User talk:Stifle/Archive 1108

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

Jack Stack article

You participated in an AfD Discussion on the article Jack Stack that resulted in that article being deleted. I have done some more research and have found a professional career and other sources and believe that the subject now meets WP:ATHLETE. Because normally articles like this are almost always kept, I decided to be bold and just place the article back where it was with the updates. However, if you still believe that there is a reason to delete this article, we can take it to any discussion forum you prefer.

To be fair, I am notifying everyone who made a comment on the AfD. If you wish to make any comments, it might be best to put them on the article's talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Mack Flenniken who had a professional career with the New York Giants and Chicago Cardinals.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
WOOPS Typo--it is Jack Sack not Jack Stack. Apologies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article: Fidel Nadal

I wish to challenge the deletion of a page that you deleted.

  • The page title is Fidel Nadal.
  • I have read the reason for deleting the page and I feel it was incorrect because Fidel Nadal is a well known artist in the reggae community with a verifiable music carreer of over 30 albums. Not particularly fond of him, just came to read more about him and found the deletion notice. I'm sure he's done much in music and politics enough for him to have an article with his bio. I really don't know the contents of the deleted article, i'm not challenging that: maybe it failed to reflect his actual carreer or something? Having his article been deleted twice already, a new editor might think twice before starting it again. Having it restored may help editors to complete it with significant data.
  • The following sources back up my claim:
    1. 1998 Rolling Stone magazine interview, providing political and religious views and duties as an activist: http://www.punksunidos.com.ar/blog/2008/03/18/entrevista-fidel-nadal/
    2. Short bio at rock.com.ar: http://www.rock.com.ar/artistas/fidel-nadal
    3. Latest album release, explaining the significance of his message: http://www.rionegro.com.ar/diario/2008/10/27/122507915796.php
    4. Also check out his (I guess quite incomplete) article in spanish wiki: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Nadal

Please consider restoring this article. (loved the wizard) Thanks for your time! Yago Stecher (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The page was deleted over 4 months ago; there's little or nothing worth restoring. You can feel free to recreate it. Just make sure you show how he meets WP:NMG and cite some reliable sources which back you up. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

re-added deleted content

Hey there...

The following diff lists the log for Image:JPChangeux-small.jpg which you deleted Oct 22nd but the same uploader re-uploaded it on the 27th. If it is the same license as the deleted one, should it be re-deleted? It is claimed the image was provided by the subject and is public domain; no proof was provided after the previous nomination back October 1st. Thanks for your consideration and if I have made some logic or procedural mistake, please let me know. Thanks again. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, gone. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nick Savoy

Hi Stifle,

Could you have a look at the "Nick Savoy" page? The page got deleted by an administrator for personal reasons and now it's undergoing deletion review.

Your input is much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Camera123456 (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara

Whenever you are ready to come back, since you protected the article indefinitely, given the attempts at discussion on the talk page, if you find it appropriate, could you unprotect the article? While the 3O seems to have offered a middle balanced position, the fact that no one else has responded probably means that they are just waiting on the protection, unfortunately. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
Done. Stifle (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Spam-whitelist

Who is the person who decide if a website should or shouldn't be in ths list? I say it to you, because I've seen that you have decide in the past.--RobCatalà (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Any admin can decide on it. Stifle (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
But in this page Mike.lifeguard, agree me that It's a good website, why can't I put the website?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/parkguell.net84.net#Discussion --RobCatalà (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Anything on meta is above my pay grade, I'm afraid. I have no power there. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank's, but an admin have decided that it's non-useful. --RobCatalà (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
You can only make a think, you can say what you think in the discussion page of the article Park Güell--RobCatalà (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
No, for the moment I won't do it, I writed this because I was angry, but at least I'll have the user to solve this problem, but thank's for all--RobCatalà (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Three-Card Monte - odds of winning

