User talk:Stifle/Archive 14

Dre Knight Wikipedia Submission

Hello Stifle,

I hope the holidays went well for you. So I've worked my butt off on this wikipedia page (this was my first page ever). I hope everything is in order. Please let me know if there is anything wrong with it, or if it can be submitted. I tried to make it as accurate and concise as I possibly could. If there are minor flaws that involve coding that I don't understand, could you make those changes for me? I had to watch so many youtube videos until I figured out how all this code stuff works. I definitely bit off more then I could chew.

Thanks for all your help!

User:Drt831/Dre Knight Drt831 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Looks like it's been brought into the mainspace, so that seems good to me. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 January 7

Hi, could you please undo your closure of the DRV for the climate change article? As the admin whose closure is being contested, I would prefer that the discussion runs the full minimum of seven days required by procedure, so as not to give rise to later complaints that the the review discussion was flawed in any way. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Are you sure? I think extending the discussion would only generate more heat rather than coming to a different result, and process wonks will argue about it anyway. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• All right, if you think that's the case, but I'm always deeply, deeply uncomfortable with cutting short process.  Sandstein  16:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Request undeletion of Sophie (software)

Hello Stifle, Six years ago you closed the AfD on this article, which was deleted on notability grounds. Since 2008, several more papers appeared in the peer-reviewed literature.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sophie+multimedia+future+of+the+book&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

Per the deletion review rules, I am asking you before posting there. Please consider undeleting or userfying Sophie (software), so that it can be cleaned up and updated, or if necessary merged with another article.

-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Userfied to User:Hroðulf/Sophie (software). Stifle (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of "Voice to skull"

I noticed that my article Voice to skull was deleted without any reason given. I would really appreciate your explanation as that would help me understand the working of Wikipedia better. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not Stifle. The reasons are listed here.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull. The closing admin 'Stifle' merely responds to the consensus that emerges from the discussion, so Stifle deleted the article. Does that help you understand the way things work? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, Hrothulf. I am confused because I don't see any consensus on the deletion discussion page and my understanding is that if a consensus is not reached the decision is usually Keep instead of Delete. What do you think? - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this seems rude, but are you looking at a different page to the one I see? Only one editor besides you supports keeping and eight support deleting. Stifle (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup - see Wikipedia:Consensus: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity." (and see also Wikipedia:Closing discussions). If unanimity was required in AfD discussions, the discussions would be almost pointless - one can generally assume that the article creator at least wishes for an article to be kept. With the overwhelming majority arguing for deletion, citing policy (issues with original research and synthesis, and the lack of sufficient reliable sourcing), it would be pretty well unsupportable to close such a discussion as anything but 'delete'. If the discussion is less clear-cut, it is normal for the closer to give a detailed explanation as to how the decision was arrived at, but in a case like this, it is unnecessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment on FFD clouser

On this, I don't disagree with the "keep" closure, but I would strongly caution about considering the fair use and likeliness of being sued issues as a reason to keep or delete an image. These points are only valid in considering NFCC#2 (commercial opportunity) which obviously wasn't the case here. NFC is carefully crafted to assume fair use defense will be met by properly meeting the rest of the NFC criteria, and we ask people to avoid trying to justify images by the fair use claim since the purpose of NFC is to minimize non-free. Again, I'm in full agreement of the close, just that the reasons you used are not strong policy-based ones which you could have justified this for. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry if it was unclear, but my point was not to do with NFCC#2, rather to suggest that the image is arguably PD on that basis. Doesn't amount to much or anything, as you say. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess my point was more that unless we're talking about a photo with a clear commercial opportunity (images from press corps, for the most point), NFC does not otherwise care about the likelihood of a lawsuit or the intent of the original image provider, as, as long as NFC is met, a satisfactory fair use defense is met by design. So we shouldn't be judging retention of images under NFC on the intent or possible actions of the copyright holder; as long as the image is not under a compatible free license, we have to treat it under the rest of our non-free requirements. (There are a lot of people that try to argue to keep images because the source owner says free for non-commercial use, or similar language that just quite isn't a free license, and we have had to explain how this is not sufficient) Again, for this image, it meets other NFC criteria without problems, so I'm not disputing the closure, but I would avoid future judgement on the copyright owner's intent for fearing this will be taken the wrong way by others in other discussions. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

