User talk:Stifle/Archive 0610a

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

FA Cup

ROFL at your edit summary on the FA Cup article.  :) Leaky Caldron 12:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm getting all pernickety about bad expressions lately. And don't get me started on Eats, Shoots & Leaves... Stifle (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

LinkSummary

I saw you removed the LinkSummary template here. I disagree with the no-need. It makes it so much easier in the end to a) find why a link was blacklisted, b) what the data is that there is about a link, c) find where the domain is blacklisted, and d) to later find this discussion back when there is a next request. I would argue that we should include that template as soon as a domain is discussed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess I just don't use it. Feel free to re-add it and I won't interfere with it any more. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

See the tracking ->

Most of the time, including the blacklisting discussions. No need to go through the logs. There are more of those which are convenient there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stifle. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 14:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 14:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Thor Erdahl

Hello Stifle. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Thor Erdahl, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I think that deciding wheter or not this artist is notable is better done at AFD than CSD. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 15:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Just a note to say that I agree with much of what you're saying over at Giano's talk page. Thanks for your continued efforts with this whole sorry situation. Best, AGK 17:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you. Stifle (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

I have begun thread you may be interested in, here.  Giacomo  18:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

Could you please make a judgement regarding this? For the relevant details, please consult this page. --BF 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Quoting texts" and "using images" don't include permission for "remixing" and "modifying", or permission for "commercial distribution". I am a sysop at fa.wikipedia, and I am familiar with such cases. In fa.wikipedia, we don't accept pictures from these kind of websites; unless they explicitly give permissions compatible with wikipedia policies (GFDL, CC-BY-SA etc.) Raamin (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Will reply at BF's talk. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Soliciting your input

Hi. There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that the article should be on Wikipedia or will meet any appropriate inclusion standards. I would recommend transwikifying into an appropriate Wikia. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Madonna Ciccone.jpg

Could you check this image to see whether I licensed it correctly and whether it is a free domain or not. If not, will you update it to the correct terms of non-free usage in Madonna (entertainer), where the subject is being widely discussed. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say {{PD-US-not renewed}} is probably a more accurate tag. I can't say with certainty that it's PD or passes NFCC, but it seems OK. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Stifle. The licensing canot be correct hence can you delete the image? --Legolas (talk2me) 05:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Done. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about images

Hi Stifle. I know you're experienced with image copyrights so I hope you don't mind me asking this. What should I do with a file like File:Asteras Tripolis stadium.jpg? It's a copyvio, but WP:CSD#F9 can't be used because it isn't claimed by the uploader to be an image with a free license. I listed it at WP:PUF, but I realize now that that isn't right either. And I don't want to use {{subst:nld}} because if the uploader goes into the trouble of finding out how to add a copyright tag, I would have to tag it with {{subst:rfu}} afterwards. Do you have any ideas? Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway images

Hi, SandyGeorgia suggested I consult you about an image question. An editor is removing the JFK Library attributions to images in Ernest Hemingway (passed FAC a few weeks ago) and my understanding is that the images the library has that are PD can be used only if the library is credited because they host them. Discussion here and here. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply at the FPC page. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I assume the same applies to the images in the article as well? If so, I'd like to re-add the attributions that have been removed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The norm is that attributions and credits are on the file description page, not in the article. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Did not know that. In that case I'll check that the attributions are present in the file descriptions pages, and make the article consistent. Appreciate your input. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Holmes à Court

Hi Stifle. Please have a read over the recent posts to my talk page regarding the Peter Holmes à Court page, User:Edasent came to me in regards to what appears to be an ongoing editorial dispute with which you and possibly several others might be involved. I came to you as I'd like another side to the story ideally but would also like confirmation that I've got my facts straight. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edasent is trying to add material which, while possibly true, violates WP:UNDUE, among possibly other policies, and has led to OTRS complaints. He appears to be trying the other parent.
Note that I have not blocked or banned anyone in relation to that page. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, yes I had a feeling he might be, judging by their contributions I'm not the first and possibly won't be the last user Edasent contacts in relation to this. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Regards, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 17:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Red & Black Cafe (Portland, Oregon)

