User talk:Stifle/Archive 0408c

Your closure of 3RR case against Scjessey was in based on a false premise
...as I've pointed out. The requirement for transparency in admin actions indicates that you should reply. Please do so there. Andyvphil (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, but you could be nice about it too. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ali Baksh
This close was actually done on time. Its from the backlog. Id suggest you either revert it/undue it, or delete it. I'm fully aware of how to close these, thanks. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the section that said it was closed early, but it was a close call which per WP:DPR should be closed only by an admin. I've contributed to the discussion so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to close it. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah you added a link to an essay. I don't see this as grounds for deletion. And the same goes for Articles for deletion/New Age communities. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * None of this changes the fact that close calls are supposed to be left to admins to close. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if this should be taken to AN/ANI right about now. This has came up on there before and I found it both useful and in my favor. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, listed at WP:AN. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Sorry, but I have sent you an email. I know you ask us not to, but I had my reasons. --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't access it from work, which is where I am now, so it'll be later today before I see it. Just to let you know why I don't reply shortly bearing in mind I'm online now. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. It's not bonkers urgent... Cheers --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarumio's block
Not sure I've ever done this before but thanks for your backing in my block of Sarumio. You echoed my sentiments precisely, just in a much more elegant manner! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Flakes41
Thanks for the message - I've reviewed my original decision, and stand by it. Reasons include :


 * His names fits the profile for Creamy3 sock/meatpuppets - although I accept that in and of itself this isn't exactly a smoking gun.
 * He voted in support of Creamy3 here, four days after Creamy3 was indef blocked, and ignoring a message to that effect a couple of lines up.
 * Here he added himself to the list whilst removing Creamy3 at the same time.
 * He didn't mind when another editor vandalised his userpage.
 * He shows up adding himself to this page, as had Creamy3 and Creamy4 before him.
 * Ditto - the only other editor he's ever left a message for is here, where Creamy3 features heavily in the recent history.

Too much, in too few contributions, to be a coincidence, in my view. The unblock request isn't particularly plausible, but is precisely the sort of unblock request I'd expect a sock to come up with...anyway, I'm happy for you to have a look and draw your own conclusions. The public face of GBT/C 16:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting that reply together. I'm convinced and the unblock request has been declined. Stifle (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat image
I think you made a mistake. I don't remember uploading any picture(s) of Saeb Erekat. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You did edit one. But you can feel free to ignore this message. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yea, I did that with all images of Fatah members. I'll probably just ignore its deletion. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

preemptive vs. in-progress
Hi there. You just declined an informed request for page protection on grounds that we don't protect preemptively. But a casual inspection of recent revision history shows an edit war in progress. Why do you wish to wait until a 3RR rule becomes a factor? The request is predicated on the ongoing multi-week debacle on International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence -- the very same edits, the very same information, the very same contention, POV-pushing, falsifications, and reverts. Please reconsider. --Mareklug talk 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can indicate the section of the protection policy which applies here, I will do so. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe it is the section "Content disputes" and the Arbitration Committee's probation imposed on Kosovo-related articles, administered as part of the Macedonia/Balkan region probation. The recent edit revision history of the article I am requesting full page protection for, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, extends the editorial conflicts addressed on talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Instead of blocking the page, you could block User:Tocino for deliberately introducing false information (e.g., he put in that 32 countries have officially rejected the independence of Kosovo while sourcing this claim and list of countries ostensibly with references, which on examination, reveal the claim to be false and the list of not-recognizing countries, padded with countries which took no such position -- for example, Morocco, Portugal, India have not acted officially to deny recognition; for Morocco, we don't even have any information as to its reaction, other than a press account labeling Morocco as "concerned"). Or, your could warn User:Tocino for repeated removal of neutral, inclusive of the opposing viewpoints map display, in favor of retaining only one of the maps. That contribution expressly censors the competing POV and removes the undisputed who-recognized-officially-only green/gray map used in the main article. But blocking User:Tocino would impair the ongoing RFC about the Wikipedia name use for Prishtina, the capital of Kosovo. Merely warning, would keep the user editing, and there is a chance, that warned, he might come around to consensus, or at least, give up introducing false information and removing NPOV map documentation, since he has already recently been blocked for 24-hours for edit warring on this topic and acknowledged having been placed on probation. Alternatively, you could block from edits both him and me, but that would be entirely unfair to me, as I am working to keep the article, and in fact all of Wikipedia, factual and correctly sourced, free of POV, and I have not been disruptive. My edit history shows that my edits range all over the map.  Here, by augmenting Serbian reaction section and introducing the Serbia's reaction article, I represented the Serbian viewpoint.  I also took my map improvements to the talk page, and justified them there. And, once again, since you wrote back to me, User:Tocino reverted my corrections to his claims, restoring the 32 opposing countries texts, and reintroduced the one POV only map situation. User:Tocino described my earlier revert as vandalizm his edit summary. --Mareklug talk 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, this is too much for me to follow. Please use WP:RFPP, or if people have broken the 3RR, use WP:AN3. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Page Deletion (PaulDotCom Security Weekly)
Hi Stifle,

