User talk:Stifle/Archive 1008e

Deleted Article/Lehman Lee & Xu

Hello there. I was helping a friend of mine fix their article (Lehman, Lee & Xu) to make it Wikipedia-appropriate; it had been (rightly) marked for speedy deletion as blatantly promotional, but there was definitely some decent content there and the problems were absolutely fixable. However just now when I went to take a look at it, I saw that you'd deleted the whole article for copyright infringement. I'm not sure why, and I certainly didn't see anything like that there before. Anyway, if you could please restore the page to my user space so I could take a look at it, I would be most grateful. Thanks very much! Eionm (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, see User:Eionm/Lehman, Lee & Xu. The article looked like it had been copied and pasted from one source as it wasn't wikified and was in the same tone as the company's website would appear. I don't think that's actually the case now though. Please make sure you cite external, reliable sources before moving the article back into the main namespace. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all your help. I'll make sure it meets wikipedia standards before putting anything back there. Eionm (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Survivor

Please just delete them. I;m not going to save themBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Wally Bullington

I've been doing some more research on User:Paulmcdonald/Wally Bullington from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wally Bullington and have found that he coached a national championship NAIA division one football team. I think that alone would be reason to keep. I am looking for more source and have found a good amount of references through google, but have not had time to put them in the workspace article.

Anyway, I wanted to report in to you the progress that I've found on this article and get some feedback from you if you don't mind. Thanks!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can reference it to somewhere other than CFDW, which I still think doesn't meet WP:RS, it would probably pass muster. But that's only a probably. I know very little about college football, especially not what is the highest amateur level. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! I've grabbed a few more online sources to beef it up and will keep looking in the offline sources as well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Person

When you've a moment, please note this. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That was quick! Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Okayama Planet Search Program/Temp

Hi. :) It looks like somebody tagged this temp page as a test page, but it is the revision page for Okayama Planet Search Program. Unless you have an objection, I'll go ahead and restore it so that when the copyright problem becomes active after its 7 days of listing, the subpage can be evaluated to see if its an appropriate replacement for that text. (Unless, of course, you want to. :)) The issue was raised by an IP contributor here, which is how I come to be aware of it. The editor is also concerned that the naming hierarchy used by the copyvio template may contribute to such confusion, which I suppose is something to consider. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Restored; the copyvio template used to link to a subpage in the mainspace rather than the talk. Perhaps a rename of that link might be suggested at Template talk:Copyvio. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. I have no idea who set up the hierarchy in use now or why. Might be worth some investigation. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Here we go. It was done in compliance with Wikipedia:Subpages, as evidently temp pages in article hierarchy may be reached through special:randompage. Think a tweak to the subpage name could prevent confusion? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good plan. How about Talk:Foo/draft, and possibly even preloading a nice prominent header saying that this is a temporary draft article while the previous content of the article is evaluated for copyright issues? Stifle (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea! I have no idea how to preload headers (nice or otherwise :D), though. Actually, if we make a prominent preloaded header somehow, the name won't be an issue, as taggers will see what's going on. How does one go about doing that? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See how I've implemented it at User talk:Stifle/wizard/RFA — the "click here to leave it" link preloads the text at User talk:Stifle/preload/rfa (and gives an edit introduction as well). Stifle (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just working on this for the Copyvio template. Hang on a tick... Stifle (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've set this up at Template:Copyviocore/sandbox. I think it should work so that if the temporary page doesn't exist, it will let the user create it with a header, but if it does exist, it'll just edit it. The code only works in mainspace though. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Once people are happy, the sandbox code can be moved into the main template. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice. :) Is there any way to get it to work in talk space, or is it worth proposing to somebody, somewhere that we make an exception to the guideline at Wikipedia:Subpages? I'm not sure how much of a concern the randompage function is. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

By "the code only works in mainspace" I mean that it doesn't work in Wikipedia/Template/etc. namespaces. It uses the exact same location as the current template; the only difference is that the first person to edit the temporary page gets a nice header saying that this is a temporary page. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Obviously, I thought you meant article space. :) It seems like it should be good to go. It's hard to imagine anybody objecting to it. (OTOH, those could be "famous last words.") --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! Thanks to both of you! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the main template. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Suite101.com whitelist

Hello there. You were kind enough to agree to whitelist suite101.com/about so I could link to this site for an article about it. However, I'm still getting the blacklist message when I try to put the link in at my protopage for the article. Is there something else I need to do to make it work properly?--otherlleft (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to get the right regular expression for this. Please report it at the technical village pump. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You missed one...

