User talk:Stifle/Archive 1009a

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


Joe Hollywood

Can you please unprotect the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_hollywood , I have sources and references to make this page. Thanks so much! (Johnnyk1225 (talk) 03:59, 1 October 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 unable to agree this request. You will need to prepare a draft page in userspace (see WP:SUBPAGE), and then open a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
Also, note that the page should be at Joe Hollywood, with a capital H. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for access to deleted Arthur Weiss page

Hello Stifle,

I was planning to create an Arthur Weiss page but notice you had deleted one that existed on 10 July 2008. Could you let me see what was on that page via my workspace? It would help to know if this is the same "Arthur Weiss" as the creater of "Flipper" and TV/Film writer/producer.

I believe that Arthur Weiss was notable and I'd would be happy to flesh out the old page with details if they were lacking (or start fresh).

His Hollywood History can be found at: http://www.inbaseline.com/person.aspx?person_id=1073082 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0918918/

Highlights: in addition to creating the script and concept for "Flipper" the dolphin Movie and TV show, he was also a writer for several notable shows including Mission Impossible, Time Tunnel, Sea Hunt, Dr Kildare, Voyage to the Bottom of Sea, etc.

Regards, Gary Kibble Oct 1, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryKibble (talk • contribs) 21:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a different Arthur Weiss; the deleted article won't be any help to you. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Stifle!
GaryKibble (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair-use image knowledge needed

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2004 World Series/archive2, where the discussion about a logo is bordering on ridiculous. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I've replied to your comment, and there is not a debate about the logo on the article's talk page. BUC (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I've seen your reply and don't have anything to add at the moment. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS on Colgate University

Hey. I just saw this edit on the Colgate University article. I'm wondering why someone requested to have that author removed. On the reference in question, it clearly says "By Marjorie Backman" at the top. I'm just sort of curious as to why it should have been removed, then. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Apparently the byline is an error. Spartaz Humbug! 12:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • What Spartaz said. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, okay. Just for future reference, there was really no way for me to know that when I added that reference, right? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Nope, not your fault in any way. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

London_Opportunity_Areas.png

re: deletion of en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:London_Opportunity_Areas.png

"freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information"

Please explain how this could be found, since the only source of the data is in the image.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdudding (talk • contribs) 12:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
The data is the route, not the map, and a freely-licensed map which could be created, or a textual description of the route, would both do. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Please say that again, using different words. I am trying to understand. What route? Jdudding (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The map is intended to indicate the route of the railway. You can describe the route of a railway in words, or by a railway template (see Trans-Dublin), or by a map. The non-free image wasn't required to indicate the route of the railway. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The map shows mid-2000s strategic planning in London, and is a historical document, of interest long-term, particularly since it seems to have been suppressed, and no-one claims ownership now. It has nothing to do with a railway (it is used on some railway pages, but also other pages that have nothing to do with railways. e.g. the "London Plan" page, and "London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham" page (due to White City) - any borough that has an "opportunity area" or "area of intensification" anywhere in London in fact. (It had not been added to ALL such boroughs' pages yet, though, particularly in east London.)
The 'London Plan' is also a live issue in London, with the draft version made public in a few weeks. This image illuminates that debate for anyone reading the "London Plan" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdudding (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end? This is really important to know who said what and when.
I can't agree with that, I'm afraid. You're welcome to open a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review if you feel that the deletion was not in order. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

