User talk:Stifle/Archive 0909b

Noticeboard
Thanks for your response on Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, could you clarify what a diff is ? GoldDragon (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Difference between revisions - see help:Diff. Here is a diff of the above comment . In page history, I right clicked on the "prev" and copied the link. If there are several edits in a row that you need to link in a diff, you can use the radio buttons. –xenotalk 21:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, I've compiled a list of them for evidence. GoldDragon (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ACC
Hi there, I tried to log into the Wikipedia IACI but you suspended my account due to inactivity, could you please lift the suspension and give my account Account Creator flag again. Thanks! -- eric dilettante' (mailbox)  03:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank ya kindly. :) -- eric dilettante' (mailbox)  11:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

4 Minutes
Hey Stifle, your points have been addressed in the "4 Minutes" article which is nominated for FA. I went throughout the prose once again, but didnot seem to find any missing words. So if you feel that this article deserves to be FA, will you please support or oppose it at the discussion page? Because as I saw with the article's nomination last time, without any consensus also, the article can fail. So just requesting you. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 12:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Yeoman.jpg
Hi! I just added an "OTRS recieved" on File:Yeoman.jpg - it was in the deletion category. Normally we trust users on userpage images so I think it would be a shame if image should be deleted because of a inperfect permission. Can you have a look at it? I will leave an answer on the users talk page where he wonders why his image can't stay. --MGA73 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The ticket we have is permission for Wikipedia only. Trust is not the question; we just need a free license, even for user images. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't see the "Wikipedia only" in the permission. I'm sure that if we required full OTRS-permission for every userpic then we would have enough to do. Without wanting to start a long fight over this single picture I could'nt help to check this image File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal edit.jpg. He says he has permission to use the image but there is no mail from the author. But I would trust Jimmy. Would you? ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tragic Kingdom
You left comments at WP:Featured article candidates/Tragic Kingdom/archive3. I have dealt with the issue you raised; would you please strike your comment and support the candidate? Thank you. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 23:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC image reviews
Hi Stifle ... just to clarify, when you review images and enter a Support at FAC, are you supporting only images, or does your support mean you've reviewed the entire article, and globally support it? Different image reviewers do different things, and some image reviewers merely state the images are fine, without supporting or opposing. Can you clarify in those cases if you are supporting images as passing only, or if you're also reviewing the entire article? Thanks, and the image help is appreciated. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I say support, I am supporting as a whole; if I say something like "image review OK", I'm supporting only the images. Stifle (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that's what I needed to know ... thanks ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD relisting second time
Just to let you know (if it isn't already the case) that the passsage you've added last weekend on providing a rationale on the second relist of an AFD discussion was removed by another user. JForget 00:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

File:LaVPerformances.png
Stifle could you please take a look at the above image uploaded by ElPilotoDi again? After repeated warnings and blocks (by you) the user I see is failing to reason with his faulty uploads. Even using sockpuppetry too during his block. Just take a look at the contributions of the following IPs: 1, 2 and 3. The last two IP vandalism was done to another article "Holiday", since I removed the non-free NFCC failing image, and replaced with a free image in the article "Like a Virgin (song)". --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the first-mentioned image as orphaned fair use.
 * None of the edits you mentioned were performed during his block, so there is no sockpuppetry violation there. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is clear that those IP and this one is the same user. So that is indeed a case of sockpuppetry there. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not an actionable one. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I seriously donot want any action against him. Just that he should understand the rules. At the end he is bringing down his own blocks by continuously disregarding the guidelines. My concern is this only. What he uploads is sometimes really useful, but there is a limit to uploading non-free content. Who better to understand this than you? :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. But he has only uploaded two images since being blocked. I am probably assuming too much good faith, but I like to think everyone can improve. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Even I thought so, but now I lost the faith that the user wants to improve and understand after seeing his recent actions and contributions. Fact is, maybe not you, but some other administrater might not be so lenient and may block him indefinitely. That will be bad. So I request you, can you ping him and ask him what are the areas that he is not able to understand? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He hasn't even a dozen contribs this month; I'd rather not scare off a good-faith editor who isn't familiar with policies. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Urgent image review
Featured article candidates/Loihi Seamount/archive3, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't revert, but we don't use templates on FAC pages because they slow down load time (see the FAC instructions) and the FA directors don't like them. Cheers for the image reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up; I think that is being picky and exhibiting WP:OWNership tendencies, but I'll take that up with others. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, can you give a second opinion on the fair-use image at Featured list candidates/List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes/archive1? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)
Since you participated in Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of sports logos and trademarks
I agree with your sentiments as you expressed. You're aware of the prior debates on this issue, as you were involved. There is a group of editors who are willing to fight this tooth and nail. I think all avenues for dispute resolution but ArbCom have been attempted and failed in this case.

