User talk:Stifle/Archive 0908c

declined - semiprot disney princess

Hello. You stated that there wasn't enough disruptive edits to warrant semi-protecting the page (I'm sure we can deal in the meantime). Considering that the last few days have had 7 reverts of the nonsense data by these IPs, I merely ask what is the number of edits that is required before it becomes disruptive? In an ideal world, of course, the "this is your last warning before being blocked" messages on those IP talk pages would be heeded, but that doesn't seem to be the case - hence my question. In any case, I appreciate your swift handling of the request. TIA. SpikeJones (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not so much a number of edits as a frequency. Because Wikipedia is a wiki, page protection is considered harmful. As such, semi-protection is only used when pages are vandalized to the extent that reverting them is taking time away from other activities. Two or three reverts a day doesn't usually meet that criterion, although exceptions are made for high-visibility pages. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable answer, and as I expected. Thank you for the reply. SpikeJones (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Third Studio Album (2nd nomination)

Hi there, Stifle. Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Third Studio Album (2nd nomination), do you think it's worth WP:SALTing Untitled Third Studio Album? WP:HAMMER tends to be true more often than not, and the article title is far to generic to be useful (it doesn't even mention a band/artist name! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good plan. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous (group)

Huh? The RPP report said edit warring and vandalism. There is no edit warring - look at the history (or if I've missed something, show me), and we never full protect for vandalism unless it's really bad (you saw what happened with Palin...). Please clarify. Giggy (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I hit the wrong article. Thanks for the catch. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed AfD

In this AfD, you overlooked the 2nd article that was attached. (The link box on the side makes it sort of blend in.) —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. In future, those can be deleted by tagging them as {{db-afd}}. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't want to presume that you had decided both articles should be deleted. Thanks. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

BehnamFarid

Several of us, in talking about this, think it's best to just totally leave that guy alone unless he specifically asks for something. He's essentially engaged in belligerence and trolling-like behavior at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. He's sent me some lengthy emails explaining how editing Wikipedia is a constitutional right, or something, and I've given him Cary's email. Nothing more for us to so now. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in there, you know. It's the 13.3th Amendment. Meanwhile, we're following the RBI rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Patricia Araujo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Patricia Araujo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. UrSuS (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis St. Lewis

I wasn't taking any notice of the SPA keeps. The nominator posted to WikiProject Visual arts yesterday, requesting input. It was also listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts only yesterday, where it should have been from the outset. I note the keep was from one of the best art editors we have, whose evaluation is not to be taken lightly. He is the only one in the debate to point to the significance of the Florence Biennale. (However, the SPA does make a valid point about museum inclusion.) In the light of these aspects, I believe it is in wiki's best interest to allow time for more editors with specialist knowledge to look at this article. Ty 09:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the reply. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Greetings. I believe I received no notice regarding the deletion of "Image:BreyersJamaicaPlain.jpg". Can you explain? Thanks. Boston (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:BreyersJamaicaPlain.jpg

Product image - Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons licensing guidelines allow for products of everyday use with a simple design. I would argue that this is a product of everyday use with a simple design. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, copyrighted image, the uploader does not have the right to release it. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• I took the photo and the meta-information should match that of many other photos I've uploaded. I've seen photos of other product packages on Wikipedia...is that not allowed now either? Please explain. Thanks. - Boston (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  Unfortunately I can't be held responsible for not notifying you — that's the job of the person who tags the image.

  I'm not sure that the image qualifies for inclusion on Wikipedia as it incorporates copyrighted designs. However, if Commons accepts it, then you should upload it there. Alternatively, I can restore the image and list it on WP:IFD, where it'll get more notice. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'm a bit disturbed that you deleted this image after participating in the discussion, and then didn't even bother to provide a rationnale other than "listed for 14 days". Being listed anywhere for 14 days when there is no consensus is never a rationnale to delete anything. That's very disappointing (similarly, your deletion of this image at PUI was also disappointingly lacking a coherent rationnale, although at least you hadn't participated in the discussion). Regards, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Well, you're right that I shouldn't have deleted the image because I was involved in the discussion, and I've restored that for another admin to decide. As you might also be aware, the default action at PUI is to delete in the absence of a consensus to keep, and there was no such consensus at the second listing you mentioned. You're welcome to list the latter deletion at WP:DRV if you wish. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Regarding your decline, why would you block us both if ALTTP is the one going against consensus? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Because you're both edit warring — irrespective of consensus, edit warring isn't on. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Benn McGregor deletion

The page that was deleted was created by me. I worked at both radio stations in Dallas as an intern with McGregor as well as Stubie Doak and others. When last I saw the page, it looked fine - or so I thought. I have made updates regarding several radio and local TV personalities on the internet, and everything listed about Mr. McGregor is true and can be qualified by several sources. I also have Mr. McGregor's email address if you require that. I don't believe he maintains a webpage.

