User talk:Stifle/Archive 0709b

declined speedy
Stifle, I would unhesitatingly deleted File:Flag of Communist California.jpeg as vandalism -- clearly intended to do harm to the encyclopedia. Or possibly as G10, defamatory purpose.Perhaps you should take another look/ (and yes, I know the background at AN/I) DGG (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how this is vandalism. Being >4500 miles away may be a contributor to that, but I would say that speedy deletion only applies for vandalism when anyone in the world could tell it is inappropriate. I won't consider it wheel warring or otherwise inappropriate for you or anyone else to delete it. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bria valente image permissions, need help to see what the problem is and how to fix it.
I got a otrs notification regarding the permission email i sent. Not understanding why there is still a problem?? Can you help me figure this out please? I am doing my best to give you all the permissions necessary but it has proved to be very confusing. Thank you

The image file name is Bria valente promo jpg

The ticket link is; https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=3291684

Falsewords333 (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)falsewords333Falsewords333 (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The image page is missing some information. Where did you get the image? Who created it? Stifle (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The above image was created by Prince, as it states on the newsweek blog here. So Prince or more likely his management would need to release it. Hope that helps you. Polly (Parrot) 01:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

ACC
Are you able to reactivate my access to this tool? I was taken off due to inactivity. Any help would be appreciated :)  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  11:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :D  weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  11:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory

 * Thanks (-: Stifle (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Andrew McFadyen.JPG
Does the ticket verify the image is PD? I assumed it does, but your reply on the PUI discussion puzzled me. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite; there are a couple of issues with it. I have replied to the email and asked for clarification, and tagged the image as OTRS received. I would have used the tag permissionOTRS (and closed the PUI) if it was fully resolved. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Joining OTRS
I've certainly considered it, but, and this may sound stupid- I get the impression I may struggle using the software. Is it difficult? J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. It's a little tricky to get to know, but it's really quite straightforward. There's a demo system at http://www.otrs.org/demo/. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After giving it some thought, I've applied here. Thanks for the nudge. J Milburn (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now got OTRS access and have started working on the queues. Thanks for your support! J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!
Thanks for your edit. And while I'm at it...

Timneu22 (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

TRAJQ
5 images (one of which is the infobox image) is really too many fair use for such a large article? I can go down to 4, although it'll injure reader comprehension of a significant part of the article. ZeaLitY [  DREAM  -  REFLECT  ]  22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a free encyclopedia so non-free content should be kept to an absolute minimum. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!
Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But it's not called Bastille Day in France (-: Stifle (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Richard G Ditlevsen
I have been trying to update a bio page for "Ricky D" and have secured a snapshot from him that I posted to the site. I contacted him once the copyright issue came up; I sent him the template text provided on your "Asking for Permission" page. I assume that it has been recieved, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RGD_OfficePic.jpg). I do not understand why the email that Richard G. Ditlevsen sent in did not provide what was needed to clear the photo on the copyright issues. I have read over the pages on copyright issues on Wikipedia and was fairly confident that I had done everything needed to be done to handle this. At this point I am unsure of what else to do. Please advise, I am very new to Wikipedia and would like to understand how to follow all protocols.

The Link to the Photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RGD_OfficePic.jpg The Article is Richard G. Ditlevsen.

John faul (talk) 14:24, 15 July 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?
 * Emails to the OTRS are confidential so I am unable to provide further details than those on the image description page. The email sent in would have received a reply, and the person sending it can take appropriate further action. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Salt therapy
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Salt therapy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Possible neologisms, no reliable sources, fails to meet notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. LexCorp (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that, but you seem to have notified the wrong person. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I notified every editor that made any edit. The list was not that long. I may have made a mistake.--LexCorp (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. That's above the call of duty. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Image protocols
What sort of proof does Richard G. Ditlevsen need to send in on this photo?

This Email was sent to Richard after I had him forward in the copyright realease text that I had cut and pasted from from the Wikipedia copyright pages.

[removed text of private email]

What does Richard Ditlevsen need to do, specifically, in order to clear this photo. I have been reading the up on the copyright release formats, GNU and the others, and I feel like I am running in circles. The email seems to indicate that either a narrative explaining the origin and acquisition or a signed release from the "Photographer" is needed.

I believe that this is an amature snapshot taken by a friend of his at his home office.

