User talk:Stifle/Archive 15a

Hello, you flagged my article for speedy deletion, however, I am still planning on working on this and adding more information since it is for a class project. I will try to include more details soon. Nduryea (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Progressive Association
Hello, you flagged my article for speedy deletion, however, I am still planning on working on this and adding more information since it is for a class project. I will try to include more details soon. Nduryea (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

AfD Andrew E. Unsworth
Hello. Many thanks for considering the Andrew E. Unsworth AfD. One concern I had over the course of this process was that there appears to have been a degree of WP:VOTESTACKING as can be found here. I would be interested in hearing your views. Karst (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. User:ARTEST4ECHO appears to be the only project member who posted at the AFD though... Stifle (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Brp18 Peak Scientific Instruments Ltd
Hi. You had this page I had created deleted due to unambiguous advertising or promotion. It was the first page I had created so I believe I had made some errors with regard to properly citing my information. I have added a request for the page to be created here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies with relevant third party sources. Will this allow the page to be created? If so will it take a long time to be created this way?

Thanks. Brp18 (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, this is a request for someone else to create the article for you. It will be done when someone gets around to it; we have no way to predict how long that might be. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Michael Snow (attorney)
Can you please userfy the talk page and article to my space. Valoem  talk   contrib  22:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ at User:Valoem/Michael Snow (attorney); for future reference requests at WP:REFUND are likely to be handled faster. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I restore this article as is based on the first AfD being a snow keep (no pun intended) and the second AfD having practically no discussion. I feel the nytimes citation does established enough notably and this person should survive a more detailed AfD I can add more sources going forward also could you userfy the talk page as well? Thanks! Valoem   talk   contrib  07:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll userfy the talk page and won't object to the page being recreated, but won't guarantee it won't get redeleted by a colleague via AFD etc. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Blac Haze
Hey, the article would have been kept since it was relisted twice and it was more wanted to be kept. Why did you close it? I am going to request a deletion review since I can add how Let Me Holla At Cha was on the charts and Res-Sa-Rec-Shun got an AllMusic review. It was also noted he sounded just like 2Pac. 174.4.163.53 (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there, deletion discussions are decided based on consensus and Wikipedia policy, not a vote. Notwithstanding that, there were four deletes to two keeps. I believe my closure was correct. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well could it be restored or sent to me by email? I think more people would want it kept if asked as well. Bozo33 (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can do that, but can I ask what you propose to do with the article if I restore it? Stifle (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd improve it, and show it to people for their opinion to know what to improve so it can be put back on Wikipedia. 174.4.163.53 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't userfy it for you though, unless you create an account. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Seventeen Article
Hey there, I'd like to know why the Seventeen article was deleted, since I did provide (and was ready to provide more if needed) reliable sources to site their song released, concerts and features in songs/MVs. If it's because "they haven't debuted yet", shouldn't the iKON article also be up for deletion? I don't see how the Seventeen article was violating Wiki's policies. Aquamaraqua (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Seventeen (band) explains why the article was deleted. I implemented the consensus of Wikipedia users on the subject. Each article is considered separately on its own merits and we are unable to take into consideration arguments comparing articles to others. You are free to nominate any article for deletion if appropriate. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My question wasn't really answered though. I was part of the discussion. No replies whatsoever on the fact that there were many (reliable) sources that accounted for Seventeen's various activities. Aquamaraqua (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletion discussions are determined by consensus and this is the standard I applied to the discussion closure. You are welcome to list at deletion review if you believe my closure was not in compliance with Wikipedia process, but deletion review is not merely a second bite at the cherry because you disagree with the outcome for reasons previously presented. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Paul Randles
Do you have any objections to having Paul Randles restored to Draft:Paul Randles? I saw some potential sources in the AFD, and I have one of my own, so I would like to try working on it. BOZ (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead; please file your request at WP:REFUND. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks. :) BOZ (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Request Page
Hey there -- Are you able to put the deleted page in a sandbox for me? Never got a chance to save the data in case subject becomes more notable. Thanks! --TV | talk 01:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ at User:TV/Dominic Scott Riccitello; next time use WP:REFUND for a faster service. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!!--TV | talk 04:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: AfC Helper Script access
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to  comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Paul Randles
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paul Randles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