question about procedure following no consensus on A. Watts

Hi Stifle, I note that you have closed the AfD on A. Watts that I initiated as "no consensus." So that you're aware, I'll give you the background that may not be immediately obvious. The AfD came about after an editor flagged the A. Watts article with {{bio-notability}}. I objected to this because (1) it seemed absurd to me that A. Watts would pass AfD whilst plenty of far lesser known bloggers in the climate change debate had biographies; and (2) it seemed to me that the editor had found a way of stating publicly using Wikipedia that A. Watts is "non-notable" which many will read as "irrelevant", i.e. A Watts opinions are irrelevant (as is commonly asserted in the climate change debate). Watts is also known to be offended by these slurs. Accordingly, I tried to remove the {{bio-notability}} but it was re-added each time. Seeing it as a BLP issue, I took it to BLP/N, and there was consensus that adding {{bio-notability}} is not a BLP issue. I then asked, does that mean the {{bio-notability}} flag can stay there indefinitely? It was then suggested that the best thing to do, since the editor who added the flag wasn't moving to actually nominate the article, that I nominate the article for deletion myself, which I did. The idea was, we'd either get rid of the article altogether, an outcome I have mixed feelings about, or we'd get rid of the tag. Well, now that the AfD has ended in "no consensus" -- does that mean the original problem will remain, i.e. editors can leave {{bio-notability}} in his article indefinitely now? Thanks for your help here. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The AFD has no impact on whether the tag should remain on the article; I suggest you open a discussion on the talk page if you disagree with it being there, or just be bold and remove it. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Alamo

Hi Stifle, thanks for returning to the Alamo FAC so quickly (I wasn't going to bother you about it because I knew you were busy). While we wait for the outcome of the deletion discussion, I've replaced the lead image with File:1854 Alamo.jpg. I scanned this image from a 2005 book which stated that it was a reprint of a drawing from an 1854 magazine. I'd appreciate your confirmation at the FAC page that this is appropriate. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists who reached number one on the U.S. Rock Charts

I meant to bundle Number one rock songs of 2009 into this afd but didn't realize I copy-pasted wrong until just now. Wanna shoot Number one rock songs of 2009 down as a G6? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Already done. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I know. You were taking too long so I asked Jéské. Slowpoke. :-P (Please don't take that seriously.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Question on 19th century RN images

Hello Stifle. I am interested in using form the images appearing here, particularly the latter ones. The page indicates they were contributed by, and copyright of, an individual whose grandfather served aboard the ships. The ships were out of active service around the turn of the last century; the grandfather was still living in 1934, according to the caption of one image. Would these not qualify as public doman as being photographs taken by a RN and therefore UK employee more than 50 years ago? And even if so, do you see any moral rights that would be violated by Wikpedia's publication of those photographs? I am also interested in the last image of that page, from 1891, from the Walker archive. Thanks for any assistance you can give. Kablammo (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Several different possibilities for this one. Any image first published before 1923 can be used here with the tag {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. If the creator was known to have died in 1935 or earlier, {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-US-1996}} would be used. If, but only if, the images were taken in the course of his duty prior to 1 June 1957, {{PD-BritishGov}} would apply. I can't tell you what applies to these particular images though. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I suspect the images were either taken by gramps while in service, or in his collection and that neither he nor his grandson would have copyright. I have not uploaded them yet. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley Fletcher

Could you expand your closing rationale, please? I see a consensus. So if we're seeing something different I think maybe some expansion might be helpful. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

On a headcount, 12d/9k; sourcing was improved during the AFD to the extent that some people changed their !votes to keep, and others mentioned it too. As DGG pointed out, the WP:BLP criteria for deletion don't apply since the subject has not requested deletion. The matter of WP:V and WP:BIO are to be interpreted by the community, and while I personally don't think he is notable, it is not for me to substitute my own judgment or opinion for an unbiased closure. Needless to say, you're welcome to DRV if you disagree. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Naaa... that's all good thinking, no need for DRV. I don't come to the same conclusion but it's a discretionary thing. Would you consider modifying the close to include the above, it's helpful to elaborate that way. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Much appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete National Center for Women and Families?

Why was this article deleted? I wanted to check the organization because it is recommended by the National Cancer Institute and NIH booklet on breast cancer, linked to the breast cancer article on wikipedia. Is there something wrong with the Center? It seems to be legit. Rutgersph (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted after a consensus was formed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Research Center for Women & Families that it should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, I appreciate it very much. But I was surprised by what you said because looking at the info it doesn't look like a consensus to me. It looks like a disagreement with some people trying to improve the article by adding references and others saying take it down anyway and then you deleted it. You didn't explain why it was deleted so that's my question. Is it a bad organization? There are lots of health organizations listed on wikipedia that don't seem as well known, so that's probably not the reason. How can the organization be cited by NIH and National Cancer Institute and not be good enough for wikipedia? That's what I don't understand. When people see an agency listed in a newspaper they want to know more about it and that's why wikipedia is so helpful, isn't it?
Rutgersph (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Please note that it is now too late to bring up arguments that should haver been made in the deletion discussion. You will need to consult the deletion discussion to see the reasons why the article was not considered appropriate for Wikipedia.
If you feel that I have not followed the deletion process correctly, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but this can't be done just because you disagree with the result. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Another newly created WP:SPA account "shopping" this topic. Hmmm.. --Hu12 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