This is the only image associated with "Richard G. Ditlevsen Jr." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RGD_OfficePic.jpg

PS last time I wrote you, you told me to use the "Wizard" at the top of your talk page. I thought I did. I think I deleted the top line (the one inside the "carrots" <>)the last time and that took it out of the wizard set up. Is that correct? Did this message come thru the right channel? John faul (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this message is fine. I got confused because you removed the top line that said "don't remove this line".
 * As I said in my previous message, I cannot discuss OTRS emails on-wiki. There was a response sent to the email which explains what further steps to take. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for advice: would this need an OTRS?
Hi Stifle, I found large sized images on Commons licensed under CC but on Flickr, they are smaller in size and marked copy-righted. I contacted the Flickr user through email, and he confirmed that he is the uploader of the files at Commons. Should I forward the email to OTRS so that his intent can be made clear with an OTRS ticket and avoid any misunderstanding in the future, or just ignore it? Jappalang (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. The main issue with flickr is that it's hard to connect an email address with a flickr account. I'm not honestly sure what's best to do with this; try Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Mrchadsexington
I guess we were both looking at the OTRS ticket. I've changed the block to indefinite based on the pattern of vandalism. Just letting you know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection from me. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

University of Stirling
Hi - could you please have a look here. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:ElPilotoDi
Sorry if I've stepped on your toes here, but I have not blocked the user, despite some more poor uploads, as I was already in dialogue with him when I saw your warning. If you feel a block is appropriate here, go ahead, but I will not be blocking him unless he uploads something else now. He seems happy to defer to my explanations about our NFCC- he seems just a little clueless about our policies (still), rather than someone ignoring/abusing the rules. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, we seemed to have reached an agreement- the user will be contacting me on my talk page before uploading more non-free content, so I can review the use before there are any uploads. Hopefully, this will allow him to learn about our NFCC without needing a lot of blocks and deletions. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Gaming Minds Studios Deletion
I would like to know the reason why the article "Gaming Minds Studios" has been deleted?. Has i remember i have added all notable references. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:08, 19 July 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?
 * Gaming Minds Studios 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) 12:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember adding few reliable link on that article, here is few:-, , and . --SkyWalker (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those don't appear to be reliable sources. Reliable sources include mainstream newspapers, magazines, and books, rather than blogs or speciality websites. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can look at this article . For video games this what we consider a reliable source. I don't know any other way. It makes me wonder how articles such has this Robot Entertainment, Bonfire Studios, LightBox Interactive and such others was not deleted?.--SkyWalker (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects don't get to establish lower notability/reliability criteria for articles in their purview. Without waiving that, the first link you gave isn't on the list, the second is a reprint of a press release, and the third and fourth are about Kalypso rather than Gaming Minds. They would establish verifiability, but not notability.
 * Wikipedia has no deadline; therefore some inappropriate articles get deleted before others. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you feel they should be deleted, please nominate them as suggested at WP:DPR. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to interfere, but I happened to drop by, saw this and had to have my say. IMHO, the fact that a game (or game company in this case) being featured in a GameSpot article isn't an indicator for notability, only goes to show that the rules need reviewing, as in their current form, the rules themselves are going against WP:OSTRICH. My two cents. BTW, in the third and fourth articles, Kalypso is mentioned only as a shareholder of Gaming Minds. --uKER (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

DRV listers not initially contacting the XfD closer
Hi Stifle,

I note that you have frequently brought up the issue of DRV listers not initially contacting the XfD closer. At Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review, I've made a suggestion that may be helpful to this problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal
As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX   ₪  04:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Aharon Pfeuffer
Please see Talk:Aharon_Pfeuffer. Thanks. Fintor (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to contest the proposed deletion in the manner that the template suggests. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

FAQ system comments
It's a bit of the other extreme; I envisaged a box on your talk page that contained some of the frequently asked questions to which they could click directly. Though, if you haven't been getting too many people asking questions that can be answered by it, the current unobtrusive placement will be fine. The link directly to your talk page for experienced users will be appreciated, I'm sure. =) –xenotalk 12:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm not a fan of NOTOC, but that's a minor nitpick. –xenotalk 12:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from 2009 Southern Miss Golden Eagles football team
Hello Stifle, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to 2009 Southern Miss Golden Eagles football team has been removed. It was removed by BryanG with the following edit summary ' (Deprod. Clearly not uncontroversial and likely to meet WP:GNG, see also talk page and Category:2009 NCAA Division I FBS football season) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with BryanG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Grass Roots Picture
Stifle,