AfD request to fix consensus reading
Hi there. With regard to Articles for deletion/Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split, how did you come to the conclusion that merge is the consensus option? It's certain that some number of people suggested that option, but other people said explicitly that a merge is not the most appropriate course of action, which went unopposed. In general, there was very little elaboration of what exactly is the standard of notability that we're talking about here, mostly just statements (not a dialogue). A simple head count wasn't quite conclusive - 1 delete because of copyvio, 3 deletes because of notability, 3 merges because of notability, 2 keeps because of notability, 1 keep because of a bad merge target, 2 general keeps. I don't see that any consensus arose in that discussion. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Deletion discussions, which are not judged on headcount, can end in one of two broad results, which are delete or not-delete. The variations on not-delete, including merge, redirect, etc., are not especially important and it is within the gift of users to discuss them further via normal consensus-building such as on the talk page. Additionally, I gave less weight to new users with no other contributions. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I would generally agree with your premise, but I think it would be important to avoid the impression that anyone is preventing the implementation of a consensus decision. Either we actually have consensus or we do not - that is as much a binary choice as delete or not-delete. The way this is phrased now and the way the subsequent templates are phrased, it would appear rather inappropriate if we were to rely on further talk page discussion. It's not a topic of high interest and I doubt that a talk page discussion would gather more than a dozen participants, meaning it would be easy to say that the spirit of that discussion is contrary to AfD rules. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've posted a further note on the AFD page to state that further discussion or application of WP:BB may result in the article remaining separate and that the AFD outcome should not be deemed to be a bar to either. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider
Stifle, I'm not looking for any drama, but I ask that you carefully reconsider this comment and strike the problematic portion of it. It's not only untrue, it's also demonstrably unfair in its implications; WP:CFB members regularly fight like cats and dogs over the notability of CFB-related topics at AfD, and we are more likely to vote delete than keep at AfD as a group. The present AfD is a gray area judgment call, and I could have just as easily !voted to delete the article. No one begrudges you your opinion; please assume that WP:CFB members are acting in good faith and not as part of some cabal/conspiracy to keep non-notable CFB-related topics. I can assure you, we are not. Thanks for listening, and I look forward to !voting with you in future AfD discussions. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reconsidered and am happy with my comment. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Comparison of African Traffic Signs
Thank you for closing. Might you also delete the other two articles I combined into the single nomination?  Fry1989  eh? 23:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done by User:Tokyogirl79; next time simply use db-xfd. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please look into this
You overturned a decision to keep a page that i worked for a very long time compiling Smokingroove. This was to be my first on Wikipedia and something i worked with the artists themselves to compile. They are the biggest DJs in this country and have made a social impact on the scene here and are such, worthy of addition to Wikipedia. Please look into this again as i think with your help, i can make the page fit into what you think could be a better page. This really would mean a lot to us here in Dubai where we've worked hard to create a social reflection of the city. Thanks BluntWorthy (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there, all appeals against deletion discussions need to go on WP:DRV. Also please read WP:COI. As you have attempted to multiple-vote on the discussion, however, I don't imagine your appeal will go far. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess the main fault was mine as i did not realise that my responses counted as multiple votes. In my view i was having a discussion and it was not intended to look like multiples. I'll follow the correct appeals, this means a lot to us here. Thanks for the reply. BluntWorthy (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Request: A copy of a deleted article
Hi Stifle, I see you removed the article Nirmukta. I planned to save a copy, but was too late. Can you place a copy of the deleted article in my userspace? Thanks in advance, Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ at User:Timelezz/Nirmukta; for faster service please use WP:REFUND next time. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Birungyi Barata
Hi, I see you closed Articles for deletion/Birungyi Barata with "Delete". I don't agree with that, and while I am not going to appeal to DRV about it, I don't know why you did not address the emerging alternative to merge/redirect to a list-article, which was/is in progress. I'd be happy to hear you respond here, perhaps. But I came to ask for a copy of the article to my userspace, could you provide it to me, please? -- do ncr  am  21:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that my closure represented consensus of the discussion and if you disagree, please list at WP:DRV. I've transferred the article to User:Doncram/Birungyi Barata. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- do ncr  am  15:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Evaluative Diversity
Dear Stifle: May I please have clarification on the deletion of the Evaluative Diversity article? You wrote "The result was delete. It's very sad as this is one of the longest articles I've ever deleted, but it is original research through and through. A concept may meet GNG whilst still being OR." Does the concept meet GNG? If not, what additional sources would be required? If so, then what would be required before an article can be allowed? Langchri (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said in my closure, the article is original research. It does not matter how many more sources you add; it will still be original research until it receives independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am confused about whether the problem is with the topic or merely with the writing. Your decision is either that (1) additional sources must be discovered (or published) before the creation of a new Evaluative Diversity article would be allowed, or (2) a new Evaluative Diversity article may be written today, provided it better-reflects the sources already identified. If (1) can you please explain what additional sources (beyond those in the Afd) would need to be produced to establish notability (i.e., what is questioned about the sources--independence? reliability?)? If (2), can you please confirm that notability was established? Langchri (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that my closure represented consensus that the article was a violation of WP:NOR. It is not up to me to set criteria for the article to be restored or republished; that falls to WP:DRV. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but before listing on WP:DRV, I should discuss with you. My reason for listing would be that there was no consensus reached about whether the topic is sufficiently notable to merit an article. The Afd arose to settle a dispute about whether the topic is notable, and it is important to reach an answer on that question so that editors (including me) will know how to be constructive moving forward. The consensus you say was reached was merely that "the article was a violation of WP:NOR", which might suggest that the constructive next step is to improve the text, but posting fresh text for this topic would be objectionable if the topic is not notable (as was claimed). Within minutes of asking you via the article's talk page whether the issue is merely with the text, two other editors posted objections to having the topic open at all, so we need the question of notability settled first. Will you please reopen the Afd listing so the question of notability can be settled, or should I list on DRV? Langchri (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As explained in my talk page notice and FAQ, I waive any requirement to discuss my deletion decisions with me before reviewing. I am not sure I can make it any clearer to you — the topic is original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. I won't be able to respond to any further repetitions of the same question. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Evaluative diversity
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Evaluative diversity. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Langchri (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