File:EnStage logo.png

I got a watchlist notification that you deleted this at FFD, but the file is still there, and the log doesn't show any deletion or subsequent restoration. What did you do, and is there something wrong? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• I deleted File:Enstagelogo.png, not File:EnStage logo.png. Not quite sure why. Both gone now. Stifle (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is what the watchlist notification said yesterday:

The Wikipedia page File:EnStage logo.png has been deleted on
2014-01-19 by Stifle, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EnStage_logo.png.
Editor's summary: [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 October
31#File:EnStage logo.png]]

So it clearly was File:EnStage_logo.png. Strange. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

File:General Al-Sisi, announcing the removal of President Morsi.png

You deleted the file but there are many sources describing al-Sisi's announcement of Morsi's removal on national television depicting the picture. See this one for example → BBC -Egypt crisis: Army ousts President Mohammed Morsi. There's also this video uploaded by Al Jazeera on YouTube illustrating the whole announcement. I failed to reply to User:Stefan2 because they replied very late and i almost forgot about the discussion, but now i'm back and call for WP:DRV. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with my decision and if you wish to lodge a DRV you're entitled to do so, but you'll need to explain the long delay in posting the information, given that the FFD was open for 2½ months and you had more than ample time to supply it. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just surprised and wondering why you deleted the file only 1 week after Stefan2's reply while mine came 2 weeks prior to theirs and there were already two users opposing the deletion including me. I'm not trying to be childish here and i'm also not very familiar with most wiki-rules but this doesn't seem fair and i had already removed the file from Military beret. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

FFD discussions can be closed once they have been listed for one week. There is no other minimum duration. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, i already know that but you had 2 users opposing the move 2 weeks before Stefan replied. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Correction → before Stefan re-replied. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Images for deletion

Hello Stifle, I noticed your participation in closing some of the image deletion discussions for January, so I was wondering if you could take a look at some even older January discussions, regarding the first three files related to Brimstone, File:Brimstoneredcarpet.JPG, File:Brimstone & Valentino Autograph Signing.jpg and File:Brimstone.JPG, seems pretty straightforward to me. Thank you very much! starship.paint (talk | cntrb) 08:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm working through the deletion backlogs in no particular order, but I will look into these. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again! starship.paint (talk | cntrb) 11:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Acacia Fraternity Crest.png

I would like to understand what the issue was with the Acacia Fraternity Crest. The note indicated that it violated NFCC#1 which indicates that there is a free equivalent available to what was deleted that has the same effect. What sort of Free equivalent would there be?Naraht (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Crests and coats of arms are described as a blazon, which is a form of words explaining the main features of the crest. The blazon is not copyrightable, but the emblazonment, or specific depiction, is. Therefore, a crest is replaceable by a free equivalent which could be created in the form of a crest drawn by a user from the blazon. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, The Acacia file was probably misnamed since a Crest is merely part of a Coat of Arms, but aside from that, It would seem that your statement would make any Fraternity/Sorority/Honorary Coat of Arms or similar inappropriate to have on Wikipedia unless they were redrawn from a blazon. Unlike traditional coat of arms, there may not be a stated Blazon, as even the description of the Coat of Arms that has been been trademarked may lack certain vital information necessary to reproduce the Coat of Arms. For example, for my Fraternity,

The mark consists of a coat-of-arms design containing a shield bearing three torches, three trefoils, a sword and a smaller shield containing a cross and drops. Atop the larger shield is a helmet with rays and stars emanating from it and below the larger shield is a ribbon bearing the words....

