stumbled across by accident. Looking at the history it seems that the editor of the article is Louis Cornacchia, the CEO of the business in question. Given the overall tone of the article as an advertisement, and some bizarre references to Barack Obama's website health careplans broadly, I am tempted to delete the whole thing as an advertisement violation. Although there is a reference link to CNBC the CNBC listing is, literally, another advertisement only for Doctations. Would you agree with this or should I stay my hand? –– Lid(Talk) 14:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a blatant ad and I wouldn't speedy it, but it could certainly be AFDed/PRODded. Stifle (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI about a DRV
Hey Stifle, I thought I'd inform you about this...I opened Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_2 (an AfD you closed) because there were some issues with IP socking that may have changed the outcome. Please stop by, if you can, and add your input. Cheers, &mdash; Scientizzle 17:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

New issue, OTRSing
Hi. A contributor would like to know if he may proactively release future publications on his website. I imagine this is possible. Donating copyrighted materials used to sort of say so. I could also imagine that it would be complicated if he wants to release only some subpages or something along those lines. Are you able to weigh in on this at User talk:Glaan? I told him I would ask a member of the Communications Committee and thought you might be able to help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll reply over there. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Querry about OTRS tickets related to livius.org
2007013110009589 is referenced from these images:


 * File:Bishapur relief 2 1.jpg
 * File:Bishapur relief 4 1.jpg
 * File:Cave shapur3.jpg
 * File:Bishapur temple anahita 3.jpg
 * File:Bishapur relief 5 2.jpg
 * File:Kangavar2.jpg

But all of them have the following text on their description pages With permission granted by the authors to download, copy, re-format and redistribute the pictures for use on computers, computer networks or as a printed publication, provided that no fees are charged for their distribution. Emphasis mine. That sounds like a pretty straight forward non-commercial use only license wich is not acceptable last time I checked. The terms on the site itself mirror this stating (...)hereby allow you to download, copy, re-format and redistribute the pictures for use on computers, computer networks or as a printed publication, provided that This also applies for Wikipedia-contributors: please do not describe the picture as "in the public domain" but as "from Livius.Org, with permission". Does the OTRS ticket contain a waiver for the non-commercial bit, or is this a "grandfathered" ticket from before non-commercial licenses where officialy "banned"?
 * you charge no fees for their distribution,
 * are not a commercial website (with e.g. advertisements),
 * add a link to www.livius.org (or add a similar acknowledgment in print).

This got me a little worried because there are at least 100 images in total from livius.org on Commons (Commons:Category:Images from Livius.org with subcategory), I haven't checked all of them but several are tagged with a GFDL or CC license, some mention non-commercial only use and others not. Also found a second ticket: 1368643 applied to:


 * File:365 Crete Earthquake, Apollonia, Map (Jona).gif
 * File:365 Crete Earthquake, Apollonia, Pier (Jona).JPG

So what I'm wondering is: Are those images wtih OTRS tickets attached ok (that is have commercial use been explicitly allowed despite what they say on their website/image description), and also does those tickets pertain to only those few images or is it a general release that can be considered to cover all the other images from the site that are currently hosted on Commons?

The reason I stumbled onto this was by the way (I advocated speedy deleting the image, as I had not seen those OTRS tickets at the time). If you find anything that might be relevant to that it would be good if you could drop a note there.

Thanks and sorry about the wall of text. --Sherool (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to read the first ticket. The second one is a valid CC-BY-SA release, so those latter two images are good. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Got the access started out. 2007013110009589 doesn't give any license that's usable here. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the entirety of Commons:Category:Images from Livius.org may need to be deleted. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Global partnership center
Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't sure in this case because it looked like the description was for a separate, but affiliated organization, and was simply listed on the D.O.S. website - didn't think that would technically qualify as a work of the federal government. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 21:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Stage curtains.jpg
Not unreasonably you have flagged this for deletion. May I ask you, please, to look at what appear to be unusual circumstances surrounding it, since it MAY be part of OTRS ticket 2006051810015476

I think it may have been assumed when it was uploaded that it was so covered. Please see Talk:Theater drapes and stage curtains.

I tried (and obviously failed) to send an email to OTRS about this a couple of weeks ago asking that this be regularised. It looks to me as though the uploader intended that it was covered by that ticket since they created the entire page including the image from copyright material that they released.