lg env3

all the other lg nv fones have atikels. and this on e is better with a signif better camera and more features. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Stifle (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken identity for vandalised Wiki page.

Hi Stifle.

This morning the page for Jude Calvert-Toulmin was edited by Haunter of the dark (who originally set up the page)in order to remove some malicious vandalisation which has occured since the page was set up and only noticed today.

The vandalised material included altering the name Jude to Judith, altering the name of Jude's cats to include "Hitler" and "Fred West", and amending a line about her personal life to read "After graduating, Jude decided that she would spend her twenties having fun, her thirties having babies and then sponge off men for the rest of her life."

Jude has had problems from an ex stalking her on the net in the past and posting libellous and erroneous information about her and believes this is the same person. Haunter of the dark has been trying to correct the problems caused by the stalker,including adding new citation proof relating to the music industry and uploaded today which can be found at http://fleurdelyspublishing.com/wiki/index.html

Haunter of the dark is not the person who has been vandalising the page. The edits today were in order to correct the vandalisation and to add requested citations.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haunter of the dark (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification and sorry for the incorrect message. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stifle.

Thanks for replying so quickly and thanks for the apology; it is appreciated. Would you set the page back to how it was before you reverted it back to the vandalised version or do you want me to input all the corrections and citations again? I'm happy to do it all again as I realise you are working for the benefit of the community and it won't take me too long to do it.

Haunter of the dark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haunter of the dark (talk • contribs) 13:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I can reset it, but the changes you have made in the last 15 minutes will be cancelled as well. Is that OK? Stifle (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Atta IFD closures

Hi, I see you deleted File:Atta atm.jpg according to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 September 22, but left File:Atta in airport.jpg open. Both seem to have pretty much the same status. It's not often I disagree with somebody's "delete" closure on IFD, but in these two cases I would have kept, based on Prosfilaes' sensible argument about no creativity in automatical surveillance cameras. Did you give consideration to that argument in making your closure? I was about to close the second discussion as "keep", if it wasn't for the fact that the two inconsistent closures would be in such a strange and unmotivated contrast, so I thought it would be preferable if we could come to some consensus on both cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Most security cameras nowadays can be aimed or controlled from a control room, so it's not immediately correct that a security camera image isn't copyrightable. NGX463's argument is an additional one to consider in the other discussion, enough to make me unsure enough as to the consensus to not close the discussion. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-free stamp purge

You may have noticed that I am on a non-free stamp purge again here and here and we also now have someone wanting to change the WP:NFCC at WT:NFCC in case you are interested. ww2censor (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll weigh in. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems I have really stirred up a hornet's nest at WT:NFCC!! ww2censor (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
And thus begins another battle of the non-free content wars... Stifle (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Perhaps the stamp usage should be clarified like the baseball exception is. I mentioned this some time ago but no action was taken, so maybe, after this has died down, I will make a formal suggestion. Perhaps Wikiwatcher1 considers you to be on of the "lurking anti-fair use crowd" who supports this "influential and well connected wikipedian". What a joke! ww2censor (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS question

Stifle, can emails be used as sources, and if so, do we need an OTRS ticket for them? See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Snow Patrol discography/archive1. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, were you able to check up on this? If you don't have the time, do you know any other OTRS volunteers I can ask? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I completely missed this message.
OTRS does not archive emails to be used as sources; it fails WP:V as it's not verifiable by the majority of our users. An acceptable solution to this would be to have the director in question update his own website/blog/twitter with whatever information he wants to convey. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, can you check on the images at Hungarian Revolution of 1956 for its FAR? Thanks again, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your image tagging in Marc Chagall