Unfortunately, I do not know exactly what Wikipedia requires to do this, or how exactly it should be edited. I tried to do my best, but apparently it did not meet your standards. Would be happy to provide you with links or whatever you need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radio4U (talk • contribs) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

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?

Benn McGregor was deleted following the consensus that it should be deleted, which was arrived at following a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benn McGregor. You are welcome to appeal the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but you should note that since the deletion was supported by a consensus, you will need to provide new information that was not previously on the page, or point out a failure to comply with the deletion process, in order for your request to be considered. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry

I plead guilty as charged, I did misuse Rollback on A4232 road. When someone will not accept any compromise at all, and only wants an edit war, especially when they refuse to take on board the work that I had already done to obtain the correct information, it is very difficult not to get hot under the collar, anyway hopefully it has now been resolved by Ian13 and the matter is now at an end. Seth Whales (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you for restoring my Jumeau Dolls article

Thank you for restoring my Jumeau Dolls article

I still can't see how it can be judged by someone who from his interests on his editing and comments does not know the subject and therefore the state of knowledge and content

I am a published writer and academic and I am rather surprised that it now has a banner on it complaining about the quality of the article given the stubs and lists that survive in their 1,000s wihout similar comment across wikipedia

Bebe Jumeau (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it is not your article. You are welcome to suggest the deletion of any content you think is not appropriate on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Deletion process. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Denis Rancourt

I responded to your question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Denis_Rancourt and posted some new details there. Get back to me if you need any more informationMiltonP Ottawa (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

seems we agree there to overturn the deletion. I'll take it as a good omen. :) DGG (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Request re-adding of rollback feature.

I wasn't edit-warring. Furthermore, as I have no history of doing so (barring reverting vandalism, which doesn't count), I should have at least gtten a warning first, especially seeing as the admin in question took away my rollback over 20 minutes after the so-called 'edit war' in question. HalfShadow 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Short review of a deleted page

Hey there, I saw you participated in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jamesontai 2, so I concluded you are online at the moment. I !voted neutral just before you, citing a deleted page (Creating new wikipedia article) that the candidate tagged CSD#A7. He replied that the page might have been updated after his tagging, so I'd like to ask if you could provide me a copy of the specific revision which he tagged as {{db-a7}}. Regards SoWhy 10:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

He tagged the article as {{db-bio}}, two minutes after it was created. It was not edited any further and was deleted after a further 26 minutes. The article was about a motivational speaker and I would not have deleted or tagged it as A7 myself. Hope this helps. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither would I. I cited this as a reason for poor judgement with CSD (on his side as well as on the deleting admin's side). He just said it could have been edited after tagging and I wanted to make sure that the deleted version was the same as the tagged one, so my !vote was not reasoned incorrectly. Thank you very much for your help! :-) SoWhy 10:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

Sorry for the mistake. The article I was talking about is National Alliance (Italy). --Checco (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Denied Account Creator

Hi. You declined my request for the account creation tool. The reason said that I don't have enough editing experience in Wikipedia. What do you mean by that? I don't have enough contributions? Thanks. Techman224 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Partially that, partially that the vast majority of your edits are made using an automated tool, and partially as you have only really been active on Wikipedia since the start of the month. The account creation tool currently has 164 operators, so right now we don't especially need anyone extra. Thanks for your interest and feel free to reapply in a month or two. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD

At last. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of neomilitarism

I'd like to request an undeletion of neomilitarism. While several individuals supported deletion before September 12, the page was substantially overhauled on September 13, with the addition of a large amount of new material. Conspicuously, no new vote for deletion followed that change; while one new vote to keep was logged. In other words, it's clear that there was a substantial change in views about the page. So on procedural grounds (and because I think the substantive case is now much different) I would like to request an undelete. Thanks. Ebenezer27 (talk) 10:33, 16 September 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?