I have no access to OTRS, but suspect it is part of a misunderstanding rather than malicious breach of copyright. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't access that ticket, sadly. I'll go bother someone who might have access. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That OTRS ticket refers to the text on that website, not any images, sorry. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've emailed the uploader to ask them to resolve it. While their intention may be obvious it appears that their actions were insufficient.  Thank you both for checking.  I hope the deletion will be simply temporary.  The image is extremely useful.  I've never seen anything as good anywhere with suitable licensing.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability (Fiction)
There seems to be some progress being made towards redrafting the guideline. Most of the arguments for a permissive guideline seem to have been countered in the sense that they have been found not to be viable. My attempts to obtain a compromise earlier this year seem to be leading towards a slightly stricter applciation of WP:V for fiction that should discourage topics which are only the subject of in universe plot summary, trivia and cruft. A recent post at WT:FICT seems to make this clear. Can you provide some cool and clear support towards drafting a compromise that is compliant with existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines? --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look, but not immediately. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

GFDL 1.3 template
Hey Stifle, I moved the template to GFDL-1.3-only and salted the original name. The reason for this was to prevent the type of widespread confusion that occurred with GFDL-1.2, where most of the people using the template were intending to actually use the regular GFDL template, but used the wrong name. I also changed the template reference in the 2 images that were using the template. As soon as GFDL 1.2 gets cleaned up some more (JohnnyMrNinja is in the process of individually vetting all the images currently using the template), I'm going to try to do the same thing there. Just thought you should be informed. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems fine. Needless to say, the uploader of any image should be the only one to change the licensing tag to something more permissive. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does "GFDL 1.3 only" even really work, seeing as how part of GFDL 1.3 is the option to move to CC? Does this tag then exclude that option? Also, was this tag created for a specific purpose? GFDL 1.2 was almost deleted recently on Commons, and it may still be soon. Hopefully it will be here sometime soon. This tag is very limiting and probably shouldn't be given as an option. And don't worry about my processes on emptying Category:GFDL 1.2 images. The only ones I actually changed the tag on were directly contradicted by the uploader's text, or by an additional GFDL tag, or by the tag on the original image it was based on. The rest were either deleted or moved to Commons. The tag was created by User:Ram-Man because he wanted to use it, but he's posting directly to Commons now.
 * Was there a specific reason that this tag was created? Because I'd very much like to not have it here, and if there is not a specific reason to have it then we should probably at least wait until there is. Please see Licensing update/Questions and Answers and Template talk:GFDL-1.2-en. If you actually read this far, thanks! ~  JohnnyMrNinja  23:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I created the GFDL-1.3 tag because some OTRS tickets came in licensing images under GFDL 1.3 only. It would be a copyright violation to put a GFDL 1.2 and later, or a GFDL any version, or any other license tag on the images. GFDL 1.3 is a valid free license, although not an especially good one, and it is correctly not an option on the license selector. Indeed, no GFDL-only licenses are there.
 * I would support deprecating all GFDL license tags for images, because they put silly restrictions on reuse, but they are still free licenses and images should not be rejected just because they're tagged with one. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