. There are a *considerable* number of additional characteristics that would have to be specified in order to make a full blazon, and as far as I know the closest to a full blazon that you would find would be in the brotherhood ceremony, which would be inappropriate to publish as there is additional information in that description which is not public (for example, the reason for the torches). If you could locate a official blazon for the Acacia Fraternity Coat of Arms, then that might be fine, but otherwise, I believe that determining what characteristics are relevant for a blazon would be original research.Naraht (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, Wikipedia has restrictions on what images can be used under fair use and that is a matter of policy. If you feel that I have not applied policy correctly on this occasion, you may make a listing at deletion review, but you will also need to explain why you did not make this point during the time the image was tagged for deletion. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank You. I have done so. I see no change to the Acacia Fraternity page or its talk page in regards to the deletion tag, so unless I actually viewed the page, I don't believe I would have seen it tagged for deletion.Naraht (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Acacia Fraternity Crest.png

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Acacia Fraternity Crest.png. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frosty Wooldridge (3rd nomination)

See you around. -- GreenC 18:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Assassins deletion

User Stifle, I am inquiring as to under which authority your deletion of this page was under. I provided the appropriate sourcing and Wikipedia compliance on the page; "Keep Sources are provided for the information presented. This band meets number 7 of the criteria for Detroit post-hardcore, which has been sourced in the article appropriately: 7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

This page is just as relivant as any other musical group page on Wikipedia. Please review this criteria and respectfully request you re-consider this deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GMoneyWCAR (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Assassins (band) was deleted after a consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassins (band) that it should be deleted. I did not decide to delete it; the Wikipedia community did. While there is a right of appeal at WP:DRV, that right is only available if the deletion process has not been properly followed, and is not there just because you disagree with the arguments presented. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Stifle, I disagree because the page was no different than millions of other band pages. The admins on here are too subjective and don't follow the guidelines as I clearly presented numerous times under rule 7: "7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." The appeal process truly isn't an appeal process at all. Thanks for your time and lack of consideration. GMoneyWCAR (talk) ~~~~

Please read WP:OSE regarding your concerns. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005–06 Copa Catalunya (2nd nomination)

As I see no basis for deleting this article, can you please provide some commentary? Thank you. Nfitz (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• The consensus at the discussion is entirely clear to me; perhaps you could help me understand your concern better by explaining how you find it otherwise. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Basically what I documented in the AFD. That there is significant coverage in the Catalan media. I assume you are weighing arguments, rather than counting votes. And WP:GNG beats the vote count. Nfitz (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    • No response. I note that the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Copa Catalunya isn't as one-sided. However, as you've made up your mind, can you please add to your closing statement in the AFD so I can focus the debate in deletion review. Nfitz (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm satisfied that the closure and reasons are entirely obvious and do not require further expansion. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
        • It doesn't seem right to me that Someone closes a deletion debate that doesn't have a clear consensus, and then refuses to provide a clear explanation. Nfitz (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
          • I agree. But the debate did have a clear consensus. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Antrim Forum

Because three people decided it was necessary to delete my article you go ahead and delete it? How is 3 people enough to create a consensus? Please explain. Evangp (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like you to restore my article. Evangp (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• After almost three weeks it is clear that you were the one and only person requesting to keep the article. Your references contributed were properly refuted as trivial coverage by User:DESiegel and it would have been completely wrong to close the debate any other way. While you have a right of appeal to Wikipedia:Deletion review, please be aware that deletion review is not a "rehearing de novo" or a chance to have a second bite at the cherry; it only considers cases where the deletion process has been improperly followed. You would also be well-advised, if you list at deletion review, to explain how many users you think would have been needed. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coffee for Two

I would like to ask that this is relisted instead of closed. Did you notice that the only person who voted keep was the article's creator? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Per WP:RELIST, repeatedly relisting in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. I don't propose to reopen and relist but I have amended the closure to state that the article may be relisted without a waiting period. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Wondering About Deletion