Please restore and move the page to my User:BGinOC/Red and Black Cafe (Portland, Oregon) or send me the text to bginoc@gmail.com - thank you. Rather than argue over the article, I will build it up in my sandbox and then submit for revisitation upon completion. The Cafe has a significant local history of hosting Anarchist and other activist activities. This incident with the police was simply the icing on the cake.BGinOC (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved as requested. Stifle (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again, hopefully I can write the article well enough to establish its prominence as one of the hubs of anarchy and activism in Portland to a degree that it is satisfactory for inclusionBGinOC (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Von Aachen's Disease

Hello, just to let you know I have taken this one to AfD after you declined my speedy deletion request. I still do think this page is a hoax, so please feel free to share your opinion in the deletion discussion. Regards, De728631 (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


Mortification

Surely this cannot be! no one else woul dbe as wicked as me and bring such a thing to ANI surely [1].  Giacomo  22:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, ANI can remove the rollback flag but not the sysop flag. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

AA2

Hi!
As an admin, you're sometimes active on AA2 enforcement cases; in this regard, I think you should be aware of this.
Personnaly, as an admin on WP:fr, I think it's very interesting.
Regards,
Sardur (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh )-: Stifle (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What should be done?

sadly assuming bad faith per this edit and the similar Question. --wiooiw (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Blocked, but in future requests like this should go to WP:AIV where any admin will see them so they can be handled faster. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of pages

You have made gross errors in deleting pages that I have made recently. Someone is being mischievous.

Next time can you give me more than 10 minutes notice? How about 11 at least? Bathroom Manufacturers Association - 10 minutes notice - and can you send me a copy of that page, it's the only one deleted I don't have copy of.

It appears someone has been deleting these in a batch fashion.

7 minutes after a notice for its deletion was issued, you decided that the UK Cleaning Products Industry Association was worth keeping. If you had deleted it, 7 minutes is hardly notice is it. 3 minutes later, you decided that the Bathroom Manufacturers Association was worth deleting. You flushed the Bathroom Manufacturers Association article down the electronic toilet.

The Horticultural Trades Association, a very well-known and respectable association in the UK, was deleted 28 minutes after notice was given. Not much time, but at least you didn't get round to do it - it was SchuminWeb. You didn't delete because it was deleted 3 hours earlier.

There appears to be a glaring weak link in your logic somewhere. There is no balance in your decisions. It's too one-sided.

There are many dodgy articles on Wikipedia, that don't deserve the airtime they have been given. None of them are ones I (unbiased presumption) created. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We have a policy called Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion which permits the deletion without notice of articles meeting certain criteria. Notice, when given, is a courtesy. I am applying the policy properly and logically; the articles have mostly been around for weeks so you have had enough time to make sure they were in line with policies. If you feel other articles should be deleted, WP:DPR explains how to nominate them.
I've restored the requested article to User:DinosaursLoveExistence/Bathroom Manufacturers Association. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you are connecting brain to keyboard there. I'm not disagreeing with the existence of the deletion policy, as much as I disagreeing with the Earth being round. 7 minutes notice is not acceptable; it's highly likely I am only being given 7 minutes for a good reason, namely to expediently delete pages with no-one complaining. Himmler tried the same trick with the Jews. He was very successful as well. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to be rude; I'm not being paid to do this and I don't come up with the policies. There is no requirement that people be given any notice at all of speedy deletions, but if an article is deleted in error, we can review that decision. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hi - Per your message on my talk page, I've just got it now. Don't suppose you know the link to the deletion discussion? It's well hidden and https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Distant_Worlds doesn't work any more. I'm guessing it's in the archives somewhere—Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriarty (talk • contribs) 16:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
The discussion is long closed, and no longer relevant. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Holmes a Court discussion