I saw your deletions of User:Mmmovie's images, but there was one image on my watchlist that didn't get deleted. Same particulars as the others, but it didn't get listed on the PUI discussion page. I suspect the filename confused TWINKLE. I really don't think this person understands the likely consequences of having their family pictures released into the public domain. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Gone. If he contacts me, I'll gladly restore him after ensuring that he accepts exactly what PD means. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Norman Joseph

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Norman Joseph. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Paul McDonald (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Don Lee (college football)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Don Lee (college football). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Paul McDonald (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Scott Highsmith

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Scott Highsmith. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Paul McDonald (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

the three above DRVs

Normally I would discuss with deleting admins such issues, but your wizard stated that you would simply instruct me to DrV anyway. I do not mean to be disrespectful, just simply following your instructions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything, just redirected it, which any editor can do. I have moved for speedy closure of the three DRVs you opened on the grounds that there is no deletion to review. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Because I disagree with that decision, I would obviously like to have it overturned. Should we just battle the "three revert" rule and then do whatever comes next, or what do you recommend? What is the best way to handle this disagreement?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do is WP:BRD. I did the B, you go for R, then D is next. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperanon

FYI, on the above AFD that you closed this morning, there were two articles up for deletion. The band article, and one for their albums. You appear to have missed handling the article for the album. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:39, 22 October 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. In future, please tag articles like this as {{db-afd|name of deletion discussion}}. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I used your wizard this morning. After getting no response, I ended up giving the same message on your main talk page, and this time got a prompt response. So I would say that, in this case at least, the wizard was far from a faster response.

As for the tagging, your point is misplaced, as the album article was tagged, correctly or not, by User:TenPoundHammer, rather than by me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That page says "Please don't leave messages on this page, rather, choose the appropriate selection below." The wizard is designed to answer minor issues or redirect queries which any user could answer to an appropriate noticeboard. You clicked through a bit too far anyway; to get there you would have needed to visit User talk:Stifle/wizard/deleted, which has a heading on "incomplete multiple AFD closure" which tells you to do just that.

The tag {{db-afd}} is intended for use where an admin has closed a discussion as delete but omitted to delete the article, and would have been entirely appropriate here. It doesn't have to be the original AFD nominator who uses it. Stifle (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara

Your opinion. At what point do we stop all these "new" users who rotate from one topic to another? I've seen the same group of users, each one in the same order, appearing on topic after topic to (1) edit war (2) get the article protected (3) shift to another new one. I'm think I might go and violate the protection and remove the lyrics. We are claiming that a living person sang that song (which is disputed). To then put up lyrics unsourced and an unsourced translation seems like the strongest WP:BLP violation to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from but I'm not sure I know how best to handle this. Have you tried WP:BLPN? Stifle (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a note there. The problem is that almost all of these editors are coming from the same large schools or cities. I suppose there are some legitimate users coming from there but the truth is, there are just POV warriors on both sides (and a legion of IP addresses which clearly watch the talk pages and fly-by vandalism so that there are plenty of "clean hands"). Even that page has something goofy going on between this guy and this sock. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected template edit

Hi. A couple of days ago you made an edit I requested to the protected template Template:English, but someone else has requested it be undone, and I've realized that they are right. If it's not too much trouble, could you please revert the edit? It would be appreciated. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like someone else got it. Thanks anyway. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate non-admin closure of multiple articles?

Non-admin User:NuclearWarfare closed as redirect a bunch of articles on Axis of Time characters: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jane_Willet_(fictional_character), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Judge_(fictional_character), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J_Lonesome_Jones_(fictional_character), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karen_Halabi_(fictional_character), even thoug all of the !votes were delete. I could support redirects to Characters_in_the_Axis_of_Time_Trilogy, where these characters are already covered, even though such redirects are of little use because a search for those names returns the Characters_in_the_Axis_of_Time_Trilogy article anyway, but the redirects to Axis of Time make even less sense, and were against consensus. I'm inclined to adjust the redirects just to avoid any drama, but I thought to check with you first since you have lost of experience with the AfD process. Thanks, VG ☎ 07:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, although you could overturn his closure and delete the articles per WP:DPR#NAC. If you do decide to change the redirect, you can protect the redirects as well and/or delete the article history other than the redirect (if there was nothing merged). Stifle (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Harveyrosenberg.jpg

Hi, Could you please bring back this image? It was deleted earlier this year for lacking a fair use rationale. I believe i could provide it. It's a police mugshot. Thanks. Joyson Noel (talk)

Done, although it was in fact deleted last year. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sports Club/LA