the consensus was redirect
The consensus was redirect, hence please update or relist it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hebatullah-il-Moayed_Fiddeen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~ at the end.
 * You're welcome to do that yourself. I did not find a consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Josh Phillips (soccer)
You recently closed Articles for deletion/Josh Phillips (soccer) as delete, however there were no objections about moving it to draftspace. I'd think it's highly unlikely that a USL team would be leaving such a relatively experienced player out of the squad, unless something tragic were to happen in the next few weeks before the season starts. Can you move it to draftspace? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ at Draft:Josh Phillips (soccer); for a faster service in the future and in line with my editnotice please use WP:REFUND for this type of request. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though after reading your FAQ I didn't think such a request there was applicable until talking to you - and there was absolutely WP:NORUSH with about another 4 weeks until the season starts. Nfitz (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NORUSH is an essay and yields to WP:DPR, a guideline, stating that deletion discussions are closed after a week. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was simply thanking you, and noting there was no rush in getting the draft. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Nfitz (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just went to update Draft:Josh Phillips (soccer) after he made his professional debut yesterday and move it back to Josh Phillips (soccer) but User:AFCle has for some reason recreated the article from scratch instead of just moving the draft back to main space. Can you move the draft back and merge the edit history (which would have been easier but for my last edit just now), and restore the talk page history, if there is any.  This is part of my objection about this desire of some to remove articles for players who everyone knows are going to be playing as part of the first team as soon as the season starts - it just created confusion and time wasting for everyone.  Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibility of restoring Semi-Protection
Hello, No sooner was semi-protection lifted from this article: 2015 Chapel Hill shooting than an edit war broke out with an anon IP. I would suggest restoring it. Thank you. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Bbb23 has blocked the one IP editor causing trouble for edit warring. I don't see a pressing need to re-protect. For future requests please use WP:AIV, WP:AN3, or WP:RFPP as appropriate rather than messaging a single admin, as the noticeboards are watched and attended to regularly whereas I might not be (and indeed was not) online. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do and thanks for advice. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Domesday Book tenants-in-chief
Hello, The page Cornwall Domesday Book tenants-in-chief was created in the same style as Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief. Both lists are listings of notable people and institutions in Norman England.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've listed that for deletion also. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Appledene
I note that you recently closed Articles for deletion/Appledene as "keep". Having, no doubt, weighed up the evidence presented, please can you explain how it meets WP:N? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See also User talk:Coffee. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The question of whether an article should be deleted or not is a matter for consensus at the AFD page. The closer administers the consensus to which the debate has arrived and does not need to further explain the points that have been raised during the discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Road signs in Liberia
Hey, you closed Articles for deletion/Comparison of African Traffic Signs and deleted the article; deleted the other two. However, Road signs in Liberia has been recreated. I was wondering who created the previous 3 articles - and if they violated WP:SOCK. Thanks, ansh 666 05:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's gone again. If you want to pursue the socking issue please go to WP:RFCU. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thing is, as a non-admin, I can't see who created the pages after they've been deleted...and Twinkle-G6 doesn't notify the creators, so my CSD log doesn't have the info either. No big deal, though, I doubt it violated WP:ILLEGIT. Thanks, ansh 666 17:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on WP:AN
Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. -- QEDK ♠  T  ♥  C  14:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Carlos Galvan (rapper) and Swings (rapper)
Hey, sorry to bother you again, but: you closed this AfD as delete but didn't delete Carlos Galvan (rapper); also, there was no AfD tag on Swings (rapper) for the first week of the debate, so it shouldn't really have been deleted (though I don't think it matters) - the AfD had been closed and then reopened by yesterday, a day after the relist. ansh 666 10:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what a mess. I think it's because the listing title was non-standard and two articles were shoehorned into the one debate. Oh well, if someone has an issue I will reopen it. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, please reopen it. Swings was just thrown into it improperly by User:GoldenBoy25 who considered them of equal notability after the nomination of Carlos Galvan, which is not AfD protocol. Then the AfD was closed without notice to any editors who worked on the page and, what I think was a mistake, here -> it can be seen that the two articles do not share equal heading and the proper tag was not in place. I am going to request an undelete if this doesn't work out because Swings fulfilled all criteria for notability and there is no reason for the article to go down. Asdklf&#59; (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, they're undeleted and relisted. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