User:Masem and I have done some work on developing the RFAR for this case, but it's state. See User:Hammersoft/rfar. There's some related material at User:Hammersoft/rfar support. I fully intend on taking this to ArbCom, but haven't had the time and/or energy to do so yet.

There's two related issues in play as well.

1: Have a look at User_talk:Masem. People have been including sports logos of teams for seasons where the logos they are applying were not even in existence. I've removed a number of these cases (example).

2: People are wanting to include uniforms of teams for every season. This is really a permutation of the sport team logos. Uniforms do change, but infrequently of course. Such changes can be discussed at the main article of the team or on subsidiary articles about uniforms of a given team, such as Logos and uniforms of the New York Giants. We end up with articles looking like this, with the logo effectively repeated three times, with purpose rationales of "to denote the uniform of the team". See this uniform file for an egregious case.

There's a great divide between the people like you and I who understand the free content mission of the encyclopedia and those who want to use fair use images liberally, some to the full extent permissible by law. I have lost faith this will resolve without ArbCom becoming involved.

A while back, BQZip01 retagged a large number of sports logos as non-copyrightable. This was one of his responses to this problem. In some cases, he is correct and the retagging was appropriate. In others, he's way out on a limb. This UCLA logo is one such case. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And now I've just run across a related discussion. See AN/I, where BQZip's list at User:BQZip01/FBS Trademarked logos has come into question. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look into this, but not right away. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I wasn't looking for you to do anything so much as informing. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

On a similar vein, I was wondering if you'd like to contribute to drafting this? The FfD reminded me I'd forgotten it, and it would be nice to actually have a single RfC with a large response to objectively decide the issue (hopefully). I was thinking about having a pro-SVG editor write up a view, and I'd write up mine, try and keep the noise low, signal high, and then just have people sound off on the two main prongs of the debate. If you know of any user who'd like the be the opposition view, tell me (I originally asked User:Jheald, but he didn't respond.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the timeline? Stifle (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No timeline, really (I mean, I've had it sitting around since July :P) I just want a nice, concrete background, pro/con dynamic going, then when it's polished and ready, spam it to all the proper noticeboards to hopefully herd people over to actually get a good response. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Eugene F. Lally
Please reclose this AFD as no consensus. THe opinions were, at worst, evenly divided, and the grounds you cite for resolving the issue have no basis in Wikipedia policy -- DGG's opinions on the relative importance of "scientists" and "engineers" were poorly informed, and were, I frankly think, refuted by my pointing out the important roles, at JPL and elsewhere, played by "engineers" wih no significant history of scientific publications. I also think it was inappropriate to close the debate while one participant was attempting to access relevant, offline sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:37, 16 September 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?
 * I am happy with my closure; you may use deletion review if you wish. Stifle (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