Greetings! I noticed that you recently deleted the Sarah Allegra page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Allegra). May I inquire as to what it was that pushed it over the edge into being actual deletion? I am wondering as perhaps I can help to create a more suitable page in the further future. Thank you sincerely.--Thewhitedoe (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that three users supported deletion and none supported keeping is sufficient. I can userfy the article for you if you think you can improve it. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Armand Navabi

Hi, pretty weird that you nominate to delete a page, and now I have to use Internet Archive to retrieve the info. Please reconsider being such a music-hater (or just being weird about non-Hollywood musicians getting a page). https://web.archive.org/web/20130401120941/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_Navabi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmz787 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why it's weird; we have guidelines on what should be included and I am following the community's consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armand Navabi (2nd nomination). Stifle (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chennai Worlds 2014

Hey, I noticed that you closed the AFD discussion for this page as keep. Including myself, at the time of closure there were two editors for keep and two for merge. Would this not be a case of 'no consensus' rather than a consensus for keep? I realize that consensus isn't a vote, but it didn't seem to me that the arguments on either side were so lacking in merit to cause a debate with equal supporters on each side to be swung one way or the other. Wieno (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems like you're on hiatus so I listed the article on deletion review. See below. Wieno (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion requested by uploader - close explanation please

Please post a brief explanation why you closed this FFD on a GFDL image as delete:

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_January_14#File:Amy_Robbins.jpg

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Brainfart. Will undelete. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

triple close

not sure why, but you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafe Judkins (2nd nomination) three times. I will fix it. Frietjes (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably my closure script being strange. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chennai Worlds 2014

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chennai Worlds 2014. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wieno (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

contested PROD

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Evo Morales grounding incident, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —rybec 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Prince Bagrat

Hi Stifle. The article is important and needs to be improved in the future being a royal prince of the King and the forefather of other royalty. If you still think it should be deleted go for AFD. You also posted on my redirect talk page and not on my page btw. Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

AFD cleanup

Hi there - can you G8 delete The Secret Princess? It was previously redirected to TransTales Entertainment via AFD. Both the article and talk were full-protected because it kept getting recreated so I can't nominate it directly. Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 16:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Gone! Thanks. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Ian Lewison

Why did you delete Ian Lewison? There was another nomination for deletion which the result was keep. According to the archive of the discussion it said "This article has been altered significantly from the deleted version". An adequate explaination why you came through without notifying the creator of the page would help.Fremantle99 (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Lewison (2nd nomination) was for deletion. Notification of the original editor is a courtesy and is the responsibility of the person nominating the article for deletion. Stifle (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Question about deletion of The Mighty Liberators drum and Bugle Corps

hello

I was the original author of the The Mighty Liberators Drum and Bugle Corps. This was my one and only wiki page creation so I evidently did not create the best piece of work per Wikipedia norms. My apologies. I just discovered that the page was deleted last month by you. I was not aware of the discussion unfortunately and could not provide any helpful feedback. There were questions raised about authenticity or relevance.

As one of the original members of this group, which was actually quite historic in the USA and is now defunct, I am eager and willing to figure out how to edit it to meet Wikipedia standards. The group was very real and very relevant in drum corps history.

Can you help me understand what changes are needed to restore the article? I'd be happy to do some editing prior to its undeletion. Also, can the old article be sent back to me for editing?

The comments that I just found in an archive of the AFD debate are: "Ridiculous tag-bombing apart, this article, created in 2006, still fails to meet the most elementary criteria for inclusion under WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:BAND. ...This artical is very badly written and needs sources to prove notability and to me it seems the best option is to nuke it and start over... If they performed at a DCI competition (as the article states), I would say that makes them notable--that being said--if no sources can be found to be able to rewrite a well-sourced article, then this article cannot be kept. Judging by the article's age and its inability of be improved within this time, it doesn't seem to be notable enough for a proper article to be established. I feel like a tourist (talk) "

I am not aware of what the "tag bombing" problem is, or what improvements are needed. Is there any direction or advice that can be given ? Thanks.