AFD result question
Hey Stifle, I'm just curious about the result you posted on this AFD, relating to an Australian soccer team. You've listed the result as no-consensus, however the majority of the votes were to keep it? I don't quite understand this result? Could you possibly explain this to me? Thanks - J man708 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No consensus and keep are not effectively different results, and AFDs are not determined on vote count but on strength of argument. Many of the keep votes were vague waves at an essay which does not carry as much weight as citing a guideline or policy. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. The term "no consensus" kinda made me feel as though the discussion could be reopened almost immediately or something like that, when I was kinda under the impression that it should've been kept, due to the numbers. Does that mean that if one person throws up a fantastic argument and many others vote against them, even though the singularity had a far better argument and no real support, that it would go to the single person, due to having a better argument? - J man708 (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, in theory at least. "No consensus" basically means neither side "won" the argument, and defaults to keeping. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, cheers for the heads up! - J man708 (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Samuel Marcus
Hello, I would like to know if you can provide me more information as to why you deleted the page, Samuel Marcus. He is just as notable as any of the other cast members on The People's Couch who have their own standalone Wikipedia pages. If you deleted the page for him, I would hope you check their pages as well and check for their notability. With that said, Samuel Marcus may not have a lot of sources to credit his notability, but he is extremely well known worldwide through his participation in the YouTube web series Teens React. Some of the videos he has been seen in have been viewed by over 20 million people. The videos are posted by The Fine Brothers who are YouTube partners, which should show enough notability for him to have a standalone page. He has a very strong following. When the page for Marcus was first created, there was a "some sources may not be correct or verifiable" at the top of the page. It wasn't until this was deleted that another user considered deleting the page as a whole. I would encourage you to recreate the page and add this at the top if there is any confusion. But again, I believe you should re-create the page. And if none of this is enough to recreate it, can you please give a detailed explanation as to why. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmelmilk (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted based on the arguments at Articles for deletion/Samuel Marcus; in particular, that he does not meet WP:NACTOR at this time. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Firefighter Paramedics Gage and DeSoto.jpg
Why did you remove {{subst:rfu}} here? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Looks like I got mixed up with the edit history and thought it was a tag for deleting the old version which had been reduced in size. I'll re-add it. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Carl Rice
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Carl Rice. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Duffy (fighter
Hello, I would like to know why this page has been deleted. I was looking through the deletion discussion and it is very clear whoever contributed to the debate is uninformed about Joseph Duffy; "Non-notable MMA fighter - no top tier fights" On 27th November 2010 Joseph submitted Conor mcgregor, the current UFC Featherweight #1 contender in a fight that is still talked about frequently to this date, and on October 1 2011, Joseph fought Ivan Musardo in the main event of Cage Warriors 44 for the Cage Warriors World Lightweight Championship. On 14 March 2015, Joseph will be making his UFC debut against Jake Lindsay, when Joseph was signed to the UFC for his 5 fight contract he was also offered a more lucrative deal than the standard $8000/$8000 UFC contract due to the fact that he was a notable fighter. "No top tier MMA fights and no significant coverage. Not likely to get top tier fights after a 3 year layoff" Duffy has headlined three Cage Warriors cards (Cage Warriors 42 & Cage Warriors 70) the three year layoff described is wrong, Duffy began an undefeated (9-0) career in boxing at this time and despite what this admin said about not being likely to get a top tier fight, he returned to MMA on August 16 2014 to headline a Cage Warrior card, fight in a main card in a second fight and will now be making his UFC debut on 14th March 2015. The lack of coverage described is also false as Cage Warriors is broadcast in the U.K., Ireland, USA, Canada, Portugal, Turkey, Angola, Mozambique, South Africa, Poland and Sweden and the UFC is broadcast in 150 countries in 22 languages. Frankly I'm baffled at how a blunder like this was made — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.183.0 (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Articles for deletion/Joseph Duffy (fighter) for details of why this article was deleted. I did not have any part other than implementing the consensus of users who felt Mr. Duffy isn't notable. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you had actually took the time to read my comment you'd have realised that I had in fact already viewed that page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:22A:150:0:0:1:F5 (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I note your comment. I'm happy with my decision and if you believe I have not complied with the deletion process the next step would be to open a listing at WP:DRV. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Gridcoin
Why did you delete Gridcoin although we provided multiple references? Malicious user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.48.124.146 (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It was deleted because of a consensus at Articles for deletion/Gridcoin. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