File:The Saturday Press.gif
Regarding your dispute over whether our use of this image in Near v. Minnesota is appropriate, I can't deconstruct your short, boilerplate explanation. I disagree with your dispute; I could respond simply by posting that the image "[is] essential to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would [ ] be detrimental to that understanding." I should hope that a notice of dispute should be at least as detailed as the proffered rationale it is disputing. Given that the newspaper is the reason why this case existed, illustration of that key aspect of the article is important, and the visual information of the newspaper&mdash;particularly the prominently-placed, bold headline&mdash;helps illustrate why it was so controversial and antagonistic, and what the nature and character of the newspaper was. Based on your familiarity with the Supreme Court case, can you please explain why you disagree with specifics relevant to the article? If not, I will respectfully remove your notice from the image. Cheers, Postdlf (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to be familiar with the Supreme Court case; the fact that the newspaper existed is not something that we need to use an image tshow. However, as with all good-faith disputes with my deletion tagging, I will move it to a community venue for a full discussion. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you haven't familiarized yourself with the Supreme Court case, how can you judge the relevance or importance of an image to an article about that case? Postdlf (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with Wikipedia copyright policies and have read the article in question; that is the basis upon which I formed my opinion. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that reflected in your posted comments, nor do I see any consideration in those comments of the proferred rationale, either on the image page or as stated above; just a straw man assertion that the image just establishes "the fact that the newspaper existed." I can't pretend to know how you came up with that interpretation.  You haven't come anywhere near a cogent or substantive explanation of your dispute, and rather than responding to my comments or conceding the point, you posted a similarly generic IFD.  I of course believe you mean well, but I seriously question your methods in this instance.  Postdlf (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NFCC, the burden is on users seeking to include non-free content to show that it meets the criteria, not the other way around. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There already was a detailed rationale posted, which I elaborated upon above and which specifically addressed the relationship of the image to the article. At some point then that "burden" has to shift to the one raising the dispute, to actually respond in substance and in direct reference to how and why it is used in the article.  And as I said above, one would hope that the notice of dispute would at least be as detailed as the rationale it is disputing to have any weight.  Yet none of your comments have had any such specificity and no more substance than unelaborated opinion.  I see this as a problem; I'm disappointed that you do not.  Postdlf (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the consensus at the FFD will decide the matter. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Elpilotodi
Now this is getting out of hand! The user uploaded a number of images, although the same images exist in the articles! I have reverted all such additions but there's no point in leaving a warning message because its on deaf ears. And like you said that the user hasn't contributed for almost a month, of course he hasn't because he has been busy sockpuppeting though IPs like 201.153.203.234, by reverting addition of free images. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at these two images. They were jsut deleted, but he uploaded them back again. Do you still believe that he/she doesnot understand policies? I see a complete disregard for them IMO. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 05:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 3 days; there's a distinction between not knowing or understanding policies and putting your hands over your ears when someone tries to point them out to you. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the action. I have a different querry. Check out this link from Flickr. It consists of a video which is CC-BY-SA from the uploader. Thing is I want to use this video and upload it to commons. Is it possible? If so, how do you upload a video? Can you help me with it? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't open that link as it is blocked in my workplace. You can upload only .ogg movies to Commons. If it is in .ogg format, you can upload it in the same way as any other file. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks a lot. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 11:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hialeah Police Department
You are more of a copyright expert than I am but I have concerns about some of the images in Hialeah Police Department, some might actually be federal government licenced images but others are claimed to be so but appear to be state or municipal images which would not qualify fro this licence. Would you give it the once over and tag anything necessary? cheers. ww2censor (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The same user removed many of the images and the tags you placed without addressing the issues, so I readded them as well as a COI tag because his user name seems associated with the topic. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sculptures
Stifle, I appreciate that you're looking out for copyright status, and that you took the time to look over our page when it went up on FAC, but I wanted to share my concerns with you. I fear that users see a 3D object in a photograph, and leap on that saying it must be copyrighted, when it baffles common sense. I have to think the the narrow reading of "buildings" isn't correct, and that freedom of panorama is basically inclusive. That structures, decorative elements, and even sculptures associated with that building at covered. Just because the 3D item isn't plastered on the side of a building, and is photographed in a courtyard, or out front, doesn't detach it fundamentally from being part of the building.

Dealing with the photo of the high school you questioned, it might be slightly different, not because its 3D, but because its a logo. I posted what I feel are legitimate questions over at the discussion. Maybe it needs an extra template to say its a 3D representation of a logo, items on the commons have commons:Template:FOP, but things like restuarant signs or corporate welcome signs, or even other school logos are able to be used without an email giving permission. It's very possibly I don't understand, and am ignorant in the legal details, but I can't see how it's so different.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 06:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a question of common sense, it's a question of the law. The law doesn't always follow common sense. The relevant provision of US law is 17 USC 120 — it applies explicitly only to architectual works.
 * While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not generally a good argument, I will address it anyway.
 * I have nominated File:McDonalds.JPG for deletion for the same reason.
 * The sign depicted in File:Microsoft sign closeup.jpg is public domain because it is a logo consisting only of text, per PD-textlogo.
 * I will shortly nominate File:SEAL.jpg for deletion as a derivative work of a copyrighted statue.
 * You are welcome to make a fair use argument for the sculpture; the case of the Atomium should give you something to work with. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just asked you to answer some of my questions there. Deleting my examples is a cold way of responding. If you want to get technical, then get me a definition of "architectural works", and tell me where it ends. At the stones? The parking lot? You see, the artwork outside the entrance is not separate from the architecture. Space for it was probably planned in original blueprints. I think you're misguided in ignoring this. Yes, sculptures, the sort you find in museums or galleries, have explicit copyrights. But I really think your narrow view goes the wrong way of caution.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 15:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem; from 17 USC 101: 'An “architectural work” is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.'
 * I'm sorry if you felt that my way of responding was cold, but I tried to explain why you can't reproduce a photograph of a copyrighted artwork taken in the USA. The law is stupid, and unfair, and difficult to understand, but we've got to abide by it. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks for being cool about this. Moving on, I was hoping you could possibly check off the issues that are resolved on the FAC page for us. They kept File:Virginia sign.JPG on the commons again, and deleted the memorial.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 12:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