You made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Three-card_Monte&diff=234761094&oldid=231760841 Adding "even if the game is played without the usual sleight of hand, it is unfair to the players, as the payout is invariably even money, whereas the true odds are 2/1." Are you sure that's right? I understood from reading it that you win twice your bet if you guess correctly, otherwise you lose your bet. If there's no sleight of hand, you have a 1 in 3 chance of winning. So 2 * 1/3 + 0 * 2/3 = 2/3 , so on average you only keep 2/3 of your money per game. I don't see how the "payout is invariably even money" or "the true odds are 2/1." The correct statement seems to be that the payout is 2 to 1, but the odds of receiving it are only 1 in 3. Rotiro (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Even money" means that the payout is equal to the stake, and the stake is also returned (or kept) by the bettor — if they bet €10, they are paid €10 more when they win. Odds of 2/1 means that for every 2 chances of losing, there is 1 chance of winning.
I hope this clarifies the article for you. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I see. I'm quite familiar with statistics and probability, but not the terms used to describe betting odds. Okay, as long as it's clear to someone who knows those terms. Thanks. Rotiro (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Marathon training

Could you possibly give me a copy of this article? (you said in the AfD that you would do if someone asked.) I'll transwiki it to Wikibooks as suggested. How would I go about that? Sticky Parkin 13:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it to User:Sticky Parkin/Marathon training. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nick Savoy undeletion

Hi -- I wanted to drop by to address your sock puppet / sleeper account comment on the Nick Savoy page. I think it's unfortunate, since we've had these sock puppet accusations before, also with no grounds. I did want to refer you to a post on a large seduction community based forum that might have sparked some people to come by even if they hadn't been active on wikipedia or active for some time. (http://www.theattractionforums.com/forum/discussion/81896-savoy-has-wikipedia-page.html)

I didn't think it was wikipedia policy to judge the content of an article (which coaster7 and I have worked hard on, as have others) negatively based on the identities of some of those who have supported it. I do agree that a couple people don't seem to have large editing histories, but, leaving mine aside, pro-undeletion (is that a word?) comments have also come from long-established users such as WoodenBuddha, Mathmo, SecondSight and so on.

I hope you're doing well and have a moment to take a look at the progress on the article. Best, TL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
Noted. I'm happy with my decision to recommend keeping the article deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Welcome-auto (redux)

Further information: User talk:Stifle/Archive 1008e § Template:Welcome-auto

Stifle, would you be opposed to me editing {{welcome-auto}} so that its parameters worked in the same way as, for instance, {{welcome}}? I'd also expand the documentation and add additional logic to the template itself for handling of all optional parameters. Let me know! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest. It's not like I could stop you if I wanted to :) Stifle (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Well you're the creator and (almost) only contributor...I didn't want to step on your toes. :-) Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Freebiejeebies deletion discussion

Are you able to make the final decision on the deletion review of Freebiejeebies discussion and recreate the deleted page? Pretty much all the comments have gone my way and I'm keen for the deletion to be overturned, are you able to do this for me and recreate the page? Thanks very much Simon2239 (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Only uninvolved users may close a deletion review. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but who is likely to do this then? And how soon? Simon2239 (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Spartaz has already done so. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Many happy returns

Happy birthday, Stifle. :) Have a good day. GlassCobra 10:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your neutral on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Efe

Hello Stife, I too am a bit unhappy with some of the overzealous response some of the oppose !votes are receiving. However in general, discussion at RFA is an excellent thing and I must say IMHO that was a rather petty threat. I doubt any Bureaucrat would give much weight to a !vote made in response to perceived oppose badgering. It also makes little sense to factor in the behavior of others when considering your !vote, in the end an admin won't be any better or worse for whatever drama happened at their RFA. "Concerns about communication skills" is a valid reason for hesitation, but using a vote to make a point is just not the way to go.

P.S. sorry for not using your "wizard", its late and, like any human being, I prefer the mode of communication with which I am most accustomed. Icewedge (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I don't think neutrals make much of a difference either way. I do have strong feelings about people arguing so much with oppose !voters, though, especially when there are so many.
For what it's worth, you wouldn't have found anything useful in the message wizard for this message :) It's mostly so that people who are annoyed that I speedied their page or want help that any admin can provide are able to answer their own question or are referred to AN and don't have to wait for me to be online. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Schmoovy Schmoov Improper Speedy Deletion

I wish to challenge the deletion of a page that you deleted.