I mistakenly added this picture in the wrong way on previous attempts. This final upload was done to correct my previous errors. I apologize for taking your time on this upload because I do it infrequently and should have done a more detailed reading of Wikipedia's guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwbaumert (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Refers to File:TheGrassRoots1969.jpg.
 * Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~ at the end.
 * You say you created the image yourself, but it appears to be a publicity photo or album cover. Note that just because you might have scanned it does not make you the creator. Can you please clarify? Stifle (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the signature shortcut. The picture is not an album cover and is a vintage group photo provided to me by Mr. Grill, who is the owner of all Grass Roots copyrights. I modified the original to work within the confines of Wikipedia and he granted me permission to make it a free work to properly represent the original group on Wikipedia. Kwbaumert (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then that permission needs to be sent into permissions-en@wikimedia.org from an email address clearly associated with Grass Roots. Please don't upload images saying you created them entirely by yourself unless you actually did so. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, Thank you. Kwbaumert (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi
I reported his disruptive actions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#USER:Muntuwandi if he is okay please explain why. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're contacting me about this... Stifle (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Rain
Hi Stifle - I think I've now tagged the gavin_rain.jpg image (on Gavin Rain) with the correct permissions. Would you mind having a look for me - new to this. thanks Dave gurney (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Experimental pop music / Avant-pop
Could you have another look at the deletion of Experimental pop music / Avant-pop please. As mentioned by one of the AfD's contributors on the nominator's talkpage, it isn't related to and doesn't really belong in an Afd for Power folk. Also, unlike Power Folk it was a substantial article that described it's subject in some detail and it could easily have been reliably sourced. Ha! (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question is answered in my FAQs. They're linked at the top of my talk page and in the editnotice. Why not check them out next time?
 * The nomination did make it clear that the discussion related to all three articles, and people didn't break out separate opinions for some of the articles, so I'm happy with this closure. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Deletion review#Instructions requires that I "discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first before Deletion review", hence the reason I approached you first. Several opinions broke the AfD into separate articles: 1. "Keep Power folk & Avant-pop, delete Avant-progressive rock" - User:ThaddeusB, 2. "Keep Avant-progressive rock & Avant-pop" (but not Power Folk) - User:Bruce1ee, 3. another contributor to the AfD stated that "They're not directly related, so it's best to list them separately" . If you don't believe these are valid reasons can you provide a copy of the deleted article and confirm that the reason this particular article was deleted was non notable because the phrase is not widely used or recognized by critics or reputable music publications and also lack of references in verifiable sources" (it's difficult to discern more as the discussion fragmented into specific articles, so if that is incorrect, can you specify the reasons more precisely instead). If those are the reasons, they can be overcome, as suggested at User_talk:Stifle/FAQs/undelete. Ha! (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As it's possible you have ignored the question above because you've assumed I'm looking for an argument about the AfD, I'll clarify that I'm not. I'm looking to more precisely understand the reason that particular article (rather than the other two) was deleted and a copy of the article so I can assess whether those reasons can be addressed, and then address them if possible (more in the context of the phrase "experimental pop" than "avant-pop" though). As the closer of the AfD and the interpreter of it's reasoning, you are uniquely qualified to give your opinion on this matter, and your reply above states I am happy to answer your questions so I've taken that at face value and asked the question. If you're not prepared to action the request a simple "no" would be useful as I would then know to seek advice elsewhere. Ha! (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the delay in answering your questions; some issues that came up for me meant I have been offline for a couple of days.
 * I'm satisfied with my closure of the deletion discussion, which did not, to me, appear to give consensus for different results for the different articles, and would suggest that you make a listing at Deletion review if you object. If you specify which article(s) you want userfied, I can do that. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Mark Corporation
Good morning. I've just discovered that the entry for Pro-Mark Corporation has been deleted. All of our competitors (Zildjian, Vater, Vic Firth, etc) are shown, but we are not. I would respectfully request a review and, if possible, tell me why we were deleted and what it would take to be reinstated. Thank you. Pat Brown Director of Sales Worldwide Pro-Mark Corporation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.144.62 (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't find an article ever existed at that title. Please specify the exact title.
 * Please note that the existence of articles on similar subjects is not a relevant criterion; see WP:WAX. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Image Attribution Chesham Museum
Hi Stifle,

I see you have administered the OTRS process for one of several images I have followed the attribution and permissions process correctly and obtained an Attribution license for. Having followed the procedure second time around I seem to be in a catch 23 situation and hope you can help advise on.