Kholmes11 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• The reasons for the deletion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mighty Liberators Drum and Bugles Corps and there was a consensus for the article to be deleted. A key factor which would aid retention or undeletion is citations from reliable sources which establish that the subject is notable. Stifle (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rameshwar Dayal Dantare (Dantre)

Hi! Even though the result is that the article is kept, why the result of this AfD was not keep but was no consensus? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• It reflects the fact that there was not a conclusive agreement to keep the article, but that the debate was balanced. Wikipedia's policy is that there has to be an active consensus to delete an article, so in no-consensus situations, the result is recorded as such but results in the article being kept. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I get that "no consensus" actually results in "keep". But i did not quite understand why the conclusion was such. The subject is notable enough to stay per Wikipedia policies. I actually don't object to whatever is written in the closing statement as long as the article is staying. But "no consensus" means the article is more prone to further AfDs than the "keep" resulted AfDs. The situation with this article was not such. Hence the worry and query to you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hitro and ColonelHenry made delete points so there was not a complete consensus to keep. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sadly both were ignorant enough to do their study and/or casual enough to not revisit their opinions after others had done the notability digging work. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Your assistance please

Greetings,

You deleted File:Ahmed Siddiqu, son of Aafia Siddiqui, in 2008.jpg as F7 -- replaceable. If there was a discussion as to whether it was, or wasn't replaceable, could you point me to it?

If there was no discussion are there conditions where you would agree the image was not replaceable?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• The image was deleted in line with CSD:F7 rather than via a discussion. To your second question, a specific image is either replaceable or it is not; there are not conditions which make it not replaceable Stifle (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Short version -- I think replacability is a judgment call -- one I argue should be tempered by a measure of common sense.
  • Long version -- you know what, you are a busy guy, and I don't want to tire you with the long version, unless you ask for it, and instead will direct you to this recent discussion, where another contributor argued that theoretically possible replacements that "... require access to the private site or illegal trespassing, then yes the non-free would be considered irreplaceably by free imagery as to meet NFCC#1".
    Instead I will ask you to help me out. Is this the image that shows both Ahmed and his mom? Is my recollection correct that this image was taken on the day of his capture? Can you supply me with the source URL? Geo Swan (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Tell you what. Because it's you, I'll restore it and send to FFD. Can't say fairer than that. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Certainly can't. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
        • A procedural nomination means you aren't going to voice an opinion in the discussion?
          In this comment, I said I had found a more dramatic non-free photo, from the day Ahmed Siddiqui and his mother were captured in July 2008. Since we only use one non-free image at a time I asked for opinions as to whether it would be better to use the earlier image. I'd welcome your opinion, in whatever level of detail you choose, anywhere you care to put it. Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
          • More that I wasn't intending to comment at that point in time. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Calder Painted Douglas DC-8 for Braniff Airways

This photo has been incorrectly deleted. This was a photo taken by and owned by Braniff Airways, Inc., that ceased operations in May, 1982. As a result of a March, 2011, court order all Braniff logos, likenesses, and photographs were remanded to the public domain with no restriction on their use including reproduction and sale. Thanks so much Mmb777e (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Please supply a link to this court order. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the abandonment of trademark and likenesses which included all original Braniff materials. Also I am in possession of the only photos in which you are questioning and therefore own the rights to these photos. They are not owned by Alexander Calder's Estate or The Calder Foundation. All Calder related Braniff artwork, etc was owned wholly by Braniff Airways, Inc.