  • The page title is Schmoovy Schmoov.
  • I have read the reason for deleting the page and I feel it was incorrect because I am Edward Cook of the group Digital Underground aka Schmoovy Schmoov whose page you Speedy Deleted. I need to make clear that the information was typed from my head some time before I posted a version of it to the page that was deleted. I lived it and then I documented some of the activites in text for publishing to the Wikipedia site. Beyond this I am at a loss as to why this activty could be a correct or truthful reason to delete the article. I for some time did not know how to get the article posted from a User Article to a Active Wiki article. Someone helped me with that and shortly after you deleted my info. What do you recommend I do. If anything someone has found my information and used it for their site and copywrite infringed on my information. It's the truth and I wait your recommendation.
  • The following sources back up my claim:
    1. Digital Underground CD Writers Credits
    2. Screen Actors Guild
    3. Tupac Documentaries (Photos w/My Face)
    4. Feature Film - Nothing But Trouble
    5. Universal Music Group Publishing
    6. ASCAP Member

Please consider restoring this article. Schmoovy Schmoov (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete this page; please contact User:Fuhghettaboutit who actually deleted the page. You may want to provide proof that the text is released under the GFDL, which could be a note on the website www.schmoovyschmoov.com or an email sent from that domain to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposing turning list of DS games w/ rumble into category.

I'm making this proposal here. Feel free to discuss. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Some clarification over Squatting Framework deletion.

Hi Stifle

I did leave a message on the Talk:Squatting_(framework) just want to bring it to your attention. I'm not asking to undelete Squatting but rather clarification to why it was deleted in comparision to other web application framework like I've mentioned.

I like to know because I'm planning on tidying up some of the Perl stuff on Wikipedia and bring it up-to-date and more inline with the Perl5 Wiki and this includes adding a couple of other Perl web frameworks which aren't currently listed on Wikipedia (and have even stronger cases than Squatting because they're more established).

Also I do plan to try again with Squatting but not till it gains a bit more traction and notability ;-)

Many thanks for your time.

regards Barry

Draegtun (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. You seem to have chosen the wrong option in my message wizard — on User talk:Stifle/wizard/deleted/undelete1/error, you chose "Other deletion reason" when the correct selection for you was "Articles for deletion".
Squatting (framework) was deleted following a consensus of the community reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squatting (framework). You can read that page for reasons why people recommended deletion.
If you feel that the deletion process was not properly followed, you can make a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, if you just recreate the article, it is liable to be deleted under CSD:G4 and may be locked from further creation. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about choosing wrong option. It was a struggle even to find this avenue! Thank you for replying.
I'm happy with the consensus now that I'm aware of Wikipedia requirements. However there are other recent web frameworks (for eg. Orinoco_Framework ) which appear to also not meet Wikipedia requirements (in my view). So any pointers would help me because I want update the list of Perl frameworks at List_of_web_application_frameworks#Perl. Many thanks for you time, Barry Draegtun (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any information on how to help you write articles. Wikipedia:Your first article may help.
If you feel an article should be deleted, see Wikipedia:Deletion process. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Myka Miller page

I wish to challenge the deletion of a page that you deleted.

Please consider restoring this article. <Tvccs (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)>

Thank you for your message. Please note the following issues with the sources:
  1. This is a first-party source, which is not considered.
  2. Myspace is not a reliable source.
  3. Article is about the Harmony Project. It just quotes Ms. Miller.
  4. Article is also about the Harmony Project. It just quotes Ms. Miller.
  5. This site does not seem to be a reliable source.
  6. This seems to be one person's opinion.
WP:N and WP:BIO contemplate multiple, non-trivial mentions in reliable sources (e.g. major newspapers, academic journals. I don't see that Ms. Miller meets these standards and will have to decline your request to restore this article. You are welcome to request the decision be reviewed by other editors at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
However, I think an article about the Harmony Project would be a good idea and would encourage you to write it. Perhaps you can include some details about Ms. Miller there. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin to Admin question regarding AFD renominations

About 6 weeks ago, you closed an AFD for New Brooklyn with a Keep decision. Another user is either unaware of this or has chosen to ignore the outcome and has renominated the article here. Of course, when an article is deleted and someone doesn't like that, they can take it to deletion review. But do you know if there is a similar process for people to appeal Keep decisions they don't like? The reason I'm asking is I'm considering putting forward a proposal for just such a mechanism to perhaps cut down on the number of repeated AFDs. Although I'm unaware of a particular "time frame" policy and WP:NOTAGAIN doesn't really give a time limit, I'm constantly seeing AFD renominations for articles that have been kept, sometimes as recently as a few days earlier and more commonly a few weeks. (I'm talking about AFDs closed with keep decisions; as far as I'm concerned "No consensus" decisions are fair game to reopen). Thanks for your time (I prefer responses on my own talk page as I'm trying to cut down on my Watchlist). 23skidoo (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been known for keep closures to be brought to deletion review, although any such closure brought anything later than a week or so after the AFD tends to get met with "just renominate it". Equally, articles which are kept at AFD are often renominated later and there is no rule or policy against this (WP:NOTAGAIN is an essay). If the consensus seems to be that it is too soon or that a nomination is disruptive, there'll usually be a quick snowball close. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