Hello Stifle, please check the Peter Holmes a Court discussion page for answers to your request for quotations. Edasent (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Stifle, its been 8 days since I provided the information you asked for regarding this page. I noted that you said on the discussion page that you were going to review what was provided. I take it that you have done that and that your lack of comment means your assent to the information being included in the entry in question. As such I will go ahead and make the necessary edits to bring the entry up to date. Edasent (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi!
I take note of this. While you underlined that "Your recent slow-burning revert war on this page needs to stop", could you explained why I'm the only one to receive this notice? And more particularly when I see that before posting on my talk page, you posted this on Nakh's case?
Sardur (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see whether someone can produce proof that Nakh was notified with the warning I just gave you. If they can't, I will give Nakh the same warning; if they can, he will get a topic ban or revert restriction. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
OK - thanks for the answer. Sardur (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Enforcement

Hi, I'm not sure if you were joking or not at AE when you said your only concern was the rollback request in Hebrew. If you were serious, then consider the fact that my account was new at that time, I had just met another Israeli editor who happened to be an admin, and I was happy to find someone with whom I could converse in Hebrew. Since then, I was informed that English should be used to communicate here. I just want to make you aware that the user who filed that AE request has a long history of battleground behaviour including a topic ban for continued suggestions that Israeli/Jewish sources are unreliable on Wikipedia. The fact that he included my use of Hebrew as a complaint in AE shows that his opinion has not changed. At the very least, it proves a lack of good faith. I'm a bit surprised to see an admin assuming bad faith too and automatically assuming that my use of Hebrew was deceitful. Breein1007 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
And for the record, I'm not participating in the discussion at AE because of the ridiculousness of the report and the user who submitted it. After being topic banned for battleground mentality and discounting editors/sources for being Jewish/Israeli, the same editor is now requesting a topic ban against me because I communicated with someone in our native language. I'm not going to be a part of something like that. Breein1007 (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest Breein stops using talkapages for conversations and uses the enforcement page instead. As can bee seen there: [2] In the canvassing part, breein also used hebrew afterward with the same user who asked him to participate in an edit war. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that Supreme Deliciousness stop following around editors who have raised doubts about his recent AE (may be viewed as harassment because I see it that way) and quit trying to tell them what to do. Frankly, English should be used in this WP, but certainly, while conversations could easily go on in emails offline, if a foreign language is used, it is revealed to all and actually better to see it here, than not to see it at all. --Shuki (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
And I suggest that you all post comments relevant to the AE at the AE board, and not here. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Fastily

I see the above admin is returned to us [3], as you have pointed out many times, I have not a clue where to post appropriate information. It appears, he waited just long enough for the ANI note to pass from his page. However, it reappeared and his response is just as unsuitable as the behaviour that precipitated it. Therefore, as you are the respected Admin I place the ball in your court. I know how strongly you feel that justice must be seen to be done.  Giacomo  21:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

He has replied concerning one of the eight counts of alleged rollback misuse; I have asked for a response on the other seven. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom appeal of sanction

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Appeal of sanction against Aregakn and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Aregakn (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you were keeping track, but the sanction expires at 08:57 today. May I suggest that your appeal will therefore be moot by the time ArbCom gets to it, and that you consider withdrawing it? Stifle (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please explain what a lift of sanction means, because I see the log still in place. No, I have not been keeping track. The reason I was and am going until the end is that I wish to keep my records clean as I am considering long-term contribution to Wikipedia. My appeal for this sanction isn't for the very limitations itself, because I have been careful with the use of that term "vandalism" anyway, but for being sanctioned in general as I really see no guilt. My record and good standing in the community is what is important to me. Aregakn (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The sanction has expired. It is over, finished with, historical. It no longer exists. Stifle (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Stifle. You have new messages at Aregakn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aregakn (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Urartu

