User talk:Stifle/Archive 0110

Falling rain

Hi. You have admin tools, please block falling rain. There is a consensus already. Gogounou had been using falling rain as a source for over a year and claimed it had 1071 people referenced to that site. It makes me very angry because this and official 2002 census data indicates Gogonou has 80,000 people. A huge blunder, it was out by 79/80. Please lets remove falling rain from wikipedia asap it is very damaging as shown here...If we don't do anything about it swiftly we are basically authorising 9,000 odd article to contain false sometime grossly inaccurate data...As we speak there are people around the world reading false data in our articles. This is not good enough... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can vouch for what Dr Blofeld is saying here, from an Australian POV - we've had a few problems with it being mass-tagged onto articles in the past. There is nothing it does correctly that we can't do with other tools, and there's much it does incorrectly. Orderinchaos 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I do a lot of work on geo articles and I can't stress enough how many times falling rain has given false population and altitude data and out of date maps. Whether its falling rain claiming 1,071 people in a 80,000 territory, 703 people for a 35,000 Chinese township or 360 metres for a coastal African village this has got to be sorted asap. I am not content to let these errors lie about and people continue to reference it... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and for your words which have a lingering effect. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock getting outta hand

Do you see the similarities between this and this now? Even trolling his own sock's uploads. The user was recently indefinitely blocked at commons for uploading a bunch of copyright violating images. Also the BLP violating images at The Virgin Tour, Who's That Girl World Tour, Blond Ambition Tour and The Girlie Show World Tour are becoming intolerable now. What do you recommend? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you outline specific images that violate NFCC (I presume you meant that and not BLP) or are copyvios? Stifle (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually all of the articles I stated, each have a non-free images of living person (Madonna) hence they are copyright vios as no rationale as to why they can be used instead of a free iamge is given. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged or deleted the images and left a final warning for the user. I appreciate that this is taking up a lot of your time, but I would prefer to allow even the unlikeliest chance that this is genuinely a new, misunderstanding user. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid Stifle, thesocking and the editing patterns are more than 110% similar for this to eb a new user. I was more than confirmed when his commons account of the same name was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Elpilotodi. If you see his talk page, I tried assuming good faith and helping him with Drowned World Tour, but alas the block in commons came at that time. I lost my good faith against the user.

Keeping aside the sockpuppetry, I have a question to ask. Since the free images in Re-Invention World Tour and Drowned World Tour articles were deleted, I contacted one of the Madonna fan-sites called Mad-eyes.net as they had images of the performances, and asked them whether I can have permission to use those images by providing attribution to them. They have agreed to let me use seven of those images. Now my question is how do I go to uploading them in commons with proper permission and attribution? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Resbusha indefinitely; Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ElPilotoDi and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ElPilotoDi are also created.

For the other images, first you need to ascertain that mad-eyes.net actually holds the copyright to them and didn't just randomly find them somewhere. Then, you upload the images tagged as {{OTRS pending}}, and then send permissions-commonswikimedia.org an email in the form at WP:CONSENT specifying the images and the free license they are released under. Once the email is processed, someone will tag the images {{permissionOTRS}} to confirm they are valid. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked the images and found that the fans who uploaded the images, did so under the public domain to mad-eyes.net. Will that be enough for the website to allow me to use the pictures? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If the website says that the images are in the public domain, then that will do. However, the ones I randomly checked all say they're copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out the images here. They are uploaded free to the website, however the website's permission is needed if we want to use them. That's what I did, I sent them an email on Saturday that I wanted to use those images on wikipedia, stating the article name, my userpage links etc. They replied on Monday asking me which are the images that I wanted to use, after I replied back they said that its fine and that the images are small resolution ones so no problem. Do you have a mail id where i can forward the conversation Stifle? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You can forward it to permissions-commonswikimedia.org, but remember that permission to use on Wikipedia alone isn't enough. It must be a free licence. The response to the email you send in may contain further instructions or details that are required. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)OK Thanks a lot Stifle. I'll upload the image and send a mail to commons in the CONSENT format, with the conversation I had with mad-eyes underneath it, and then maybe notify you so that you can process it faster. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Christian evangelist scandals#Todd Bentley, 2008

Hi, I reverted your edit as I found a RS which described this as a scandal, which I added to Todd Bentley. I added a note to the talk page. Hope you don't mind. Sidefall (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind, but you need to add the reference directly to the article, rather than saying "references can be found in...", otherwise it's liable to be removed again. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stifle. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_January_6.
Message added 18:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 18:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Daleks vs concept cars and other dumb questions...