File:TheStig.jpg
Hi. I don't think this image should be deleted. In Top Gear's history, there have been two main stigs - Black Stig (this image), and White Stig (the free image). While their job is the same, Black Stig was dropped after two years of the show and replaced by White Stig. Black Stig is in essence a different character to White Stig, and since BS no longer exists, the photo is not replaceable. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:13, 17 September 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?
 * I will move the deletion request to FFD in order to get a full community agreement. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On a note regarding the same topic, do you realise that by adding the proposed deletoin template to the picture, you've also deleted the image caption on The Stig article. How can we fix this so both the caption and the deletion message are both viewable as the way it stands now, you have an unfair advantage in the debate. Looneyman (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a fault in my script; I'll readd it. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

File:3133_(7)Jeita.JPG
Hi, i'm elias, nominator of Jeita Grotto, your nomination of the above mentioned picture is not justified, refer to namely  article 31. Oh and this is vexing, I have said it a thousand times, the appellation THE LEBANON is diminutive and is considered an insult by Lebanese people, it's LEBANON _you know for future use_ thank you  Eli  +  15:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is indeed justified. The law gives an exception to the media; Wikimedia Commons is not the media, and even if it were, this would still prevent the image from being free for all uses, which is required for Commons. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I quote from article 25 "It shall also be permitted, without the authorization of the author and without obligation to pay him compensation, to use a limited part of any legally published work for purposes of criticism, argumentation or citation or for an educational purpose, provided that the part used does not exceed what is necessary and

customary. However, the name of the author and the source shall always be indicated, if the name of the author is included in the work." So i guess you are right, all we have to do is crop the image and change the tag Eli  +  16:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, we still can't use it as Wikimedia Commons does not accept images that are only valid for educational use. Stifle (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Attribution requirements
Hi, I had a question about your comment at the Barack Obama Joker poster DRV. My comment was in response to DGG, so I increased the indent on those comments. Is my first sentence incorrect enough to require striking? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all; that seems entirely in order. Thanks for the message. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Thankyou. Well, the consensus appears to be to keep so there's no further action needed. Regards,  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 20:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Bigairbag
I suggested to an editor at Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests that they ask you about the deletion. But I'm curious as to the answer myself, as I don't see the unambiguous advertising here. Mind enlightening me? Thanks! -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  20:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been recreated independently since this post, so I will consider this moot. Stifle (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Henry Wells photo
Hi. When you are able, could you please check back in both here and ? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First one is closed; replied at the second one. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review of Wong Fu Productions
Hi there. Thank you for your initial deletion review of Wong Fu Productions. The requested "sourced userspace draft" is now available for your review. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to voice them at the review page. Arsonal (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The White Birch (band)
Since there's been no activity on this AFD since you closed it "no consensus" on the 16th and then reverted yourself, I went ahead and closed it the same way. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Elpilotodi again
This is seriously getting out of hand. See t-h-i-s. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 06:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. Stifle (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Meet-up in Dublin
Hi, just to inform you... There could be a meet-up on 6th october 2009 in Dublin... See here Interested ? --Abena1 (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly; thanks for the message. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Barnes
Hi there, As the original reporter of the BLP issues on the Wayne Barnes article, I've added a sentence to cover the content removal, though wouldn't mind another set of eyes to look at the talk page and the sentence I added. Cheers Khu  kri  17:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great, thank you for the work. Stifle (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

[[File:Toyah TOTP2.jpg]] - non-notification of deletion
Thanks for informing me of your rationale and decision to delete this image.

Oh wait, you didn't bother. It would have been helpful, or at least considerate, you know. The fair-use rationale seemed reasonable enough given the guidelines I followed, but it's a bit late to question your decision a month after the event.