Actually, User:Carewolf !voted to delete after the amendment. Nevertheless, because I suspect a deletion review would come up with the same result, I am going to restore and relist the article. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Brewno

I noticed that there is a page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Brewno, created by the same person (Gumbyfly00) that created the Brewno article (which you closed out the AFD for). I believe that this page should be deleted, but am unsure of the process to use - CSD G8 or G6 (housekeeping/AFD) seem likely candidates. Would you please check it out when you have a chance? Thanks.  -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 12:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be marked as declined, see WP:AFC and this list of templates. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, I was just a bit confused by it being in the Wikipedia talk space.  -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 12:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Request: Content from the Pi Rho Zeta article

Stifle:

In the AfD thread on Pi Rho Zeta fraternity, whose article is no longer a part of WP, I had asked if it might be permissible to include the article content in the 'Alfred State College' article, you indicated it might and offered to provide that information to a registered user.

Since I am a registered user, and have interest in this endeavour, I would greatly appreciate the content of the Pi Rho Zeta article that was recently deleted.

Thanks for your assistance!

AcriAL (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it to User:AcriAL/Pi Rho Zeta. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Stifle! AcriAL (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bishop (3rd nomination)‎

Just dropping you a line to say that I thought you made what could have been a contentious close very well. :) – Toon^(talk) 14:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Stifle (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Articlehistory unprotection

Stifle, I'm hoping you'll keep a close eye on that unprotection and make sure it last no longer than necessary; the syntax is complex, and past history indicates everyone who decides to tweak ends up breaking the template. It's possible (unsure) that Gimmetrow hadn't yet fully evaluated the planned new syntax, and it's helpful if he's on board before it's tweaked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; we'll also need to test many pages to make sure any changes don't break anything before re-protecting. I'll be keeping an eye on it as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like that one ended in a trainwreck. I'll suggest a template sandbox next time. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Venue Management Association entry deleted

Hi...I see your reply to me on our entry for the VMA as being advertising? The reason we entered the History details of the Venue Management Association was in support of the entry which has been accepted by Wikipedia for the abbreviation VMA.

As there is no link to the VMA abbreviation which means Venue Management Association, we naturally placed one in support?

I am at a loss to see how an explanation for an abbreviation which is acceptable, is not allowed when you tell readres waht it means? There are no references to the web site, and in any event even it is was the VMA is a not for profit professional assocation with LIMITED membership. You need to be accepted as aprofessional manager to even gain membership and its services are private not commercial.

It would seem to me more logical if someone who has this power of deletion, could address the isuue rather than just delete it and claim its advertising?

Let us know how to explain the abbreviation and that's it.

Lost for words!! John Benett Johnbenett (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Advertising or not, I already indicated the criteria for inclusion for an organization. Did you read it? Stifle (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Crossing of Ingo

Hi there. I see that you were the admin who originally deleted The Crossing of Ingo and I've come to ask you about restoring it. I was on a wikibreak at the time so I missed the AfD, but I've had a little search on Google and found some sources: The Times #1, The Times #2, Liverpool Echo, The Book Bag, Write Away... It was also longlisted for the 2008 Booktrust Teenage Prize: [1], [2] I think this shows notability for the book, which is why I'm requesting undeletion.

However, I notice that the page has since been recreated (twice), speedily deleted (twice) and now protected against recreation; it seems that there may be some copyvio concerns, so if for that reason you can't undelete the page, I'd like to request unprotection so that I can create a non-copyvio version instead.

Thanks for your consideration of this matter. :)

-- KittyRainbow (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
PS: No need to leave a message on my talk page, I will watch this page for a reply.