An editor has nominated Sports Club/LA, an article you edited, for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address any concerns. Thank you for your time. Wikidemon (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Removing image licenses

I've just seen this message. The image, as you can see, is property of EFE Agency (not 20Minutos), so it's incorrectly licensed because 20Minutos license doesn't apply to EFE: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bad_sources#www.20minutos.es. Lobo de Hokkaido (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've deleted the image. Make sure you link to that Commons page in future when modifying image tags so that anyone reviewing the page doesn't come to the same incorrect conclusion that I did. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Madonna

Regarding the image you proposed for deletion - that image shows the second version of the video, a much more different version comparing to the original one. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll need you to specify the exact image if you want me to review it, as I have tagged over 200 images for deletion in the last week. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Rock Band Track Pack img Deletion

On Oct. 24 you deleted an image: here citing a rule regarding unused images. The image in question however was being used in AC/DC Live: Rock Band Track Pack: Demonstrated here. In fact, a bot had to come in and clean up the reference here because the image had been deleted out from under the article. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 13:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I hit the wrong deletion reason — the image was in fact deleted because it lacked a rationale explaining how it qualifes as fair use. I have restored it and redeleted it with the right reason. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:BobAsprin.jpg

You deleted File:BobAsprin.jpg as "unused non-free image" at 09:45 24-October-2008. It was used on Robert Asprin until 10:14 the same day when it was removed because it was "a deleted image." Please restore the image and restore the use in the Robert Asprin article. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I hit the wrong deletion reason — the image was in fact deleted because it lacked a rationale explaining how it qualifes as fair use. I have restored it and redeleted it with the right reason. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review the reason for deletion: According to the log, the image was on BoingBoing under the CC Share-alike license. The image is here on BoingBoing. Given that the author of that BB post, Cory Doctorow (and here and here), is the science-fiction writer and author of CONTENT: Selected Essays on Technology, Creativity, Copyright and the Future of the Future, it's very likely he is authorized to release the picture under that license if he isn't himself the photographer. As an image released under a free license, it is not a "fair use image." Please review this information and either restore it (and fix up Robert Asprin while you are at it) or clarify the reason why you believe the image is not free. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a sharealike license, it's a non-commercial license. Non-commercial licenses aren't allowed on Wikipedia (absent a valid fair use claim, and there isn't one). Stifle (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that fine print, as did the uploader, obviously. I've emailed Cory Doctorow to see if he'll re-license it, if that doesn't work I'll see if I can scare up someone else who has a photo. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the RFC

thanks for taking the time to comment at Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC_on_Joe_the_Plumber_tax_lien_on_house RFC. Nice to get some new opinions and viewpoints. The article was just protected. Inclusionist (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Speedy Deletion

I had tagged it as non-notable web content, which is what the article made it appear as. Not tagged as WP:PROD. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Jc37/RfA/General questions

Just a note that the header of this page conflicts with the GFDL that you submitted the text under. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The header is just a "gentle request".

I guess I'd just rather not see something designed to be positive used in a negative way.

That said, I'll see if I can clarify that in the intro if you feel that it's problematic. - jc37 20:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that you deleted following this discussion. Just curious, did you agree that the image was non-encyclopedic after looking at it in the Johnny Apollo (toy) article? (I think I may nominate the existing image in that article because it so awful.) Or was the fair use rationale that I remember adding inadequate in some way? Thanks. Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I was mostly concerned about copyright. The fair use rationale you added wasn't sufficent in accordance with WP:NFURG; I can restore the image if you're going to add a better one. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall what I put in as a fair use rationale (and of course it is impossible for me to find out what it was now) but I'll give improving it a shot. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin image?

I note that the CFD tag is removed on the "Palin-Nowhere" image, but I can not find any report that WP had received proper license yet. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It was removed incorrectly by the uploader. I've restored it. Nice catch. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It is now due time for the image removal if I read correctly. Collect (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't delete the image myself, as it was I who tagged it. You could tag it as {{db|CSD:I7 - Image with a disputed fair use rationale which has been tagged for over seven days}}. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

American Life (song)

here is the link

I see. Please read WP:NFCC to understand why this image can't be used on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:The Escape Engine-press photo.jpg & Image:The Escape Engine-live at cmj-photo.jpg

I was hoping for some clarity on the deletion of the two above photos. My understanding according to what the text below says was that these photos were acceptable since the band is no longer together.

Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images.

However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.