International treaties and you. Or, really, us.
Besides the fact that it actually involves Pakistan and China and should, if legal, be on Wikisource, do you have any insight on this? (Complicated explanation: user places 1963 primary source document legal treaty between Pakistan & China. CorenSearchBot cries foul. User says it is public record. Both Pakistan & China are members of the Berne Convention. China does not protect government documents by copyright. I don't know about Pakistan. And I have no idea how US law treats international treaties. If you don't, either, I'll bounce around until I find somebody who does. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Eeps. This is a bigger issue than I knew. It involves at least one other article, . (DumbBOT has been broken, but is now listing at CP again. I'm peeking ahead at next week's crop.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC) (Oh, wait. That one's easy. It's PD by date....)
 * It looks like the criteria at PD-US-1996 would be satisfied for that frontier agreement. Amritsar treaty is PD-US as published before 1923. Both should, of course, be transwikied to Wikisource. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) It may be that the first one is already at Wikisource. Since posting this, I've discovered that Treaty of Amritsar is (and we already have an article on it at Treaty of Amritsar, so I've redirected). I'm going to point the contributor to Wikisource, since that seems to be his aim. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, a procedure has been developed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OTRS matter
Hi. Can you check on an OTRS letter? The subject line is "Fwd: Re JFK History". I believe it will have issued from n DOT zoffel AT gmail DOT com, who is to be found at User talk:Nzoffel. It is in reference to John F. Kennedy High School (Richmond, California), which draws heavily from. This gentleman is anxious to clear this matter up. Given that I've several times redacted his personal contact information (and that a google search confirms that a man of his name with his phone number exists), I'm inclined to believe he's very much legit. :) He's worried that he hasn't received a reply yet, though I suspect it's only been about 24 hours since he sent his letter. And, of course, he might have received a reply in the 12 or so since he asked me to check. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. The email is 1 day 17 hours old at the moment, so nobody had got to it yet. (The current OTRS wait time is about four days.)
 * If you've got a few spare hours, you may wish to explain to Mr. Zoffel the distinction between "public record" and "public domain", but the email he sent in was an explicit PD release, so I've cleared the copyvio and added an OTRS template. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I had a feeling he was over-eager. :) I appreciate info on the lag time at OTRS! I'll use that as an estimate when I'm talking to people in the future. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray Joseph Cormier
Just for my own understanding, you have removed the AfD tag on the subject saying no consensus was reached. As an Editor, was this your unilateral decision to remove it? Can any Editor, in reading the discussion, come to the conclusion you did? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please excuse me if my input is unwelcome. :) I'm watching Stifle's page because of the above, and noted your question. Articles for Deletion are usually closed by uninvolved administrators, who weigh the arguments in comparison to policies and guidelines and determine the consensus of the community. Generally speaking, editors who are not administrators are not encouraged to close AfDs when the outcome is delete or no consensus, although it is more widely accepted that they do so if the outcome is clearly some form of "keep", including merge and redirect. See Non-admin closure. In determining the outcome of AfDs, admins are guided by Deletion guidelines for administrators. (Also please excuse me if I'm overlinking; since I'm unfamiliar with you, I'd rather overlink than underlink.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. I´m curious because the article was nominated for deletion twice within two weeks for the same reason. The first consensus was Keep, and a tag was placed in the article Talk where those discussions could be seen. A new tag was placed in the article Talk, but the discussion for the 2nd AfD is not there. It links to the 1st discussion. I´m wondering why? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The AfD template for article talk pages defaults to the first discussion. I don't know, but I would imagine that Stifle simply overlooked altering the template to link to the 2nd discussion. I've replaced both templates with one that can be used when an article has been nominated multiple times, so both discussions are now conveniently linked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help on this, Moonriddengirl. DoDaCanaDa, if you need anything more, please let me know. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. My questions have been answered. User:Sarcasticidealist now has all the original references and more in hand, and is doing a major re-write. Now, it´s only a matter of waiting to see what he does with them.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pier Solar and the Great Architects
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pier Solar and the Great Architects. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PabloGS (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you were the last to contribute to the Pier Solar talk. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and have yet to find out how things work around here. To me this all is just a mess and I'm trying to find my way through here which is not easy. As for the personal attack... Sorry, but you do have to confess you are a deletionist. Yes, since you were the last one on the talk page I assumed you were the one who deleted it. I apologize. I guess I'll have to talk to user:kurykh then. Or what would I have to do to get the page undeleted and reopened for editing? Since the talk about the deletion a significant amount of new information has come up and I feel like everyone is just ignoring this. So are you willing to help me? PabloGS (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh... And that Warning was not very nice and inappropriate! Dude, you should stay cool! I'm new to wikipedia and have yet to find out how things work! Be more tolerant next time! Please! PabloGS (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OTRS question
Hello. Currently there is a request for protection of the Commission for Taxi Regulation article over at WP:RFPP that cites this OTRS ticket. Since it appears you're active now, if you have a spare moment could you determine if the page needs to be protected? Thanks in advance. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to that ticket. Which is a pity, because I'm in the same city as the CTR :( Stifle (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the article history, it would seem that it's just vandalism that happened to be there for longer than usual. We don't do indefinite full protection for situations like this. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That is what I was going to do, but i wanted to at least make the attempt the read the ticket first. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My oops on Dan Schlund
Hello again. I'm sorry, went and did this after you had declined the protection. I think I just tabbed back the RFPP w/o refreshing and didn't see you had declined until a couple of minutes ago. Since I've now punched up a post about it on the talk page I'm inclined to just let it be for the time being. I have absolutely no problem with you or anyone else lifting it now or at any time however. And, if you want me to lift it, just let me know. Sorry again. :( Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, no biggie. Thanks for the message. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen
Thanks for the semi-pro so quickly. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:User:Stifle/deletionhelp
Template:User:Stifle/deletionhelp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. A NobodyMy talk 17:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Stifle/deletionhelp
User:Stifle/deletionhelp, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stifle/deletionhelp and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Stifle/deletionhelp during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. A NobodyMy talk 18:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this...
...I think it can be reconstructed in a manner that only includes the citable ones from such sources as this. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I won't oppose recreation with proper sourcing, but the article at the moment is a mess. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is much easier to improve from what we have. Anyway, I started adding a section based on the published book from a Google Book search.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Commission for Taxi Regulation.
Re. I doubt escalating it will help. The best thing I've found is to keep deleting the libel, and telling them I've requested protection (making no claim that it will be protected) - keeping replies to the bare minimum. The BLP noticeboard doesn't seem to work with low notability/"non sexy"/"boring subject" libel, and that's not what the OTRS IRC watchlist is for either. Since admins rarely if ever fully protect long-term account libeled BLPs, or then watch those unprotected articles, any more contact must end up as "Sorry - WP's low notability threshold, and emphasis on editability rather than decency, means you're screwed." -- Jeandré, 2009-03-06t18:41z