Note that there were also copyright concerns about some versions of the article. Please create a user subpage draft of the new version, including the above citations, then make a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review linking to the subpage. If it is sufficient, then it will be moved into the mainspace. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Done and done. (Do I need to c&p the formal notification template? Or is this message okay?) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this is fine. (In fact, my talk page wizard suggests just going straight to DRV in this case.) Stifle (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good. :) (I know, I saw that, but as DRV says to ask the deleting admin first and people seem to get their wrists slapped for not doing so, I thought I should come here first... especially as the whole possible-copyvio thing made it somewhat more complicated than just "I have some sources".) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

• Good Thing and Bad Thing
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Thing and Bad Thing (2nd nomination)

Would you please explain your rationale/reasoning for your closure. - jc37 12:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There were six users recommending deletion and two users recommending keeping, and no compelling arguments or policy-based reasons to close as a keep. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So you required "compelling arguments" to close as keep? - jc37 23:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I, and as far as I know most other admins, tend to close AFDs with a clear majority for either side in favour of that side unless there is a very good reason not to. Am I missing something here? Stifle (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see "no consensus" as the result based on the "quality" of the comments.

And since XfD is not a vote, "majority" should have little to nothing to do with determining the outcome.

But before "running to DRV" as so many often do, I wanted to get an idea, a "feel, if you will, for the how and why of this closure, and how you close in general. I've checked some of your other closures, and I also asked you directly.

Based on the above, is there anything further you feel should be clarified? - jc37 21:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary Cooper etc.

Hi. Rossrs (talk · contribs) dropped a note on my talk page after I responded to his protection request for Jeremy Brett. Because I had agreed to semi-protect the page in response to persistent editing by likely socks of HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Rossrs wanted me to look at your decision to decline protection of Gary Cooper. Obviously I'm not going to overturn your decision but I would ask you to look again at the history of Gary Cooper and compare the edits by 92.11.xx.xx - 92.13.xx.xx with the MO of previous socks of HarveryCarter. CIreland (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that the IP is adding vandalism. But I won't get in your way if you think differently. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD closing script

Er what AFD closing script??? You said something about it at ANI. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mr.Z-man/AFD.js. Stifle (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's powerful. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Message title

I don't understand how my editing constituted vandalism. I was merely trying to get someone to talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79times (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're contacting me. I can't seem to find any record of interaction with you. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A challenge

Here you go Stifle, as I suspect you see a fair few pages in your wiki-travels and I know you have a bit to say on notabilty. In efforts to counteract systemic bias with sticks rather than carrots (and seeing what non-obscure stubs remain out there), i have listed a minicompetition of sorts here, so I'd be intrigued what comes up. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for picking up the discussion with that user for me. I'll plan my speedying-sprees more carefully in the future. >_> Meanwhile, I have my own internet again, and I think your responses were exactly what was needed, so thanks enormously once more. --Masamage ♫ 16:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection of Kenya

Hello Stifle! Thank you for the reconsideration of my request. Please tell me how much is enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. (This is no offense, I just want to be sure that I don't waste yours and mine time in filing desperate requests!) Best regards, -- R.Schuster (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If vandalism is taking a disproportionate amount of editors' time to watch and revert, then it's time for protection. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

File:Junkers JU-90 Image 4.jpg

I think you were correct to delete the remainder of these airplane photographs, as they were likely taken by German photographers. But, I noticed that one of the participants in the discussion cited this image as having been taken by an RAF pilot (thus being expired crown copyright). Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no work for hire provision in UK copyright law — unless there is an explicit release or contractual agreement by the creator of a work, then that creator retains copyright. As such, the usual 70 years pma rule applies and the image is still subject to copyright. I've copied this message to the PUI discussion; should have done so before deleting. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Account Creator Usergroup

I would like to request the usergroup of Account Creator, as I am registered on the toolserver as one, and in doing so, would appreciate the ability to fullfill more than 6+ account requests a day. Would you mind fulfilling my request? - Tyler Puetz (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You've only created 6 accounts since starting using the account creator and the throttle hasn't affected you yet. If you actually hit the limit on any day, please place a message at WP:RPE and an admin will add the flag to your account. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Help please

Hello. I need someones help as im not very good at wikipedia. I started an article about rory blackwell. rory now wishes to delete the article as too many people are starting to edit and writing things which are not good to expose and wikipedia didnt allow an article protection. I can provide you with identification in order to proove that i represent the subject if you wish. Please let me know what can be done. best regards, J blackwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ser33 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

Please see Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) or send an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sky 4