Every time I think I am getting to have a vague understanding of copyright something comes along and stumps me - and I'm not talking about "didn't RTFM" stuff. I am puzzled to put it mildly by the Dalek thing. Why can people upload pics of concept cars (or any cars coz isn't Chris Bangle an artist?)? I'm hoping you can explain this for the hard of thinking. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dalek and the concept car are both works of artistic craftsmanship. However, the FOP rules require that the work is permanently displayed in a public place, which this Dalek doesn't appear to be. I'm nominating the first car you mentioned for deletion, although the second one looks sufficiently like a normal car not to attract copyright. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not grokking this but I'll go off and ruminate on the subject. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically, you start from the point that any reproduction of a copyrighted work is prohibited.

1. To be eligible for copyright, a work must be original. A duplication of a utilitarian object, such as a bottle, a plain vase, a car, or a table does not attract a new copyright. A painting, sculpture, or model does.
2. Making a copy of a copyrighted thing without the consent of the copyright holder is illegal. So is selling or distributing such an unauthorized copy.
3. There is an exemption from copyright in some countries, commonly referred to as freedom of panorama. This allows photographs of buildings and certain copyrighted objects to be depicted without permission. The rules differ from place to place, but in general, the objects, must be:
4. Works of artistic craftsmanship
5. Three-dimensional
6. Installed permanently in a public place

So therefore, looking at the images in hand:

• File:Nissan Urge Concept Car.jpg
  1. Is original
  2. Has been copied
  3. Could be caught by exemption:
  4. Is a work of artistic craftsmanship
  5. Is three-dimensional
  6. Is not installed permanently in a public place (the exhibition is temporary)

  Therefore, the image is not free (and has been nominated for deletion).

• File:Renault Egeus concept car profile-2006-07-21.jpg
  1. Looks like any other car on the street, therefore is not original and the design is not copyrighted

  We need not consider 2-6. The image is free.

• File:DALEK.jpg
  1. Is original
  2. Has been copied
  3. Could be caught by exemption:
  4. Is a work of artistic craftsmanship
  5. Is three-dimensional
  6. Is not installed permanently in a public place (it does not appear to be "installed", permanently or otherwise, and the BBC TV Centre is probably not a public place)

  Therefore, the image is not free.

Hopefully that has provided more answers than questions for you. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This did indeed help. Having read it through I think I'm quite clear on the logic now. Again, many thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your valued feedback is needed

Hello, Stifle. You have new messages at FleetCommand's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:MAD

Any specific concerns? I'd like to try to keep it up to date, since it's still gets cited from time to time. I still haven't read the new license (but am planning to), so I certainly believe there may be issues, but if you know of anything in particular let me know. Thanks. Chick Bowen 16:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Main issue is that CC-BY-SA doesn't require a history, only proper attribution. Therefore, an edit summary when merging such as "merged content from foo by users Bar, Baz, Qux, Quux, Corge, Grault, and Garply".

So in short, it should be more explicit that merge and delete is valid if proper attribution is maintained. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made some changes; feel free to make more. It's always been a tricky business, because the technical requirements of the license are one thing and what most admins consider acceptable something else entirely, as the early talk page discussion makes clear. So, legally speaking, it's never going to be as clear and simple as it could be, given that nods have to be made to local culture and precedent. But I've done the best I could. Chick Bowen 18:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Chick Bowen 18:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for following up and the quick fix. I moved the link to WP:Copying within Wikipedia into the header box. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

OTRS permission

Hey Stifle, as per our previous conversation, I have uploaded the images at commons in Drowned World Tour category and have sent the required permission mails to permission-commons in the required format at WP:CONSENT, while cc-ing the copyright holder. Could you please take a look at the mail? It starts with subject line as Re:Mad-Eyes contact. I believe OTRS takes time to update the images but Im kinda in a hurry hence asking you as you have an OTRS account. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Emails into OTRS are processed in the order they're received; it's unfair to expect to cut the line. What's the hurry? Stifle (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review, sighhhhhhhhh!!! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can give you the ticket number (it's Ticket:2010010810008251); there's currently a three-week backlog in the permissions queue. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok what shall I do with the number? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You can use it if someone wants to delete the images. Otherwise, an OTRS agent will reply to the email when it reaches the top of the queue and place a validation tag on the images. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a ton Stifle. I have one small help to ask. I nominated the article "Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)" for GA. Now, an editor, who was previously associated in editing the article has come forward to review it and is placing his biased review that the article is basically a pile load of shit. I myself and others are asking him to step down from reviewing it as he is letting his biasness get the better of you. Frankly, since I developed so many GA quality music articles, I have a better understanding of what is needed in a music article. Could you take a look. The user is asking absurd things like contacting the artist's representatives to gain their consensus before publishing the article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Jezhotwells, Chasewc91, and Bookkeeper of the Occult have the matter well in hand. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)Do you think that is making any difference? Just see the user's replies at Jezhotwells and his own talk page and you'll knnow that he is basiclaly abusing the other editors of adding unprofessional writing and prmoting fancruft in Wikipedia, which I am disgusted with as a fellow GA reviewer myself, and as an editor who edits a lot of music related articles. I think an administrative intervention is necessary against such abusive behaviour. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He's not being uncivil, just disagreeable. Have you tried WP:WQA? Stifle (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No i haven't yet, just waiting to see whether he steps down or not. If not, I'll go to WQA. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sunda Trench from Java trench