Hello, I noticed that when you tagged File:UN Glass.jpg for deletion in the article Marc Chagall, your edit hid the pre-existing image caption by adding an extra | mark. Please make sure that every time you tag an image within an article, no preexisting content is overwritten, as this must remain in place while the image's deletion is pending and/or under discussion. Postdlf (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Postdlf also admonished me about this, so I have added a bug report to Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Bugs#TW-B-333 .28new.29. Maybe this is on purpose, but Postdlf is upset that existing captions are made invisible. Manually tagging is just a pain. ww2censor (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Please provide a link to the policy or guideline that says this, Postdlf. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
A policy or guideline that says you shouldn't overwrite or hide image captions when tagging the images for deletion consideration? Are you serious? What makes you think you should overwrite the captions when you're tagging the images?
The caption needs to be visible to evaluate the use of the image in the deletion determination, as it is part of the article's use of the image and provides some of the article's commentary on it, or at a minimum its identification.
But on a more fundamental and general level, you can't remove or hide article content without a constructive reason that benefits the article and the project, particularly if that content removal/hiding is just because you don't want to take the time to tag properly. Obviously I don't think either of you have ever done it intentionally; it's a flaw in the Twinkle app (and I really appreciate Ww2censor's prompt and conscientious response). But now that the flaw has been identified it needs to be addressed, and I don't see how willfully ignoring the flaw is acceptable. Postdlf (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Stifle, I see you are continuing to use Twinkle to tag images, but the bug has not been fixed, and your edits are still obscuring the captions (e.g., [1],[2], and edits farther back). Please go back and correct this in your recent edits by manually removing the extra | from the captions. Thanks, Postdlf (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I will endeavour to do so as a gesture of goodwill, there being no policy, procedure, guideline, or even essay requiring otherwise. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You might not be aware of this edit which states that Twinkle no longer tags the images. ww2censor (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Reflex Novel Cover.jpg

Is Image:Reflex Novel Cover.jpg safe to remove all non-fair-use rationale templates. Information has been updated to include rationale. There is still a tag in the infobox for the image here Reflex (novel). --Chrismiceli (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine to be removed. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Images by Frank Klepacki

Hi Stifle,
I'm contacting you because you deleted File:Klepacki WW Office.JPG, File:Klepackipetroglyphstudios.jpg and File:Frank Rocktronic.jpg. I would like to get an OTRS ticket for these images from Frank Klepacki so that they can be uploaded to Commons. I don't think that there will be any ticket if Mr. Klepacki does not know what I'm talking about. Can you download all three images and upload them to ImageShack or to RapidShare in an archiv?
thanks for your time --D-Kuru (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be a copyright violation, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well yes, you are right: Technically it would be a violation of copyright. However, Mr. Klepacki won't and/or can't give me an allowance to upload these images under a free licence if he does not know what I'm talking about. That copyright problem is not really a big problem if you upload all trhee images in one .rar file and create a password which is a bit more creative than "1234" before you upload it. A link to the images and of course the password can be send via Mail to avoid other using these images. I'm also fine with any other idea you have so that I can get that ticket.
--D-Kuru (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll mail a link to you. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Spam-jacked

Howdy, I reversed the page move you performed here because I think what happened is the current article, Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, got spam-jacked starting with this edit. I just reverted it to the pre-spam version and moved it back. If I completed misunderstood what you did, please let me know. Have a good one. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be all in order. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Image review

Hi, I was advised by User:NuclearWarfare to ask you to continue the image review here. Would you please take a look? Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Hekerui (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Pixar

I've reverted your move of Pixar to Disney.Pixar, since I can find no reference of any that name change for Pixar from any reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting Milomedes

Apologies if I'm digging at old wounds, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Revisiting Milomedes. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Bircham