AFD

Your AFD response was "If DGG is satisfied that the article should go, thats enough for me.[1]], don't you think you need a little bit of an explanation than that other than going along with somebody because of their experience or because you know them from around here, etc... HairyPerry 19:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, DGG is so well-known as an inclusionist that I think the comment speaks for itself. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Stevanna Jackson

I honestly do not know the answer to your question, but I have tried to reason with a few editors. Maybe it just got too emotional, because they felt that I am making them wrong, somehow. If thats what happened, that was not my intention. I was only pointing out that the article fits perfectly fine within the guidelines of WP. However, because I am new to this, they could sense that I could be pushed around a bit.--Fantasia 15 (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understood what I was asking. You were able to read the steps to list a deletion review but you ignored the first step, which was "please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision)". I would like to know why you did that.
Also, for your own reference, you should only put [[ and ]] around a word if you want it to link to another page. If you want to emphasize something, use '' and '' on either side, which brings it out in italics. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Amir Khan (boxer)

Hi Stifle. The protection logs for Amir Khan (boxer) show that you were the most recent sysop to semi this article. Would you mind doing it again? It continues to be subject to the same type of frequenty vandalism and defamatory edits, as the edit history will show. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
Seems to be already done by SoWhy. For future reference, it's best to list protection requests on WP:RFPP rather than on individual user talk pages because, as in this case, the user you ask may not be online to see it. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Stevanna Jackson

You sound like the most reasonable one, I thank you, however, politizer sounded like a child when he called me "impolite". Why don't ask to see why they (whoever) did a speedy deletion of the article with out any discussion about it? I did what Fabrictramp told me to do, based on the info he gave. In any case, I don't care anymore. On Wikipedia there is so much misinformation, misspelling, and inaccurate information that its pathetic. I asked a few people their opinion of WP, and the feedback was negative. If WP continues on the same path as its been, it is doomed to failure. It won't a relevent, reliable source of collective information anymore.--Fantasia 15 (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Kairos Foundation

Hi, I have tried to give a summary of the reasons why I think this shouldn't have been deleted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review - I hope this is the right place? Could you have a look at again please? Thanks SteveDavey (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Diet aid

I was wondering if you think this is supposed to be a Category, or what? It looks like one, but perhaps it would be a rigmarole to change it to be one. Could it be a list, only it contains links to other lists? Sticky Parkin 17:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  • It's a dicdef and a huge list of slightly-related topics. It's not even a list or category. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Vornado Circulators

We here at Vornado Air noticed you deleted the page with general information about our company. We understand it is in desperate need of an upgrade but we were actually planning on working on that update in the very near future. Please reactivate the page so we can retain any information that would be lost so we can bring it up to speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.248.147.50 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't find any deleted page under that title. Can you please specify the exact title of the deleted page, or the exact username that was used to create it? Stifle (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Aeropolis 2001

hey, you undeleted this article, but there's a talk page that's still deleted. Could you undelete the talk page too? Thanks. --Rividian (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

non-free pictures

This is a very interesting question, one that should be addressed in the relevant guidelines or policies if it's not already. I don't know what Dank will say, but my "seat of the pants" rule is pretty much the same as for dead people: If a non-free image could reasonably be obtained that would serve the same purpose, then fair use is probably not valid. The difficulty is in judging "reasonably be obtained" - some living people are recluses, and some recently dead people or people who have changed appearance, such as child actors, will have lots of pictures taken by the general public which "could" be published under the GDFL, with some work. For example, I'm trying to get a free image for the recently deceased Robert Asprin, which entails contacting people who might have a snapshot of him and asking them to re-publish it under a GDFL-compatible license. If I try and fail, then it's strong evidence that using a non-GDFL image would be fair use. The same logic would apply if he were still alive but had become a recluse, or if his face changed appreciably and it was important to use a picture of him as he looked before he changed appearance. The latter can happen for actors and performers in articles about the works they were in, such as Image:Brady Bunch.jpg in The Brady Bunch. Some of those actors and actresses are still alive, none of them look as they did in the 1970s. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There's no exactly correct answer, but there are plenty of wrong ones. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that one!