The article has a long history as a magnet for nationalist sock armies. The solution would be to slap the trolls, not to lock down their edits. There have been 3RR violations. Generally, our approach to this is blocking the offending accounts to buy the article some peace, not locking the article, if possible even in the revision favoured by the offending editor. Full protection is a last resort measure when things are really getting out of hand between multiple editors. It is not the preferred method to deal with 3rr violations. --dab (𒁳) 09:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My main intention on protection was to de-escalate the matter. I fully intend to issue sanctions at WP:AE once I have given people a hearing. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. May I suggest you begin by figuring out who was in 3RRvio. May I also suggest that you restore the pre-edit-war version of the article before locking (status quo ante)? Because you have frozen it in a random revision in mid-edit-war. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll certainly look into that. I will be intending to issue sanctions in terms of placing users on a limit of one revert per article per three days, and requiring an explanation of the revert in at least 50 words in English to be posted to the talk page within 30 minutes of the revert.
As for reverting the page myself, please see the image attached. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I assumed I could skip the part about "I know about the 'wrong version'" but apparently not. Look, in cases of teenage nationalist trolling, there is such a thing as a wrong version. Detached administrative agnosticism isn't helpful in such cases. I am also not asking you to make a call to pick one of the warring parties' versions, I am simply asking you to restore the stable version of an article on a serious scholarly topic before a bunch of kids went to town with it. --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what is right, wrong, or indifferent about the topic, and indeed I couldn't care less about it. However, assuming that you would consider your latest edit to the page to be acceptable, this diff shows that the only differences between your last edit and the protected version are the removal of two sentences and some changes to the Armenian nationalism section, which I am not in a position to assess. As such, either you can change it yourself (which I will not object to) or request someone else to do it, by way of editprotected or other. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate that it is difficult to understand edit-wars in articles you couldn't care less about. This is a basic problem with the "uninvolved admin" paradigm. If you know nothing about the issue, you will be unable to make a call, and if you do have background knowledge and venture to make a call, you will be open to knee-jerk accusations of "involvement".

I have myself lost track which of the Armenian accounts is doing what and I admit there is no clear "status quo ante" here, so fine, if it's going to be locked, it can as well stay locked as it is. What I am trying to impress on you is not the "wrong version", but the long-term aspect of this. This article has been under siege by a sock-cloud literally for years. Locking it for a couple of days is doing nothing as long as the offending accounts aren't penalized. But if you mean to stay on the case and have only locked it to buy yourself some time to sort it out, by all means carry on the good work :) --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly staying on the case; I just want to be sure that I don't sanction anyone prematurely or without giving them the chance to defend themselves, and that the edit war isn't escalated while I try to get to the bottom of it. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Just for record: the text of the Armenian nationalism section has been proposed on the talk page by Marshal Bagramyan several days ago, and nobody objected to it. Sardur (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Pemberton

Think you could read over that one again? The only "keeps" cite CatFancy as a source, and I think Deor's refutation of that argument is reasonable.—Kww(talk) 14:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If there had been no !votes other than Deor's nomination and Ponyo's !vote, that would not have been sufficient to delete the article. Therefore, even if I were to discount all the keep !votes, which I don't, there would still not be sufficient consensus to delete.
Inniverse/Azviz did cause enough confusion to the debate that I have marked it as no prejudice against immediate renomination, but that is, I think, as far as I will go. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


RFC discussion of User:JClemens

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jclemens (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens. SnottyWong talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wedding

Congratulations, all the best for the future. Don't leave us for too long. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way. Comhghairdeas, ba mhaith liom tú saol fada sona! (hope there is nothing wrong =) ) Nakh 13:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Irish is notoriously hard to translate, machine or otherwise :) Stifle (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

ElPilotoDi

Block please User:MeyLay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) --Legolas (talk2me) 06:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Another mole whacked. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

... on the forthcoming happy event.  :)—S Marshall T/C 16:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Stifle (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, congratulations from me too. :-) Spartaz Humbug! 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, Stifle! GlassCobra 16:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations! Plenty of happiness! --Sulmues Let's talk 02:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Note

A file which you previously commented on has been nominated for deletion [4] – ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 08:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Account

Hi, Stifle. Is there any possibility to check my Brandmeister account for hack evidence? Or the only way is renaming with contribs reassignment? 213.154.27.165 (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Try a checkuser, but even then probably not. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Dancing Stage MegaMix promo.png

Hey, back in 2008 you deleted an image from the Dancing Stage MegaMix page citing that it was incorrectly attributed. If you could please resurrect the image and I will give a proper rationale for it. I don't remember what I tagged it as back then but it is a screencap of a promotional video for the game so it is not outside the bounds of fair use. Thank you.  æronphonehome  22:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Congrats on getting married! ^_^