You said: This user is requesting unblocking and promising to be good at Ticket:2009100610036906. Would you agree to a trial unblock under a condition that he not edit the university page, only the talk page? Stifle (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My response: No chance. He has no purpose here other than to whitewash an article on his diploma mill and has caused all manner of aggravation to try to get there. If you have OTRS access you can look him up, email me for the name (or just search for Bircham). I've lost count of the number of times he has tried different tricks to try to get us to water down the article, and that has included roping in the local Chamber of Commerce, giving them only half the story. The man from the chamber was very nice and rapidly understood the problem. His activity on the talk page is every bit as problematic as his editing of the article itself. His presence at or near that article can serve no useful purpose whatsoever. [3] says it all. He has failed to post a single actionable request for any specific change supported by sources, an every time he's done so in the past it's been either a misrepresentation of the source or special pleading to try to get reliable sources of criticism removed.

Check the edit history of the entry on answers.com - especially see the contributions from Bircham and AdultLearner. That's what he wants us to say.

See this: history of article on answers.com

There is simply no way we can trust this user to have anything to do with the subject of his company. I won't call it a university because it basically isn't one. He absolutely believes that they are now "better" due to the criticism they have received, but this appears to be better in the sense of better at obscuring their status rather than better. On Answers he was still claiming accreditation today, but it is not accredited by any recognised accreditation agency. That's the problem, he wants everything interpreted his way, and his way is fundamentally wrong. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem; I saw your response on your talk page and have replied to the OTRS ticket accordingly. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Answers.com just nuked his article. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh. I guess degree mills aren't flavour of the week. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Launchballer's signature

The reason I use it like that is because sometimes I need to change the colours on it, and using it in the way I do I can change it. Also, updating the template would update all previous sigs.--Launchballer 16:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it's forbidden by Wikipedia rules because it causes an excessive drain on server resources. You are liable to get blocked if you don't change it. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Iranian notable poets

Hello. Sepideh Jodeyri and Ziya Movahed are Iranian notable poets. They both have been recognized with various critics in the Iranian press. Zohairani (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're telling me this, unless it's because I nominated them for deletion last February, in which case it's a little late (-: Stifle (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

MFD

As you were either a closing admin or initator, please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Martinez Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane ruttle and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Ruttle Martinez. Senatrix (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Mafia Family Citation Issue

Hi, I undid your removal of material and "not in citation" tag; however the lines and cite I gave inside that source were not complete. I meant to add it goes all the way down to page 61, lines 1-5. He clearly identifies her as a supplier of his. Sorry, I would have just put all that in the original revision I did but I hit enter too fast. Thanks.jlcoving (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I missed that part. Thanks for the message. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Account Creation Tool

I wasnt sure if to respond here or on my talk, so I did both. I thought trying the Account Creation Tool would be a chance to help on wikipedia other than vandal fighting. --Lcawte (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding on your own page was fine; the new account queue is only checked sporadically. The reason you were asked to put a message there was that there is no connection between toolserver and wiki accounts, so we need to be sure that the same person is applying for the account. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Image use policy clarification

If you have the time I'd like your input on my proposed clarification of WP:Image use policy concerning fair-use/copyright versus public-domain/trademark image use. The proposal is contained here. Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ron Johnson (politician)

Concerning the recent ticket request on this page, I should inform you that I've made this change. CJCurrie (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So noted. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Martinez

And Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane ruttle

I noticed that another editor blanked out the AfD - was this a correct move? I would have thought not, but as the closing admin I'll leave it for you to decide if it should have been blanked or not, and if not to rollback to the previous version. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Blanking AFDs in cases like this is considered acceptable. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Even though the MfD did not say this should be done? OK. Thanks for the reply. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS check

Hi, Stifle. :) I'm not able to access OTRS right now. Long story short, my computer is in for repairs, and I'm on a laptop that I don't trust to be quite that secure. (Obviously, I don't want people hacking into my admin account on Wikipedia, either, but if somebody did I'd be blocked and cleaned up. If they got ahold of the OTRS stuff, it could be disaster. I do have some protection, just...not enough to make me comfortable.) Anyway, there's a request to check some OTRS tickets at WT:COPYCLEAN. Can you help out? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle/Archive_1009a&oldid=1139372605"