I just noticed you deleted the PaulDotCom Security Weekly page for not being notable enough. The information posted in the initial page was only the start, as there is definitely more to be put on there. I definitely feel it is relevant as it is one of the most popular security podcasts out there, and the team is involved in many interesting projects. If anything it is just as relevant/notable as Security Now!, another security podcast. So I don't see why my page would be deleted, when the other has been accepted. I'd appreciate it if we could restore this page, as it was highly relevant to people in the security industry. Thanks in advance. Seceditman (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message.
 * PaulDotCom Security Weekly was deleted per item 7 under Articles on our criteria for speedy deletion, namely that it was an article about web content which did not explain how it was significant or important.
 * Please note that per our policy on ownership of articles, the article is not your page.
 * You can feel free to recreate the page, but you must explain what makes the podcast notable, and include citations from reliable sources to comply with our verifiability policy.
 * Alternatively if you believe I have acted inappropriately in deleting this page you may file a deletion review request. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reply. Just for clarification, by 'my page' I simply meant the page I created. I have no delusions of ownership whatsoever ;) I do understand your points, and the wikipedia criteria, but as I said there IS significant information missing that I was not able to post all in one go (time consuming). Furthermore the page does (and will) contain information that is quite relevant to those in the security industry. I wouldn't say you've acted inappropriately, as I see your points, but I feel the article will qualify as a valid page. Would you recommend re-submitting the page? Or requesting a review? Thanks again for your time. Seceditman (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you need time to put the page together then your best option is to create a user subpage where you can assemble the article in peace before using the Move option to place it at its new title. It'll still need citations from reliable sources to comply with our verifiability policy. If you like, I can transfer the deleted article to such a subpage for you. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd very much appreciate that, and I'll do my best to get it up to scratch. Thanks Stifle! Seceditman (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, you'll find the article at User:Seceditman/PaulDotCom. Happy editing! Stifle (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

re:Rollback warning
That rollback was used on a highly-vandalised page and an appropriate warning pertaining to lack of reliable sources was placed on the editor's talk page. - eo (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

more on "4 Minutes"