The images belong to a very small voluntarily-run museum which is in the process of reopening. I have no involvement with the museum so I have asked the curator who does not work on site but from home at the moment to complete the license forms for Share-alike Attribution and I have forwarded the emails on to OTRS. I see the licenses have been rejected because it has been assumed I am connected to the museum but I am only following the procedure set out in guidance where I am not connected with the organisation by forwarding these on to OTRS. It seems because the email address of the copyright holder is not connected to the domain cheshammuseum.org.uk I now need to ask them to change their website. Not only do I think this is impractical as I have no connection with the organisation but I was not told this in the previous advise I was sent.There is a limit to which I can trouble someone who is a volunteer without trying her patience to breaking point. Frankly because I am following the rules to the letter I have ended up a blind alley with no way to solve the problem. Surely there must be a more WP friendly way of dealing with this? If so what is it:) Tmol42 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We need some way of connecting the emails sent to OTRS with the Chesham Museum website. We have had various people chance their arm in the past and say that they owned an image from a website with which they are not connected. Therefore, ISP- and free-email addresses must be displayed on the source website before permissions are accepted from them. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I will go and grovel to the curator and see what I can do. I understand the concerns particularly given the National Gallery case. Not sure I'am entirely happy with WP's approach towards my editing, not exactly good faith. I assume meantime there will be a stay on deleting the files. I realise you have no scope to be flexible, thanks for you considerate reply?Tmol42 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't afford to AGF on copyrights, I'm afraid. The images will have a seven-day grace period. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Images were deleted overnight so not sure what happened with the grace period. I'll persue the advice to get the museum to update their website with email addresses to prove the authenticity of the image ownership, thanksTmol42 (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restoring the images and adding the attribution banners, cheersTmol42 (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion for LTA page that was deleted out-of-process
I noticed that a couple months back you undeleted the Mr. Treason LTA page, which had been deleted without discussion back in 2006. Long term abuse/Mr. Pelican Shit was deleted about the same time, and I can find no record of any AFD or MFD discussion on this. The deleting admin (User:Cowman109) has not edited in several months. Would you please undelete the Mr. Pelican Shit LTA page? Thanks! *** Crotalus *** 20:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! *** Crotalus *** 14:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009/Oversight/Stifle
^Just in case you had not noticed yet. :-) Tiptoety  talk 02:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, had something come up which has kept me offline for the past day and a bit. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

re closing Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs
I note that you closed the above AfD without providing a rational for your determination. Would you please add a short explanation of why you closed it the way you did? Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is usual to not include a reason for closures where they are obvious, and I felt that closure was obvious. Most of the editors contributing supported keeping the article and there was no compelling policy reason to go against this majority. Stifle (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am confused... did you even read the discussion? There were serious problems with WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE that were discussed.  Are these not compelling reasons to go against a majority?  And if not, it would be at least nice to know why they are not.  Blueboar (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the discussion, and I felt that whilst there were valid concerns about the article, the sense of the discussion was that they would not warrant its deletion at this time. Cleanup would be more appropriate. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks... That is an utterly fair assessment. It would have been nice if you had added that to your closing remarks. Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Quick 1888
Hello Stifle, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Quick 1888 - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW ( Talk ) 01:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Chillin
Hey Stifle, can you come to the talkpage of Chillin? I have raised a discussion regarding the image used in the article. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 11:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding File:ישראל פלג.jpg
Hi,

Could you check this one. It was first uploaded to Commons as File:Israel-Peleg.jpg and then tagged as "need permission" and then uploaded here today as File:ישראל פלג.jpg referencing 2009071610018913 but tagged with the "Permission to use on Wikipedia only" tag. I guess the obvious conclution would be that the permission was literaly to use on Wikipedia only and delete it but whenever I see a reference to a OTRS ticket combined with a questionable license tag I like to get it checked just in case the uploader just picked the wrong license template for whatever reason. --Sherool (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OTRS ticket is permission for Wikipedia only; I've deleted it. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Local whitelisting
Just wanted to ask for you to review my submission on the Mediawiki Whitelisting (talk) page (MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist). I'm only sending you this message because I notice requests submitted after mine have been replied to so there's a possibility mine might never be noticed -- lost forever! ;) . I saw you were active on the page; so, I thought you or someone you know would be able to review my request. Thanks for your time and consideration, Peace and Passion (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC).
 * I'll have a look. Unfortunately I'm busy in real life for the last while (and it's not looking to get any less busy), so I haven't had time to work on and manage the areas on which I generally spend time. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick 1888
Hi, I saw a proposed for deletion message on this article as should not meet WP:ORG. As a main user of the Dutch Wikipedia I'm not familiar with the procedures here but I've read WP:ORG. I would challenge that because as the 1949 Dutch Cup winner and finalist in the first edition of the Dutch Super Cup, it should have more than enough national importance as under WP:ORG. Maybe you could be more specific about what's missing under the criteria? With regards, Agora (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel that deleting the page would not be correct, you can remove the proposed deletion notice which will prevent the page being deleted that way. It would be helpful if you would also add citations to reliable sources that verify the information on the page. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Note
Per your request, I have moved your candidacy to the withdrawn section. I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for participating in the election and to encourage you to continue editing. Best regards.  MBisanz  talk 20:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)