Regarding this
Please note: this parameter and this parameter, which turns up coverage in reliable news and book sources. Please keep in mind Potential, not just current state. Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that they are non-trivial mentions. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how they can be seen as trivial as they are multiple references in publications indpendent of the subject that discuss it in more than just a sentence or two. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess we will have to disagree on this one. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, thank you for deleting that one item. If you would like any help with improving any articles, please do not hesitate to ask!  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this
Please note that sources do attest to its notability, i.e. "the story most familiar with US audiences" and that is verifiable in published books. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Any chance of independent, reliable sources, like mainstream newspapers, magazines, etc.? Stifle (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The first one I quote from is an independent reliable source. The second one is a published book, i.e. a reliable primary source like a press release from the Academy Awards announcing winners would be a reliable primary source.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:27, 6 March 2009 (U1TC)
 * To me, it looks like the first is a comic fansite, and the second is written by fans. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Both were found on Google News and Google Books and not with a general Google Search. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Press releases would be too; that proves nothing I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It proves that reliable sources exist. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems like faulty logic. "Some reliable sources exist on Google Books/Google News" and "this source appears on Google Books/Google News" does not imply "this is a reliable source". Stifle (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That particular comic site is a reliable one for this subject and the book is also a reliable one for this subject as well. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say I agree with you on that. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can't. The first is a reliable comic site; the second a printed book.  Surely, that's enough to use for a merge, redirect, etc?  Also, how does one transwiki?  Is there a list somewhere where we can list articles to transwiki?  Can only admins do that?  Do you need membership in the other wikis?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for transwiki can be listed in the appropriate section of WP:OLD once the AFD closes. They can be exported using Special:Export and imported into another wiki using Special:Import. This will keep the history intact. The permissions needed to perform a transwiki vary by wiki.
 * It's also possible to do a copy-paste, and copy-paste the history as well into the talk page of the target article. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So, if I list articles at Old to be transwikied (even deleted ones) with a link to a transwiki site, someone will come along and do it? For example, say...
 * Creatures of Kyralia to []
 * Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They're normally listed there when an AFD is closed with the outcome of transwiki, as opposed to users making requests to transwiki articles already deleted.
 * I've transferred that article to the Wikia page you mentioned.
 * I don't know if you are able to export pages, but if you are, I would suggest exporting pages and saving them to your hard disk when they look like an AFD is likely to delete them. You can then import them into an appropriate other outlet. If you've missed the chance and the article has been deleted, I'd be happy to transfer articles for you if given a "from" and "to" (although if you have a very long list, I'll do it over the course of a few days). Obviously, personal attacks, copyvios, and BLP violations won't be transferred. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm going to start working on a list at User talk:A Nobody/Deletion discussions and will get back to you. Is there a list of wikis anywhere?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you tried list of wikis? I'm not familiar with Wikia, but it probably has a list of projects too. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'll check it out. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Billion Ernies
How did this meet G8 by any chance?  Majorly  talk  22:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to A Billion Ernies, which got deleted at an AFD. Stifle (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray Joseph Cormier AFD
Could you briefly explain how you got no-consensus out of that AFD? 7 to 3 to keep, the article had been kept within the last 2-3 weeks, and it has plenty of sources (not from the same geographic area) from major papers. I don't understand how that isn't a keep result. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
 * I did, and it seemed as if it said "don't ask me questions about AfDs, just bring them to DrV". Perhaps I clicked the wrong link?
 * The primary reason was that many of the keep !votes were technical reasons (such as too soon since the previous nomination, which isn't a very good reason). A no consensus is no different than a keep result, though, so even if I agreed that a keep outcome would be correct, amending it wouldn't really accomplish anything. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it wouldn't change the result this time, but given the animosity directed toward this user here, I've little doubt we'll be seeing an AfD of this article again in the near future. Further, isn't generally the case that we delete a BLP on no-consensus?  In any case, I think it does matter here and I'd appreciate it if you'd consider looking at it again.  Hobit (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed it did; I do recommend bringing issues like this directly to DRV because I rarely find myself changing the decision.
 * It is often, but by no means always, the case that BLPs are deleted on a no consensus, but I think that a decision to delete on the !votes presented would almost certainly be overturned. You're welcome to list this one at DRV, but if you're looking to get the no consensus overturned to a keep, you are unlikely to get much mileage there. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. And I have a queue of things I want to bring to DrV already.  But I do think this was a pretty poor close and adds to an already negative situation with respect to this BLP.  So we'll see.  Hobit (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross
SDF-1 Macross has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous AfD about a different article involving the same cartoon series. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Faith in Place rewritten
Hi, this article has been rewritten, if you could please revisit Articles for deletion/Faith in Place to see if your concerns have been addressed. If not I would be happy to address any outstanding issues. Thank you! -- Banj e b oi   10:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul Tracy 1993 image
Why is the image of Paul Tracy's car from 1993 "criteria for speedy deletion"? 97.125.28.1 (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
 * It is believed that this image may fail criterion 1 of our non-free content criteria because it is replaceable by a free image that exists or could be created or by text. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