Thanks. I'll undelete the image and tag it as no license; this will give you 7 days to tag it properly. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Done, thank you.  æronphonehome  16:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Wmi-building.jpg

there is a credible assertion that the image is freely-licensed, I'm not seeing anything on the site that states that it isn't copyrighted. All the editor did was {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} which is hardly a credible assertion. Bidgee (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I consider it credible that a university may have granted the user permission to use the image under a free license, hence why I added a {{subst:npd}} to the page to give him 7 days to send in such permission. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If you bothered to look on the site you would see © 2000-2008 Westmead Millennium Institute. Bidgee (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did bother to look on the site, thanks for asking. It is entirely possible that the user may have obtained a permission that supersedes that copyright notice; it is courteous to offer him the opportunity to produce it. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm commenting on your actions. Right since when did we allow any editor who has no file history to add copyrighted files? Wikipedia has gone backwards. I hardly see the editor as credible. Also do not copy and paste comments into my userpage. I'm going to get another Admin to look at it and I'm sure they would agree that it should be deleted. Bidgee (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
That's fine; don't have a canary. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations! Hope the wedding goes well. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to provide permission for image use. I have sent an email from my work address providing authorisation for use of the image. This is the first time that I have uploaded an image, so your guidance on image permission was thoughful. Thank you, your courteousy is appreciated. Jherschel (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Logman page

Imo speedy deletion of logman page was not in order. Request for more verifiable sources would have been more suitable. Notability was discussed and imo there should have been discussion about the articles notability before speedy deletion. I am more than happy to get info on your reasons for speedy deletion instead of discussing the matter on the talk page.--Ssavilam (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The main feature of speedy deletion is that is does not require discussion. It has been agreed that certain types of articles are never eligible for Wikipedia, and an article about a company which doesn't explain what makes the company important is one of these.
You can feel free to recreate the page if you can show that Logman is notable, or I can userfy it for you to work on if you prefer, so that it won't be speedily deleted again. Stifle (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Valiants (band)

Hello. I left two messages at malcoms discussion but i never got an answer, nothing wrong about that, but i was in Redirects for discussion where it reads:

  • 4) The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange.

And by having been reverted twice i guess there must be something wrong with my common sense because i dont see what the sense from a rock and roll band pointing to a song of another performer is. Does this means that i can redirect speedy Gonzalez to Felipe González just because they have something in common. Please tell me, i might need my common sense checked by a specialist if so. Rafax (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with your common sense, but there is a difference between speedy deletion and RFD; not everything that is eligible for deletion is eligible for speedy deletion, and you can still nominate the page for RFD. Stifle (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No, i'm not really bothered, most of my work is done at es:wiki, i have been editing there for the last five years and i only come up here to add interwikies and some minor edits or pics, though i've recently written an article and might be interested in working in another one very soon. I was just looking for the Valiants band to do the translation from here, but i guess it'll be hard to get the article done by someone if it keeps coming out in blue and i found the proceeding here really weird and i wanted to know. Thank you very much indeed for answering so rapidly. Cheers. Rafax (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I've seen you're irish and i am one of the most prolifics writers at es:wiki about your country costumes and culture. Have you ever been to Ballyponsa, you look familiar to me. I also love your hospitality as i was very, very well treated while i was in Dublin so i feel devoted to your people and your manners. Good luck in your marriage. Rafax (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I have only ever been to Spain once and only ventured about 1km inside the French border. So it wasn't me.
Thanks for your good wishes. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WMEJ

More edits have been added to the AfD and to the page itself, you might want to take a look. I think the page more than meets WP:N now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you still in the process of reopening the AFD on this article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WMEJ still looks closed. I'd also like more explanation about the overturning of the non-admin closure here. It seemed like a pretty good use of the tool given the clear snowballing going on. Reopening it to satisfy the nominator seems like a waste of your time and others.--RadioFan (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It was "re-snowed" by an administrator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, good to see it was closed again. However, the AFD notice remains on the article. Given the procedural questions here, it's probably best for an admin to take care of this housekeeping task.--RadioFan (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Already done. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I hath responded. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle/Archive_0610a&oldid=1144596524"