We provided more than a dozen of articles, there were even edu and org hosts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.48.124.146 (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC) We provided content on the talk page. Would you please help us reintroduce Gridcoin in a more productive form? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.48.124.146 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have a registered account I can userfy it for you. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Postcodes in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TSB Bank. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with changing page name
There is currently a page name called "Kobane" but that is not the official name of the town. The name should be "Ayn al-Arab". Can you help me change the name of this page? The link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobanî and an official map of Syria can be found on the UN website here: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/syria.pdf Danielspencer2 (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can do this yourself using the "move" option at the top of the page. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Murrayfield Stadium
See Talk:Murrayfield Stadium. – PeeJay 09:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Hello, I'm GoneIn60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Crush's Coaster, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GoneIn60 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Reactivating World Energy Forum
Hi. I noticed you deleted the World Energy Forum page. I found a number of verifiable articles and would like to recreate the page. Could you please allow me to do so? Thank you.Energy Revolu (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm you're either independent of the World Energy Forum or have read and will follow WP:COI? Stifle (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Request undeletion of Household Name records
Dear Stifle

I believe the article on Household Name records should be undeleted. I am sure I can find sources to prove notability. For example, Drowned in sounds states "... it’s impossible to overstate the impact of Household Name on the UK punk scene ...". Jonpatterns (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is Articles_for_deletion/Household_Name_Records for reference.