Thanks for that question you-know-where. I've got to run some errands, tomorrow being the day when all Americans must eat a bird the size of a car, but I'll get to it as soon as I get back. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A NobodyMy talk 02:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


Your musings

Hi Stifle,

Thanksgiving morning is a great time to catch up on user pages over coffee. I wanted to let you know that I find your views on RfA well balanced, and actually a bit surprising - I figured someone with less than ten thousand thoughtful edits wouldn't have a chance!--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 14:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

PS - the fake talk page alert on your user page gets me every time, darn it.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 14:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Not being in the USA, I'm consigned to working today, but your thoughts are appreciated. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I trust that there are opportunities a-plenty for you to abandon dietary self-control in the near future.  ;)--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 14:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Closure

Did you close the wrong discussion? Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like I did. Thanks for the heads-up. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Pyramids of Mars (remains on Mars)

I have nominated Pyramids of Mars (remains on Mars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Dear Stifle, I am really sorry to address this problem directly to you, I am aware it's not popular way, but unfortunately I opened a case here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Osli73 a week ago, and Osli73 is still using alternative way to edit articles (IPs). I addressed this problem to you because I've seen your name in Osli73's block log. Regards. Kruško Mortale (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but due to past negative experiences I do not deal with disputes involving other users. Try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of a redirect

Hi - you just deleted a redirect: de Sitter relativity. You did this at the same moment as I was writing a comment to keep the article it redirects to (de Sitter invariant theories, which you didn't delete - there was a page move during the deletion discussion). Can you reconsider whether your action was a little hasty in this light? Thanks, Geometry guy 19:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
Thanks for pointing that out. I've deleted that page as well as per the consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, you clearly did not make any effort to read the deletion discussion. I again urge you to reconsider, as WP:DRV will be drain on editors' time. Geometry guy 19:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I have added the comment I was writing. (I fail to see how a message wizard would have speeded up anything: you responded within 5 minutes!) Geometry guy 19:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I read the AFD and closed it according to the comments that were there when I closed it. I'm happy with my closure and you're welcome to take it to DRV.
The message wizard, at User talk:Stifle/wizard/deleted/undelete1/error#Articles_for_deletion, would have told you that I don't generally consider requests to amend my AFD closures. That's the reason I referred you there. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:ADMIN says "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed." How do you square that with your refusal to explain your decision? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Leaving aside the fact that this conversation is between me and Geometry guy, I explained the decision in my message of 20:16 above. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
No, this is a public forum and anyone can comment. Explanation of your decision is between you and the entire community. The community might want you to explain this. Geometry guy 22:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's not muddy the waters. I've already accepted that I modified my talk page instructions so that you couldn't see the new version, but both before and after the change, they did say that I prefer people contesting my AFD closures to go straight to DRV. With due respect, I don't think that's relevant to the DRV, which is convened as a check whether the deletion process was followed. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Courtesy note: I'll be heading off for the night in a few minutes (I'm in GMT timezone) so won't be replying to anything else until tomorrow. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
That's fine - me too! Best regards Geometry guy 22:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Move to sub page

Hello Stifle can you do me a favor and move an article you deleted Pay through the nose to a subpage on my discussion page Shoessss. I would like to rewrtie - reference - and see if I can bring it up to standards. Thanks for your help. ShoesssS Talk 20:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Restored to User:Shoessss/Pay through the nose. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guy appreciate the quick responce. ShoesssS Talk 20:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Golden_Axe_characters

Just as a heads up, the nominator had actually previously merged that information (see [2] and [3]} to the section where he says it already exists (that's why it exists there) and thus per the GFDL, my understanding is that the contributions of the various editors who originally wrote that content must remain visible, so when he says it is already covered in that section in the nomination and himself merged the content a few weeks ago to the area where he is okay with it existing, the nomination strikes me as odd, because if he believes that section should exist, then we cannot delete the article, rather only redirect the article. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Also, I'm going to be on really sporadically for the next few weeks due to college (finals and such), so if I'm slow to reply to your or anyone else, that's why. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle/Archive_1108&oldid=1146674592"