Gday depsrately searching my watchlist for sign of an active admin - I am trying to move Java Trench to Sunda Trench - but Sunda Trench is already a redirect - is that something you can help me with (i saw a recent edit of about 4 minutes ago) - if I have missed you - sorry to pollute your talk (Ias I tend to do) -cheers SatuSuro 12:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Stifle (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Very kind thanks - keep up the good work - cheers SatuSuro 12:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For all of the admin tasks that you do around the project which rarely come with recognition. Cheers! --Hu12 (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Stifle (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Eu-football.info whitelist

Hi there. I see you often patrol the Whitelist talk page and was wondering if you could consider the previous whitelist request I made at [1] and which has been endorsed by three other users. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

OTRS q

Hello. Me again. Did we ever get a release via OTRS for File:JPChangeux-small.jpg? No need to leave a talkback, I'll check back! Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If we did, I didn't get it. The image hasn't even been tagged {{OTRS pending}}. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the uploader can have two weeks more. I've listed at PUF and poked them again about the permissions email. Many thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Query regarding article Dalek

Stifle, I would appreciate your input at the article Dalek. Edokter (talk · contribs) has twice now reverted against WP:NFCC#1 see [2] and [3]. There are plenty of different free-use alternative images that are available of Daleks. There is no reason to have a fair-use image in the infobox. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page: there are no free alternatives, as the dalek's appearance is subject to copyright. And a fan-made mockup is not representative for the subject. Forum/admin-shopping is also considered bad form. — Edokter • Talk • 00:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not forum shopping. Stifle is an admin whose expertise on image policy on this project I respect, and I value his input. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I look forward to hearing his opinion. — Edokter • Talk • 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Responding at Talk:Dalek. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

Dear Stifle, I should like to request you kindly to keep an eye on this user. As I indicate here, I suspect that this user is involved in sock puppetry. Please just have a look at his/her contributions here and notice that this person seems to be involved in pushing for the contents of a NY Times article by Alan Cowell, and in doing so does not hesitate to commit whatever it takes to achieve his/get objective. Please note that already the minutes of the meeting at issue have been published (and I have given the pertinent link to it), so that the argument of "original research" can by no means be applicable. With kind regards, --BF 20:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC).

Dear Stifle, once more I should like to request your personal intervention in this. I have now also left this message (with the heading "For your information") for User:Taranet, who against all norms has undertaken to do what she pleases. I do not wish to get into an edit war, so that I should greatly appreciate it if my deleted text could be restored. Incidentally, I consider the sudden and unsolicited arrival of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on the scene as highly unusual and troubling (I know this person in real life, i.e. I know who he is, and he seems to be out to make troubles for the people of certain origin and background --- he has always been out there to support the blocking of my account); he should be told that he should get out of the present discussions (in any case, I have just told him so). With thanks in advance, and kind regards, --BF 03:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

I prefer not to intervene in disputes like this because when I have done so in the past, it has generally had negative results for me. Please use dispute resolution or the incident noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do appreciate your concern, however as a senior editor you should have a well-founded opinion as to whether in the case at hand the argument "original research" is applicable or not (if you say that it is applicable, then I accept that, as I sincerely believe in your impartiality). Since what I had written (now removed by User:Taranet on the grounds of being based on "original research") can be directly verified by any person who knows Persian, through listening to the tape that is publicly available, can the use of the argument of "original research" be justified? (As I have indicated on the talk page of Alimohammadi, even the minutes of the seminar have now been published by the students of Alimohammadi, and these minutes corroborate my text.) There is simply no difference between a written text that is publicly available and a tape recording that is publicly available! My text consisted of almost a verbatim quotation of the statements by Alimohammadi in the tape-recording, so that we are not here dealing with a subjective issue inferred through carrying out "research".