Regards

Jonpatterns (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

n.a. in FUR
Hey—saw you tagging a few files for having "n.a." in their rationales. Just wanted to give a heads up, if this concerns you, that the upload wizard automatically creates such fields in some of its stock fair use rationales. Would be a better place to start. Also where is this consensus against having "n.a." fields? czar ⨹   12:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll bear that in mind about the upload wizard. WP:FUG details the requirements for fair use rationales. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar but not with the issues of using "n.a." in a template's possibly non-applicable fields. What section are you referencing? czar ⨹   17:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:FUG, Necessary Components specifies the information that needs to be in a fair use rationale. None of these pieces of information are marked as optional and it follows that writing n.a. means they have not been provided and the template is incomplete. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

File:James_Holmes.2C_cropped.jpg
Hi,

I have addressed the blank "n/a" sections and filled them in. I believe this successfully addresses the concern that prompted the FfD template, and hence I have deleted the template per the instructions it displays, as well as commented on talk. I am unable to find any other discussions of the file elsewhere, and no listed nomination for deletion. If there is such a discussion elsewhere that needs to be addressed, please let me know. If you have any other concerns about the file, please also contact me on my talk page.

Thanks,

μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

redirects to deleted essay
Hi Stifle, thanks for the G4 deletion here. The creator of that essay set up four redirects: Would you please delete them too? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ADVODUCK
 * Advocacy and COI ducks
 * Advocacy duck
 * COIducks
 * ✅; for faster service in future please use Db-g8. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks much. sorry for not using G8. didn't know if picking up redirects was part of the usual deletion process or not. ack. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is; I'm just bad at doing it :) Stifle (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * we are all too busy. thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Where is the deletion summary
You deleted the following: 	04:32. . Stifle (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:Advocacy and COI ducks ‎(G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks)

Did you review the Talk Page and see where it was not a recreation of the former rather it was a new essay with a different focus that included a few passages from the former deleted article which were standard PAGs? You deleted it based on current PAGs? Did you see the tables I put up on the TP of that article showing the stark differences? Where is the close summary. I want your close to be reviewed. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  14:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I carefully reviewed the page as compared to the deleted one and it was not substantially different. Some of the structure had been changed or reworded, but it was not a different essay. If you are dissatisfied with a deletion decision, you file a Deletion review rather than recreating it under a different name. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for the deleted page and its TP so I can demonstrate the pronounced differences between the two. Thank you. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  16:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * PS - FYI I didn't file a deletion review for the old essay because I agreed with its deletion. The new essay was not a relaunch of the old.  Please provide a link to the article and the TP because this speedy delete was not done properly and I put too much work into it to simply ignore it.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  01:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't provide those as the page is deleted. I can email you the text of the deleted page if you wish. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, please email the text of both the essay and the talk page where I created the comparison tables. As soon as the review is complete, I am taking it to ANI for further review based on the following reasons:
 * The essay was under discussion at the TP who deleted the first version.  We were discussing Userfy.
 * Immediately after my original essay was deleted, a plagiarized copy appeared and was deleted by.
 * Immediately after my new essay was deleted, an effort to create a similar essay was proposed at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest.
 * Thank you in advance. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be sending it shortly. But I would point out WP:OTHERPARENT if you're planning on raising an ANI because the DRV isn't going your way — and any further attempt to recreate the page without a consensus in favour at DRV or another suitable venue may be looked upon as disruption and blockable. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice, Stifle. I am in discussion now with, and will approach this situation with the utmost caution.  It is neither my desire nor intent to be disruptive.  The disruption occurred when my essay was deleted based on it being the same as the original.  Perhaps this all revolves around different interpretations, I don't know.  What I do know is that I wrote both essays and I wrote them making sure they were not alike.  I'm trying to work it out the best way possible to avoid further disruption.  However, I must admit I find the opposition's unyielding attempts to keep my essay from seeing the light of day rather curious.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  17:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * PS - as I acknowledged via email, I received the text. As I indicated to, here, and on the delete review page, my intention is to get it back up in my sandbox user space for further collaboration.  Do you see any problems with that approach?  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  18:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't — but recreating the essay again without a firm consensus in favour at DRV would not be something I'd recommend. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Working on that now. Thx.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to move to dated pending and received categories
Hi Stifle, I am sending you this message because you are one of the admins, OTRS volunteers, or other editors who regularly deals with image issues. I would like to propose that we move to monthly OTRS pending and OTRS received categories and that we have a bot help out with automatically tagging images for deletion where the tag has been in place longer than the current OTRS backlog. The purpose of this exercise is twofold: (1) it reduces potential duplication of effort in checking on images and (2) it prevents images for which we do not receive appropriate permission from sitting around longer than need be. My idea is at OTRS_noticeboard and I would welcome your input. Thanks, --B (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Shadow Copy
Hello

I am responding to your clarification request in Shadow Copy article. What exactly do you want clarified?

Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "abstracts" is not easily understood by non-computer scientists. In the interest of making the article more accessible, a less technical word would be preferable. Stifle (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

In the future, could you consider putting e.g. "abstract" is not easily understood by the general reader" in your edit summary? Then we wouldn't need a Q and A cycle on talk pages. Thank you for considering this. Jeh (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll bear that in mind. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Opportunity Peterborough
Hello. I've just noticed that you closed the proposed deletion process back in 2013. As a decisive consensus was not really reached, I wondered if you could reinstate the article so I can work on improving it. I was the creator and was not informed of the discussion. Similar pages do exist for other urban regeneration companies. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC) The Opportunity Peterborough page was deleted by a consensus at Articles for Deletion (and not Proposed Deletion). You were indeed informed of the discussion. No two articles are the same and each one stands or falls on its own merits. As a result I'm not in a position to agree to your request at this point in time. If you can provide a list of citations to reliable sources that you propose to add to the article to ensure that the notability of Opportunity Peterborough is verifiable, I may change my mind. This decision is subject to appeal at deletion review if you wish. Stifle (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for your message.
 * Okay, fair enough. Deletion review suggests to discuss with the closing admin. but it's a little difficult to provide refs. when I don't have the text. Never mind. Chrisieboy (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't need the text to provide proof that Opportunity Peterborough is notable — but I can userfy it for you if it would help. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be helpful. Thanks, Chrisieboy (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ at User:Chrisieboy/Opportunity Peterborough. Once you have improved the article you can use the Move tab/option at the top to restore it as a normal article by removing the User:Chrisieboy prefix; however, if you have not added sufficient reliable sources it is likely to be deleted again and this may happen without further reference to you. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia
You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dairese Gary
Hello Stifle. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dairese Gary, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Article has only just been to Deletion Review. CSD isn't appropriate in this case. Needs to go to AfD again. .''' Thank you. Ged UK  11:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dont be ridiculous. Once a speedy tag is removed, it is not right to simply revert a good will edit and place it back on. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 14:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please can you clarify which policy says that? Stifle (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not qualify for G4 anyway since it is not substantially identical to the deleted version. Speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial pages, and if an editor removes the tag that is acting in good faith, CSD is inappropriate. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 16:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Umbrella Corporation
Why do people go against AFD decisions and restore previous revisions of this article? Is further protection needed, or shall I have the results reviewed? --George Ho (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The decision to merge is almost five years old. Consensus can change. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Shall I have it reviewed instead? --George Ho (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A Deletion review would be likely to be closed due to the time passed. You should discuss the matter on the article talk page, and use WP:RFM or other dispute resolution options if necessary. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The user who restored the article was blocked as a sockpuppet. Another user who restored it before was an IP. Therefore, those users and I no longer have a dispute. Also, the level of dispute hasn't gone uncontrollable yet, so mediation isn't necessary. Moreover, there hasn't been significantly new information that would help restore the article again. Even when the decision was made almost five years ago, the decision cannot be ignored or violated. I'm sure reviewing the decision is more suitable than any other methods. --George Ho (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, you don't need to give me a talkback banner. I'll check your replies through history logs. --George Ho (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to review it, but I couldn't. This IP, User:, made restorations on topics that fail notability. I reverted the restorations. As I told you earlier, another user was blocked as a sockpuppet. Since I can't review or discuss with inactive users, perhaps call it "resolved"? --George Ho (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any further action for me here. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

One editor recently recovered (or reverted the blanking of) the article. Therefore, I requested protection and then started deletion review. George Ho (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Stifle Kindly Help Me
Stifle Please help to remove my website form blacklist. I have been trying for week to remove my site form blacklist but no one help me I came here for help please help me to remove my site form blacklist.My site name is bergspider.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooolkidpop (talk • contribs) 14:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there, if you've filed a request at WT:WHITELIST it will be answered in due course. There is no SLA or promised handling time. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)