 * Hi. I really don't want to spend more time on this, but I wanted to let you know I have added a comment to your request for protection on the "4 Minutes" article here.  If you really want to, check the edit histories of the Talk Pages for these two editors.  I attempted communication and left warnings on their Talk Pages, and these were ignored and later deleted from their pages (incidentally, IP64.140.0.3 made identical edits and then blanked his own Talk Page and removed my comments from Alkclark's User Page, which is suspicious in itself).  The "4 Minutes" article now presents information according to WP:CHARTS guideline (which was my point from the beginning), so things seem to have calmed down.  I've protected this page in the past as it sees a lot of vandalism and misinformation added, so a protection now is certainly something I am not against.  Just wanted to clear that up.  Thanks. - eo (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So noted. I'm not going to decide the protection myself but I will watch the page. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Three revert rule
I think you may have left a comment on my page in error. I have not reverted the article "4 Minutes" three times within 24 hours. JKW111 (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed you have not, but you have been involved in reverting it there. I was merely bringing the limitation to your attention. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Making any reverts does not amount to an edit war, which you suggest I have engaged in. Please clarify if you believe this to be the case. JKW111 (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not clear why you placed the warning in the first place. There was an apparent edit war going on in that article, but my edits during that time were completely unrelated to the disputed content. If you look at my user page, I am aware of editing policies, that why if I make any change (other than correcting formatting or reverting vandalism etc) I always explain why, and if any change I make is challenged, I go to discussion rather than making any further edits. I really think that the threat of blocking me because of the 3-revert rule and edit wars was out of line. I have noticed that you have given similar warnings to a number of editors, and this has sometimes been done without an apparent understanding of why reversions are being made. I would like to think that this type of thing does not happen to people who are genuinely trying to improve the standard of articles, acting in good faith, and within the policies. JKW111 (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The three-revert rule applies irrespective of the reason for your edits (except for some very narrow exceptions. I am not saying people aren't acting in good faith, but revert warring, even with the best intentions, isn't helpful. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't answer my question. Do you place this warning, accusing people of edit warring, on every user who makes a single revert? This is a serious allegation. Please list the specific recent reverts of mine that you read that led you to place this warning on my talk page. JKW111 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I give the uw-3rr warning to any user who may need to be advised of the three-revert rule. I left it on your talk page due to the following reverts or apparent reverts on 4 Minutes (Madonna song):
 * 12:13, 10 April 2008
 * 12:43, 10 April 2008
 * Having made two reverts in half an hour, I wished to bring the 3RR to your attention. Nothing more. With all due respect, you are taking this a little too seriously and if you feel so strongly about having a warning on your talk page, you are welcome to remove it. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist
I sincerely believe that ScienceAntagonist is a bigot, liar, and cheat. He is known to have hacked sites, spammed email addresses, and also to have been banned from science bulletin boards in his relentless pursuit of any ideas that challenge his own world view.

His ongoing and underhand attacks on Ian Tresman mark sad days in the history of wikipedia

Ian Tresman deserves a fair hearing

82.35.165.180 (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You agree with these personal attacks? In that case, let me take you down to Chinatown. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I agree that Ian Tresman deserves a fair hearing. I am very sorry, I should have made that a lot clearer. I don't agree with the first two paragraphs. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You do realize that this IP is clearly a sock of Iantresman. Look at the whois. Shall I file the SSP or will you? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to you. Full disclosure: I am helping him file an appeal against his community ban. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note on the re-hearing request. I've left my comments. Would have made a separate header, but saw this one already existed relative to the issue. Cheers, Mgmirkin (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR
3RR does not apply when reverting material that violates BLP (and it has been decided, by consensus, that the material violated BLP. If you cannot be bothered to understand Wikipedia's policies, then I suggest you stop trying to inform people of them. Goodbye. Dlong (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Leshrak for edit warring. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for releasing my block.
Thank you for releasing my block. I learnt there was an article that had to be handled carefully by this matter. It will take care in the future.--Tail furry (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Cox
The edit war is coming from User:Leshrak and User:Cambios. I'm no different then the others who have reverted those two over the last few days. Kingjeff (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, was just making sure you were aware of the 3RR. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Retracting a Merger Proposal
Hi there.

I suggested a merger of Central obesity into the Obesity article here. My original problem with the Central obesity article was that it was unsourced, and said very little that the Obesity article didn't. Since then the Central obesity article has been expanded and sourced to such an extent that I would like to withdraw my merger proposal. Is there any particular way I should do this? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just post there saying so, and optionally put {{subst:archive top}} and {{subst:archive bottom}} at the top and bottom of the discussion, and remove the merge tags. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, muchly! I knew you'd have the answer! --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And Fadiga09?
Hi:

You blocked me because of an edit warring, but why don´t you blocked the user Fadiga09? He also participates in this edit warring, and he doesn´t see any other comment contrary of his thoughts! . I´m editing with SOURCES, NOT with "feelings" or "thoughts"...

