User talk:Stifle/Archive 1010

Where is the copyright permission?
I know this was ages ago when you added this to Max Raab which restored copyrighted content and had the edit summary "Permission received". However I can't see where the permission was, whether it was in the article or in the WP:Requesting copyright permissions archive. Could you find it for me so that I can take a look? Minima c  ( talk ) 20:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The permission was received as an OTRS email; see the talk page for the flag saying so. Stifle (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Anne Hunter
I was going to create an article for someone with this name, but paused because the article had been deleted twice. If the content appears legitimate, though perhaps it was uncited, would you mind restoring the history? cygnis insignis 15:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The first article was about a college administrator, and was speedily deleted as a snow close of Articles for deletion/Anne Hunter. The second article was about a minor poet who is "mostly remembered today for having provided the texts for at least nine of Joseph Haydn's 14 songs in English." That quote is unambiguously an assertion of notability, so the article was not a candidate for A7 speedy deletion. I've restored the article with history starting from creation of the second version. Hesperian 00:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hooray for WP:TPS! Stifle (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He's a mate of mine, I mentioned it in passing. I'll invite you to retract that assertion. cygnis insignis 10:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll invite you to look at the humour banner at the top of WP:TPS :-) Stifle (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Humour is a tool, which can be used or abused, forgive me if fail to see your use of the delete tool as polite, useful, or humorous. cygnis insignis 14:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While the page has been undeleted out of process (should have gone to DRV), as everyone appears to be satisfied with the current state of affairs I do not intend to take the matter further. I am sorry that you did not appreciate my humour. Stifle (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Image review at FAC (Pedro II of Brazil)
Hi! Editor Karanacs suggested to me your name as a possible image reviewer of Pedro II of Brazil article. It has been nominated a featured article candidate. If you have some time to spare, could do it (Here: Featured article candidates/Pedro II of Brazil/archive1)? Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

!Women Art Revolution
Hello,

I am the social media coordinator for Lynn Hershman Leeson, the filmmaker who made !Women Art Revolution. I created her personal page, as well as the one for the aforementioned film, which you deleted.

Clearly, you felt the language I used to describe the film was too promotional. I assure you I am only trying to create a resource that gives information about the film, its participants, and the various projects associated with it. I'd like to re-create the page, and I was hoping for insight as to what I should omit or re-write, so that it is not deleted again. Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Best, hannah piper burns Hannahpiper (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can read guidelines on what to do at WP:COI. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Chaetopterus variopedatusFrijsingerVestjens2004.jpg
Hello Stifle,

you added the OTRS template to this image - but only the one with a received status. do you know any further informations about the license? at the moment a migration to commons is unfortunately impossible. Thanks and greetings, Rbrausse (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We received a copy of the email relating to the image (saying "here's the image, hope you like it"), but no actual permission to use the image under a free license. In fact I'll delete it now because we've had no permission for so long. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ah, bad luck :( but thanks a lot for your fast answer! Rbrausse (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Request an account/Administrators
Request an account/Administrators, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Request an account/Administrators during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  00:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Aharon Pfeuffer
I notice that you tagged this for deletion. The tag was removed by an ISP with South African origins. The original editor was also South African, so I wonder if there was some sockwork here. Just a heads up to see if you still have concerns  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  08:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Whitelist help
I have 2 queries on the whitelist page (one for over a month) and no admin has responded yet to even the status of the requests. Can you take a look at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist and/or MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist? Thanks.(Lihaas (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)).