Please note that I am not requesting that you take sides (and then in my favour), but to express your judgement explicitly, as to whether the argument of "original research" applies here. Please also note that User:Taranet who ultimately deleted my text, just appeared on the scene as soon as I wrote that Bluestartoday was a sock poppet of someone who cannot be a newcomer; interestingly, Bluestartoday has just disappeared. It follows that there is dishonesty involved here. I believe that as a senior editor you should not turn a blind eye to such blatant violations of the rules. Again, I do not ask for your support of me personally, but for your protection of the basic principles that must be respected by all who undertake to edit Wikipedia. It cannot be that some people by virtue of their unprincipled behaviour can manipulate the information here and then get away with it. With kind regards, --BF 22:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

I may have been here for (too) long, but that doesn't give me any seniority here.

I am about to go to bed but will look at your request in the morning. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! And good night! --BF 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment! --BF 08:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

3:33 AM Hurray!

Bless you, bless you, bless you ... You have made my 3:33 AM spectacularly perfect ... with that barn star. Perfect. Thank you. Honored. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

So what exactly is it? A poll to decide how many polls will take place before the poll? (:P) Stifle (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ask Jehochman - it was his idea. I started with just vote1, vote2. Then the wails started, so I just incorporated them to try and shut them up. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment: A quote for Wikipedia Democracy Today, for sure. :-) Bravo. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 08:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock again

ElPilotoDi sock strikes again!. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Given a first and final warning.

P.S. The sock warning you left on his page is malformed. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh is it? I thought that check user evidences were already submitted for him, I didnot know that without it only he gets blocked everytime. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read through WP:SPI. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan David Brown, again

Please take a look at Talk:Jonathan_David_Brown#Focusing_on_the_incident when you have the time, please. We seem to have reached an impasse -- Foetusized (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Examiner

Hi. I noticed that my request to use The Examiner as a source in The Skeptic's Annotated Bible was denied. May I ask why? Did it concern the reliability of the source, or is it because The Examiner is blacklisted sitewide? (Please note that it has been approved for use in other specific articles). Thanks--SuaveArt (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is principally because the site's articles are self-published, failing WP:RS, and examiner.com pays a commission to writers based on page views. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Truckads.com

ick! if that's the case, the we should remove the links... i don't want to violate any copyrights... though i thouht other sites are okay.. and it's THEIR responsibility to maintain good copyright status, not wikipedia's... our jurisdiction begins and ends at wikipedia.org, right? I'll remove the links to truckads.com wherever they are... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 04:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Our responsibility actually extends beyond Wikipedia; we should not be linking to copyvios (see WP:LINKVIO). Special:Linksearch/*.truckads.com will show you any links left that I haven't removed already. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that someone has beaten me to removing the links. The only places they appear are on user talk pages. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 20:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

huh?

any spacific reason you deleted superdrug? Jordan Payne ^T /_C 18:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was getting defamatory comments out of the history. I restored the rest of it. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

truckads.com

I have brought this issue to the RS/N for discussion if you have more light to shine on the matter. The maps in question are not copied from any Nielsen website I can find, they just like Wikipedia, are allowed to make their own maps and shade in counties that fall within a Nielsen DMA, you cant copyright the idea of presenting those counties in a map. You can only copyright your own creation of the maps, others can make their own maps. If you have proof that the Truckads.com maps are copy/pasted from Nielsen website then please present it at the RS/N. Otherwise there is nothing copyvio about the website.22:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sky Claudette Soto/ †Eros Fire†

A tag has been placed on Sky Claudette Soto/ †Eros Fire† requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. UnitAnode 18:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

List of web based file managers

A bit over a year ago, you commented in the afd discussion for Comparison of web based file managers. It was shortly thereafter reposted by its creator as List of web based file managers, which is currently on afd itself. I invite you to participate in the new discussion. —Korath (Talk) 18:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Landeryou

Thanks for helping with the article. I knew nothing about him until the AfD, so I wasn't trying to 'dish the dirt' when I expanded it - there's just not much out there about him that's positive. Is this source or this OK as a reference to his involvement with Solomon Lew and IQ Corp? Good catch on the citation not verifying that he separated from his wife, that was my mistake. This is only sourced to tabloidy reports in The Age, which aren't suitable to be used for the article. Fences&Windows 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

They would seem fine. I'm sure I don't have to say it, but make sure only to report what the articles say. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OTRS Participation Request

Hi Stifle,

I'm interested in participating in OTRS Tickets. Could you please let me know how I go about doing that? Kind regards Jason7825 (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

See m:OTRS/volunteering. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)