--— Chris (blather • contribs) 14:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement in any policy to notify users of pages being deleted.
 * File:Toyah TOTP2.jpg was deleted because it was tagged as a screenshot from a music video but was actually from Top of the Pops, which qualifies it for deletion at WP:CSD, item 7 under Files.
 * I will be happy to undelete the image if you will undertake to tag it correctly, but reserve the right to renominate it for deletion if it doesn't meet criteria for inclusion. Stifle (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use image review at video game Sacrifice
Could you take a look at Sacrifice and give your thoughts on the use of the copyrighted media at its peer reviews this, or this? I believe what I have used are correct in their use and qualify under WP:NFCC. However, I might be too close to the article (as its author) and a divorced view would be more clearer. Jappalang (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will, but it won't be until Monday. Hope that's OK. Stifle (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is fine, thank you. Jappalang (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Literary Theory

 * This journal was previously deleted after you PRODded it. I have asked for it to be undeleted and a few sources have been added. I have taken it to AfD for procedural reasons and you are welcome to give your opinion there. --Crusio (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

ACC
Dear Stifle,

Could you look at this for me. I can't quite work out if it is an apology (I won't ignore reservations again) or if it is a "I don't take notice of them". The "If I work faster than [sic] I end up closing" concerns me, and the request was marked as "Too similar" when it should have been "Taken". Goodness only knows, I have incorrectly closed accounts in my time, but I'm not sure how to take this response. Regards, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How about next time instead of asking someone else; you ask me if it was. Stifle isn't going to know if it is or not. No, it's not an apology seeing as there is nothing to apologize for. Taken? according to the creation log, the user name User:Sislam was never created. There for, I marked it as being too similar to the one already created, User:S. Islam - created November 27, 2007. In regards to the reserving of requests; I'm personally against it seeing as it's nothing more than a tool used to help contribute to one's account edits. It's like saying "I have this request; don't touch it." - It seems all people do is reserve it; come back to it later and expect it to still be there. ... in my time...? you were approved less than 3 weeks ago. -- A3RO (mailbox)  08:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In good faith, I will however apologize if you feel I was being a bit over agressive in my reply to your message; but this is Wikipedia and an apology should never be expected nor is it required; not even in real life is this true. Trust me, I've seen my share and never expected anything in return. It's people who choose to be courteous and respect their fellow editor. Thanks and happy editing! -- A3RO (mailbox)  09:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this has anything to do with me. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was trying to understand and interpret the original reply I got. Since it has been redacted, it is now clear to me. I initially approached you as an experienced ACC tool admin. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a hot time. -- A3RO (mailbox)  02:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This person's photos
This image was uploaded by a long banned user and is used prominently in several articles on Achaemenid (ancient Persian) history. Given the low resolution, it does not look self made to me. It looks like it was taken from a web site. There are several other images of this user which do not look like original work either but rather were derived elsewhere. Maybe they should be deleted. What is your opinion? Pls look at his photos and think about it. If you are satisfied it is indeed his work, that's OK with me. I'm sorry to contact you but I've been more active on Commons today rather than wikipedia. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tineye says, but that was uploaded later than the image we have. I'll take a look at the others later. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet-run peace movements in the West
Forgive my ignorance, but does your comment on the Deletion Review page mean that that discussion is now ended and that editors are free to nominate the article for deletion again? Marshall46 (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it means that I think the discussion should be ended and editors should be free to nominate it again. When the discussion is actually ended, it will look like the other discussions that are ended; you'll find some at the bottom of the page. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sara Northrup Hollister
Could you please explain this edit? The name is cited in the article's second footnote (page 254 of Starr, Martin P. (2003). The Unknown God: W.T. Smith and the Thelemites. The Teitan Press. ISBN 093342907X) and the author explicitly gives the subject's given names as "Sara Elizabeth Bruce". I would be interested to know the substance of the OTRS correspondent's objection. Please feel free to send me an e-mail if you wish to discuss it in private. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, you can see the citation here: - footnote 20 on page 254. The footnote accompanies the first of many mentions of Sara Northrup in the book. For the record, I've read the original book in the British Library, so it's not just a Google Books copy-and-paste job. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll follow it up with the OTRS ticket writer; please bear with me. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually User:Cirt is handling this now; I'll flag it with him. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Stifle, I just left some advice for and advised him to give you more specific information about the cite. I'd rather you still handle the ticket itself. Cirt (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, the "more specific information" is what I posted above, on Cirt's advice. Do let me know if you need any more information. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can manage that ticket, to be honest. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could email the list with a link to the ticket and ask someone else to take it over? Cirt (talk)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)