Advice needed
Hi, Stifle. User:E. S. V. Leigh asked for help on my talk page here about the use of non-free images that they uploaded for the Gordion Furniture and Wooden Artifacts article. The editor seems to be the archaeologist cited in the article. (They also uploaded at commons.) I wanted to get advice from someone more knowledgeable on NFC image policy. Could you jump in with an opinion? Thanks. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Railway electrification in Great Britain
What a horror! There were around ten more "saw"s. The article needs a thorough rewrite.--SilasW (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. Don't get me started on bad English! (: Stifle (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Super Jeopardy!
May I suggest the close to merge in Super Jeopardy! was an incorrect result, and that the result should be reversed or relisted? I didn't even see this AfD. Sottolacqua has been nominating Jeopardy!-related articles in stealth en masse over the past couple weeks and some of them I've missed without seeing. In this case we have a pretty clear error. The entire deletion rationale was bogus. Super Jeopardy! was related to Jeopardy by name, host, set, and basic style of gameplay, but it was not the same series, was not syndicated, aired on a different day and time, etc. Television series meet notability requirements. There's nothing more that needs be said. If I had seen this AfD, I would've been a keep vote, but that's immaterial. No number of differing votes can present an appropriate delete rationale in this particular instance. Robert K S (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2010 (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?
 * My role is to close the deletion debate in accordance with consensus there. I'm sure you'll understand that I can't be expected to know, less still evaluate, all the possible reasons that people who didn't see the debate could possibly have given. Deletion debates are open for at least a week to give everyone an opportunity to post their comment, and there has to be a fixed window for this otherwise nothing would ever get done. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're saying, in essence, "I went to the AfD, I saw three 'keep' suggestions and four 'merge' suggestions, I deemed that to be a consensus for 'merge', and I closed the AfD." Is that accurate?  Do you understand why this is not a satisfactory answer?  The rationale proffered in the first 'keep' suggestion is dispositive: "Not technically a tournament; it was a prime-time network show, unlike its syndicated parent. So this AfD is based on a false premise."  Given that it was a 4-to-3 participation and that the "merge" suggestions offered no countervailing rationale, was there really consensus in this case?  I understand there is some amount of quasi-automated bureaucracy involved in Wikipedia administration, but some minimal amount of attention and thought has to be paid when closing AfDs.  Otherwise, what we have is chaos.  Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, AFDs really only have two possible outcomes, which are "delete" or "not-delete". Anything that happens after a "not-delete" closure (e.g. merging, redirecting, etc.) is at editorial discretion, and you can raise the question at the talk page if you want to revise a merge to a keep. So I'm happy with my closure of this discussion; you're welcome to raise a deletion review request if you wish although they will just tell you the same thing, that revising from a merge to a keep can be done on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Floyd C. Bayne
Stifle the votes not to delete Floyd C Bayne artticle were more than the deletes...you should restore the article or at the very least redirect it to here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Virginia,_2010#District_7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 05:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Floyd C. Bayne has been re-created at Floyd Bayne. Per your close at Articles for deletion/Floyd C. Bayne, does this warrant a CSD G4? Thanks! Location (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The recreated article appears to have been redirected now. So we're done, am I right? Stifle (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with a redirect. Thanks! Location (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Request
Dear Stifle: with reference to my message of last week here (the image at issue is ), and no consequent response (either User:DIREKTOR is not there, or s/he has decided to neglect me), hereby I should like to request you kindly to restore my original image. For completeness, I do not know how to do this myself without creating a great deal of problems with so many copies of this image that over the course of time have been distributed over a considerable number of various Wikipedias. I emphasize, as I indicate to DIREKTOR, changing the image is in violation of my explicit wish, and should the original not be restored, I will retract the image altogether. (I do realise that after the restoring of the original image, I will have to write something into its copyright section whereby altering it on Wikipedia becomes unlawful.) I thank you in advance for the trouble. --BF 18:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The image is in the public domain as you yourself say, which makes it open for anyone to edit. You do not own the copyright, and cannot prevent others changing the image. If you want to revert it, there is a link marked "revert" by the bottom of the image page which will accomplish what you want, but I will not do that for you because I have no opinion which image is better, and, as you will know from the past, do not get involved in your disputes with others. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I reverted the image right away. It is odd however, the option "revert" was not working earlier, just before I wrote to you; had it worked, I would not have bothered you at all. --BF 03:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)