--Ultracanalla (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to report users at WP:AN3 if they are edit warring. Stifle (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No No... as you were capable to block me, you must see the history of those articles and be equitative with evrybody... ¿Why did you block me and not Fadiga? ¿Why do you see only my edits and not the "others"? --Ultracanalla (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not shown me any reason to block them.
 * In English, ¿ is not used. Stifle (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course... and what this revision history says?    Only Ultracanalla participated in this edit warring? Is a "sin" to edit whith sources as I edit (such as Saudi, and PeeJay)? Do what you want... I´m from Argentina and I don´t care so much wath this wikipedia says about Uefa Cup and the others... Luckly, in the wikipedia in spanish (where I´m a big participant), those things are corrected inmediatly. --Ultracanalla (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD closures
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Point taken, I realise it was a bit of a close call, and should've left that one for an admin. I thought twice about it at the time, so until I'm an admin, I'll remember: if in doubt, don't! Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk  22:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On Bagh (word)
Dear Stifle, I am mystified by the fact that an entry that I had made sometimes ago has just disappeared; the name of the entry was Bagh (word). Should be grateful to know what may have happened with this entry. In fact, if you make a search on Google, you will see that some trace of it still remains on the Internet; if my memory is not failing, it was there even yesterday. Kind regards, --BF 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help you out but to help you help yourself, please be aware that to see why a page has been deleted, you can visit Special:Log/delete and enter in the page's title in the Title box, then click Go.
 * Doing so for Bagh (word) reveals that the page was deleted by User:Orangemike this morning with the reason "Word definitions should be in the Wiktionary, not here". If you feel that this deletion was not in order, you should contact that user and ask him to reconsider. If he fails to do so, you can file a deletion review request, which I think has a reasonable chance of being upheld as the deletion reason was not one of our criteria for speedy deletion.
 * I know you will anyway, but just a reminder to be polite when you request this. There are only 984 active administrators on Wikipedia and many multiples of that number of deletable articles are added every day. Therefore we all make mistakes and while it is right to bring mistakes to the maker's attention, doing it nicely doesn't cost extra. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Stifle, many thanks for your kind and prompt response. I shall contact the person you refer to (or perhaps even not, as right now my blood is just boiling &mdash; you will see why), however before doing so I should like to point out that the entry at issue was at the time of its creation tagged for deletion by the editor User:JohnCD. At the time he fully accepted my point that the contents of the page was not one of a dictionary, and that the text had ramifications for a number of other Wikipedia entries (I experienced JohnCD as a very nice and understanding person). For completeness, the dictionary to which I referred (that is Dehkhoda Dictionary) is not an ordinary dictionary; is is more like OED, only slightly shorter; its 3rd edition consists of 18 volumes, to be contrasted with OED's latest edition which consists of 20 volumes. Further, unlike OED which has been thoroughly revised, Dehkhoda's is not and its very formal language makes it rather inaccessible to may younger people. As for older people, the problem is that most of these people, for whom Dehkhoda is well accessible, have French as their second language, after Farsi, and not English. Consequently, if you leave academic people aside, there is only a rather small band of people capable of rendering the wordings of Dehkhoda into English. And from amongst this small band, there is a section of people who can say something sensible about the roots of the various words in Old Persian, Middle Persian and Modern Persian. In other words, I truly did a service to the community, and here comes someone who dares stamp the entry as a "dictionary" entry. Please cite me one dictionary that defines Bagh. Most certainly OED, 3rd edition, does not have an entry on Bagh (similarly for The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 5th edition, which is not quite a shorter version of the OED). I just checked it, and Chambers Reference Online does not have an entry on Bagh either. Similarly for Mirriam-Webster Online. So, may I respectfully ask on which ground the entry on Bagh is considered to constitute a dictionary entry? Did the editor know the meaning of the word? Now please make a search with Google and find out how many times one hits the word Bagh; similarly, make a search on the Wikipedia entries containing the word Bagh. This being the situation, is it really out of order to have a Wikipedia entry on this word? This is what I previously called the philistine attitude of a large number of Wikipedia "editors" that I have had the misfortune of encountering. Why are these people so against knowledge? Please consider the time that I am wasting just to undo what these so-called "editors" do to the little that I do on Wikipedia. Believe me, I am just despairing. Please note that this so-called "editor" did the deleting without having the decency of sending me a note first, as though I wrote that entry because I did not know what to do with my time otherwise. The entry was deleted even before having been tagged! Kind regards, --BF 17:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Stifle, I have now written to User:Orangemike. You may wish to read my text here: . Kind regards, --BF 19:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that certain pages which qualify can be speedily deleted without notice. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Thanks for the correction :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 00:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