DELETION OF Brandon Raynor's School of Massage and Natural Therapies
I wish to challenge the deletion of a page that you deleted. 16:17, 11 February 2009 PMDrive1061 (talk | contribs) restored "Brandon Raynor's School of Massage and Natural Therapies" ‎ (3 revisions restored: Legit, notable subject).
 * The page title is Brandon Raynor's School of Massage and Natural Therapies.
 * I have read the reason for deleting the page and I feel it was incorrect because there are many other sites exactly like mine and it was already approved by en editor
 * The following sources back up my claim:
 * SOURCE 1 16:17, 11 February 2009 PMDrive1061 (talk | contribs) restored "Brandon Raynor's School of Massage and Natural Therapies" ‎ (3 revisions restored: Legit, notable subject)

Please see Health Schools Australia and Bancroft School of Massage etc as listed in my talk page. these are all similar pages Please consider restoring this article. Jaya1401 (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Brandon Raynor
 * Thank you for your message.
 * Please note that just because another page exists does not mean all similar pages should exist. Please also note that PMDrive1061 restored the page because he did not consider it to be advertising, but the page was deleted because it made no claim as to how Brandon Raynor's School of Massage and Natural Therapies is notable.
 * If you believe that Brandon Raynor's School of Massage and Natural Therapies meets the notability criteria for companies, which you can read at WP:CORP, please let me know which one, and specify what independent sources I can check to verify your claim. If you do, I will consider restoring the page. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Cellebrum
I've replied to your question in WP:DRV --  Chzz  ►  13:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:
You have twice previously blocked the user WebHamster, so you must be aware of his previous problems. Recently he has been engaging in some extremely uncivil behavior at and  and. Would you please consider reapplying that block? TharsHammar (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left him a warning. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Deletion
The reason I marked that as I did was the CorenSearchBot said it came from MarioWiki.com. So, I thought it was the best choice. I am a little new to the New Article patrolling, so I do apologize for the mistake. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • March 9, 2009 @ 22:35

Re Articles for deletion/Faith in Place
Just a note that an article whose AfD you commented in is now the topic of a Deletion for Review discussion. Deor (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Deletion of FlowMingle Article
Recently the Wikipedia article for FlowMingle was deleted. I did not have a chance to petition for the article on its talk page. The article was marked with the db-spam tag.