You removed the prod from this article with the comment "deprod, external links verify that the channel has a license". If you look at all the external links you'll notice that chennel mentioned (and which has the license) is Sky 3 not Sky 4. Therefore I was wondering if you could reconsider your removal of the prod as at the very least the article is unsourced and to me looks like a hoax. Dpmuk (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately prods cannot be re-added to articles, but you are welcome to list the article atWP:AFD. Stifle (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd always considered incorrect removal of a prod as a good enough reason just to re-add it with an appropiate comment in the edit log as I don't believe it goes against the philosphy of a prod(and so could be done under WP:IAR if nothing else). However in a case like this I also think that should come from the person who removed it. As you're not happy to re-add it (or just delete as it had run its course) I'll list at AfD when I get round to it. Dpmuk (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

concerning Image:00896b.jpg speedy delete

Hi Stifle. I found the image at Category:Images made obsolete by a PNG version. The thing is, most of the images in this category should be deleted. And a lot of them are orphans that have bit-for-bit PNG copies. The easiest thing for me would be to put the orphaned images on WP:IFD and let them deal with it. But I don't think it's the best way to go about this - I would effectively be spamming IFD with LOTS of images that common sense tells us there's no reason to keep. Now, I know the rule for redundant SD's say they have to be the same format. But I'm hoping we can find a way to justify SD's for the orphans in this category - especially considering this is a raster image vs. raster image issue. Do you have any suggestions? Or maybe know where the best place is to start this discussion? I just want to clean up these images without creating a lot of work/listcreep for other editors. (And you can respond on your page, I'll watch it.) --JaGa^talk 21:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I proposed it at WT:CSD a while back but it didn't get a very sympathetic hearing. Feel free to bring it back up. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Account creation

Thanks a lot for sorting it for me.:) I'm not going to be in any hurry to do stuff- there's plenty for me to read about it first.:) Sticky Parkin 18:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Title change

I was wondering if it's possible for a title's name to be changed?

Thanks.

Tempo21 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to help, questions like this are better asked at the village pump (technical) or help desk — if I had happened to be offline, you would have been waiting quite a while for a reply, but community-manned locations like those are great for a quick response.

Any user who has been registered for 4 days and made at least 10 edits can rename almost any page by clicking the Move tab at the top of the page. The exceptions are:

1. Categories, which must be listed at WP:CFD
2. Move-protected pages
3. Moves to a title that already exists, unless all that's at that title is a redirect

If you need to make a move covered under 2 or 3, use WP:RM. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD close

Could you expand your close statement here? If the article stays in its current state it will probably be back at AFD soon, if not at DRV before that, and it will be helpful to have a little more info on your reason. Not to be a dick about it - I don't usually care how other admins close AFDs, but this one is going to be a headache. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

To delete or not to delete

Is this Wikipedia image of Persepolis deletable or not? It is almost an exact duplicate of another image which is now on Commons. I gather there may have been some changes in the contrast but...its the same image: Image:Perse.jpg BTW, I am glad the D. Weller became an Admin with zero oposition. The grief and abuse that he took from a vicious editor (Marburg72) on the Cahokia mounds article and talk page is one reason why I plan to be only a contributor. Doug is the 1 in 80-90,000 person who thoroughly knows his stuff. And its safer for him to be an Admin when there are so many people with axes to grind on WP sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:00, 21 September 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?

If the images were exactly the same, then you could delete the Wikipedia version by tagging it as {{db-i8}}. But they are not. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bambiisadinosaur

Thanks for protecting this page. Can you undo his last edit, though, which was to copy stuff from one of his other blocked user talk pages, User:Bambifan101. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a need to. If he wants the welcome message and those cats there's no real reason for him not to have them. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to falsely say that GlassCobra left it for him on that page, when he didn't. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Stifle (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Platinum

You recently protected the page Pokemon Platinum here. Protecting the page seemed very over the top to me, the page was not "Subject to heavy and persistent vandalism." Wikipedia policy states that "In particular, it (page protection) should not be used to settle content disputes." The content being added by that anonymous IP was not vandalism remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Even if the edits do constitutes vandalism, seeing as it was only one IP address adding this in it did not meet "Semi-protection prevents edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), or from accounts that are not autoconfirmed." You can only protect a page after vandalism from multiple IP editors. Kuro ♪ 17:18, 21 September 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?

I semiprotected the page because multiple IP editors were adding unsourced material. It was taking away from editors' other activities to watch and revert the page. The semiprotection is only for 24 hours; you're welcome to list it at WP:RFPU if you feel the page shouldn't be protected. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)