re user saltyboatr's protection of 'gun politics in the US'
my time is pretty fragmented right now, i'll try to get some diffs to you when i can. Anastrophe (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Food Crisis"
Please view my change to your redirect. [I'm new at this.] Is there another page somewhere that describes the story under a different banner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frunobulax (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not edited Food Crisis. Can you clarify if that is the article you mean, or put your question another way? Stifle (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the article (and news story) that I was referring to. I'm a little surprised that, when there area food riots in places as diverse as Cameroon, Haiti, Phillipines, Mexico, Bolivia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, etc., a story such as this doesn't have a page, let alone make it into Wikipedia's "In The News" section. I guess I'm also curious as to how to 'label' a story such as this when there clearly is no common name or way of describing it. Frunobulax (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused as to what you want me to say or do. Perhaps you should raise your concern on the article talk page (click Discussion when you're on the article, and add your comment there). Stifle (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask for some advice?
I understand that restorations of articles that have been deleted according to procedure can be deleted. If I understand what is going on here, that is what you did here.

But I thought that this only applied to the restoration of the original material -- and that if a new article was created, that was not a mere recreation of the previously deleted material, it should not be deleted. Have I got that right?

I am going to ask your advice.

Guy, the closing administrator, said that the Ajam article, whose DRV you recently participated in, didn't comply with "the current BLP climate". I know how to comply with policies. I know how to comply with clearly explained consensuses. I don't know how to comply with a "climate". The Ajam DRV really disappointed me, because no one addressed the reasons why I thought that article complied with the requirements that article reference independent secondary sources.

The way I see it, the Ajam article, is one of about 150 or more articles that only used the Summary of Evidence memos that also won't comply with what Guy called "the current DRV climate" he shares with the regular patrollers of the deletion fora -- and whether they actually comply with policy is going to be secondary.

After some thought I have decided I am going to start nominating articles similar to the Ajam article for deletion myself. As I think you know I am the sole or overwhelmingly majority contributor to many of these articles. If I understand the deletion policies, deletion of material is much less formal when the original article creator makes the nomination.

Doing this should save everyone a lot of time.

I didn't expect this deletion of the Al Busayss article. I don't remember the extent to which it depended on the Summary of Allegation memos.

What I would like you to do for me, if you wouldn't mind, is restore it, and its full history, and talk page to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Review/April 2008/Adil Said Al Haj Obeid Al Busayss. If it is the same basic situation as the Ajam article I will not ask you to consider whether it was a new article which merely shared the same name as a previously deleted article, which should be restored to article space.

If I contributed material to these articles that fits on one of the wikipedia's sister projects I will port it there. If I contributed material to these articles that fits on a non-wikimedia project I may port that material there too. When I am done I will ask for its speedy deletion. My understanding of liscencing issues is that I retain the copyright to material I liscensed to the wikipedia, and I can contribute it elsewhere, provided I don't accidentally bring along any intellectual property contributed by anyone else.

Would you mind moving the recently deleted Yakub Abahanov to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Review/April 2008/Yakub Abahanov?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 April 2008
 * In answer to your questions, or those that I've spotted, articles may be deleted if there has previously been a consensus to delete the article and there is no substantial change in the article content.
 * I've userfied those pages for you.
 * If you are the only contributor to a page you can tag it db-author and it'll be deleted. If others have made any substantial contributions (beyond, say, copyediting) then you need to list on AFD. You can list multiple articles at once if you so wish.
 * You can transfer the content you created to any website you wish. You can also transfer others' content from Wikipedia to another website as long as you comply with the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, which broadly means copying the list of editors from the history page and displaying the license on the target website.
 * Hope that all helps. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)