If not, can you please advise me where these photos should be uploaded to and what would be the appropriate justification? Thank you in advance. --NJ hardcore kid (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The images lacked any non-free use rationales. What non-free use rationale would you give that addresses all the points in WP:NFCC? See also WP:NFURG. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so this was completely my misunderstanding. Thank you for taking the time to clarify it for me. So, since the images are available through the original websites that I had listed in the details, I probably should have listed them as with Some Rights Reserved using Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 2.0 (cc-by-sa-2.0). Correct? If so, are you able to undelete them so I can adjust the use license is or will I have to I re-upload these and start over again? --NJ hardcore kid (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll undelete them, but you must link to the exact source page (a page where the image can be seen, not just the base URL) so that we can verify that the free license applies. You uploaded the images choosing "non-free image of a living person". Stifle (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you. I am use to using an internal company wiki where things obviously operate differently...some of this stuff is rather confusing to read through and determine what is the right choice. Second, I have corrected the license for the The Escape Engine-press photo.jpg and have provided a direct URL to the image where it can be seen. Hopefully, everything is correct and I can do the same for the other image. Thanks again. --NJ hardcore kid (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So far so good. However, nothing on the Fidelity Records website verifies that the images are indeed available under the cc-by-sa-2.0 license. You need to get a statement put up on the website saying so, or have an email sent from an address ending in @fidelityrecords.net to permissions-en@wikimedia.org saying that the images are available under that license. Stifle (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Ok, so consider that one done. Emailed the label and they said they thought that they had already taken care of it - but would make sure they do. Now, I got another question.... so I originally found the other photo on this photographers website, which is now no longer available for some reason. But I also found it on a myspace profile as well. Can I use that as the link to reference where I got it from and would that still fall under the same cc-by-sa-2.0 license? --NJ hardcore kid (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Images only fall under the cc-by-sa-2.0 license if they explicitly say so. It's not just something you can slap on and say it'll be OK. So unless it's on the source site, it's definitely a no-go. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well...that's understandable. OK, so I'm at a loss for that image then. Do what you gotta do with it. I'm going to email the label and see if they know how to get in contact with her but who knows how long that will take. It could just be that her site is down today for some technical reason. At least I got one image resolved. Thanks again for all your help today! Muchas Gracias! --NJ hardcore kid (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Inclusionist (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Inclusionist (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP privacy policy for limited public figures

I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I deleted it

No worries. :) -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Template edit

Thanks for performing the requested edit to Template:Year nav topic2. If you get a chance, would you mind looking at Template:Year nav topic, which has exactly the same issue with an {{editprotected}} request pending just as long? --Russ (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for the welcome message

ThankU--Daviddavey (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Welcome-auto

First, thanks for this much-needed template that I just discovered! Unfortunately, it's broken and I don't have a clue how to fix it. :(

I added this into Friendly, though the custom welcome feature. When I use the template through Friendly, it always inserts my username as the name of the autobiography created, whether I put in the correct page name as a parameter or not. (Diff)

If I manually copy/paste the template it, without a parameter it gives this, and with a parameter it gives this. Better than with Friendly, but still funky for a new user.

The good news is that it's gotten at least one editor to stop recreating pages about himself and to make a user page instead. Mark one in the victory column. :)

This obviously isn't a pressing problem, but if you're bored and want to look into as the template creator (I assume this means you know more about templates than I do, which isn't hard), I'm putting a bug in your ear.

No need to reply on my talk page -- I'll watch here. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Friendly, but I know that most or all of the existing welcoming templates take the welcomer's name as a parameter so that the text "my talk page" in the welcome links to the welcomer's talk page. Since {{Welcome-auto}} doesn't, it may be that Friendly is trying to put in your username as that parameter.

The effect that you got from the second and third links will be due to the fact that the template is not substed. The syntax for the template (which I just added to the template page) is {{subst:welcome-auto|page title}}, and putting that onto someone's talk page should have the desired effect.

Let me know whether that works for you or not — I may be able to improve the template further if that doesn't help. I can't do anything about Friendly, though. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful reply! Never occurred to me that subst'ing the template would make a difference, but I've tried it and see that it does.

And since Friendly breaks it, I'll either take it out of my custom welcome stuff, or keep "fixing" it manually. At least I know why it's happening. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisting

Thanks for the headsup, I must have missed that particular change. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

Deletion review for Wally Bullington

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wally Bullington. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Normally I would discuss with you first, but it seems you prefer to go right to DrV. There have been a lot more sources and improvements on the article, including discovering the team's NAIA national champonship in 1973. Cheers!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Dang, saw I did discuss with you earlier and we were waiting for a source... which I found. Anyway... there it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, 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 Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)