A additional comment regarding the deletion of this article was sent to the admin who placed the db-spam tag. It can be viewed here User_talk:Blanchardb Please Read.

The article meets many criterion that merit inclusion, yet it was still flagged as spam. I believe the article is of encyclopedic matter and notability as described here:

NOT & Notability_(web)

Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known.

from the deleted article

Website's achievements:

http://mashable.com/2008/11/30/dating-site/

Impact or historical significance:

FlowMingle abandons the notion of a ‘profile’ and does not use personality testing. Instead FlowMingle relies on daily group interaction and a guided introduction process in an attempt to create an inherently social and more engaging experience.

and the article is "significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since [it] incorporate[s] new developments and facts as they are made known" (NOT)

There are several similar websites in the same sphere as FlowMinlgle that have Wikipedia articles, including: MyLoL, True.com. Spray Date, ShakeMyWorld, OkCupid, Zoosk, Match, eHarmony... The FlowMingle article was created using appropriate elements from the aforementioned Wikipedia articles as templates, and the FlowMingle article is no more suitable for the "db-spam" tag.

Regarding the "db-spam" tag, specifically "CSD G11":

Criteria_for_speedy_deletion

''Blatant advertising. Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.''

I believe the article to be written from a neutral point of view and to not be "blatant advertising" and that it did not need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic (as referenced above with examples).

I understand the importance of keeping Wikipedia free from spam and vandalism, thank you for your diligent work. I appreciate your assistance in helping this and other articles become appropriate Wikipedia material.

Thank you for your consideration in this case

''Personal Post script: One thing that I've learned from the online dating realm is that it is full of bad behavior, spam, trite advertising, manipulation, the treating of people as commodities, never offering a genuine and sincere way to get to know someone online... online dating has a horrible reputation. Overcoming that reputation is seemingly impossible, especially considering the hurdles and barriers to entry. I am inspired though, by the reality that there is so much room for improvement; encouraged by the belief that a small person like me can step up and do something to nurture something good in humanity, treat others like real people deserving of love.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildtenderness (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. In future, please try to choose the correct selection from the message menu. You chose "other deletion", when the correct choice was "speedy deletion".
 * FlowMingle was deleted under criterion 7 (under Articles) of our criteria for speedy deletion because it appeared to be an article about which didn't indicate why it was important or significant. Please see  for details of what might show notability. If you think that these criteria are met, please explain which one and provide citations from reliable sources to back up your claim, and I will consider undeleting it.
 * You may alternatively file a deletion review request. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Iclaudius.jpg
Hiya,

Can you tell me why you deleted File:Iclaudius.jpg please? Maybe I forgot to put a proper fair-use message in, or something?

Also, I don't appear to have received any notification that it was deleted on my talk page?

Thanks,

--  Chzz  &nbnbsp;  15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
 * File:Iclaudius.jpg was deleted because it was marked by Melesse as a fair use image for which a free equivalent may exist or could have been created. I am unable to say why Melesse may not have contacted you. Furthermore, it did not specify a valid article name on which the image would be used. If you can explain why there is no free equivalent to this image, and provide the name of an article where it will be used, I will consider undeleting the image. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Article A Touch of Murder
 * Fair use rationale:
 * No free alternative exists.
 * It is of a low resolution, meaning copies made from it will be of poor quality.
 * The article discusses what the image depicts, a memorable and iconic part of the episode.
 * It does not limit the copyright holder's ability to profit from the work.
 * template to use is
 * --  Chzz  ►  15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The image has been restored. Please add your rationale, ensuring that you properly attribute the copyright holder and add the image to a page within 2 days, as otherwise it may be deleted again. Stifle (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that the existing rationale is the one I originally put on - i.e. the error was, I put square brackets around the name, but apart from that it was OK? --  Chzz  ►  17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems fine. You might want to clarify on the image page why this image is not replaceable by a free image. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion
- I am not always very clear on the grayer areas of copyright, would you mind commenting on this image? Is the ad original and creative? Would this image need to be fair use? Thanks. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  12:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Replying over there. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)