http://www.trademarkia.com/braniff-78499928.html

Mmb777e (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately trademarks and copyrights are separate things. This covers trademarks but not copyright, from what I can see. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Yes indeed that is true but the case included and deemed that all likenesses of Braniff including all trademarks, copyrights and any materials associated with the airline were public domain. The problem here is that I purchased ALL of Braniff's public relations materials and photos at an auction at DFW Airport in 1983. With that came the rights to ALL of the copyrights to the materials and photos. I have made a statement to that effect and sent a note to Wikipedia permissions email. I am not sure what to do here. I have stated that the photo copyrights are mine and I would think that would release Wikipedia from any harm. All of the photos in question I have the photos as well as the original negatives and slides. I am President of Braniff Preservation Group, LLC and have a large collection of original Braniff materials. Any suggestions here beyond the statement I have sent to permissions? Thanks so much. Mmb777e (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The permissions people will need to take this forward. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeerXML

Hi. I object to your closure comments on this one. "Bad form" is not a recognised wikipedia classification, as far as I'm aware; it was your personal opinion and had no place in the summation. Administrators' opinions as to the point at which an article should be nominated for deletion vary, and I believe you should have limited yourself to stating that the article had been brought up to standard. Deb (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Your objection is noted. I will not be changing my closure. I suggest you read WP:BITE and WP:BEFORE, particularly item C2. Stifle (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "Bad form" will never be an objective comment; it will only ever be your opinion. If you read the discussion, you'll see that the article had already been deleted once and also prodded. The creator flatly refused to accept that any improvement was needed until after the nomination took place, hence C2 is not an appropriate point to quote at anyone. Deb (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion

Hello!
Couldn't help but notice you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Saviors Volume 3: Remission. I was curious as to whether you could take a look at two similar AfD discussions:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Saviors: Industrial Music To Cure Cancer
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence
Thank you
-BusyWikipedian (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Stifle (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Voice to skull

Can you restore Voice to skull's full history and talk page the article is going through DRV right now under Acoustic harassment. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you want to do with it? Stifle (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Abir Chatterjee

Hi, Hope you are doing good. I had created a page in 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abir_Chatterjee , now i see there are many contributors and some of them are abusing the page by giving false info, can this be stopped and I get a notification of changes and block a particular user? please let me know how to deal with this.Achau24 (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't possible.

For future vandalism issues, please use WP:AIV. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

hi again,

For the sma epage there are some citations errors, I chateed in the forum and they aske dme to add more links to verify information. I have done that, now how can i get rid of the warning? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abir_Chatterjee Thanks

Hi there, for future issues please contact WP:HD rather than asking me directly.

You can remove the notice in the same way as you edit the article. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

why my content is removed once i submit here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.68.63 (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please remove a picture?

Can you remove this picture?:

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by U8iuui11 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC) 

Theodosios (Hanna)

If you have a moment please could you check the tag that has appeared on picture used in Theodosios (Hanna). I think the copyright should be OK. I took the picture.Padres Hana (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Tennis article discussion

Because you and others were instrumental in forming our current tennis guidelines on seasonal articles for special players, I though you might be interested in the re-visit being discussed at talk:projectTennis. Currently, because of input from that 2011 discussion, any singles player skilled enough to win a grand slam tournament is allowed continuous seasonal articles. No grand slam tournament win, no season article. A grand slam tournament win in 2012 allows seasonal articles in 2013 and 2014 whether or not more grand slam tournaments were won. I was against these articles, but even I have to admit it has worked reasonably well and there really haven't been all that many articles made. A recent deletion of the 2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season has brought this to the forefront once again and we at Tennis Project are trying to decide if we leave things as they are or narrow the parameters in several different ways. We could use more input (whether your views have changed or not). I gave the old discussion link so you can see your original thoughts, but all those who gave their view before are being invited to discuss. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I do not wish to take part. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for undeletion: Freefall (webcomic)

I've been instructed to contact you, regarding re-opening the Request for Deletion discussion that took place over Freefall (webcomic). Four years after this entry was deleted from Wikipedia due to lack of notability, I'm placing this back into contention for undeletion one more time, using this as my justification:

"If you are not a fan of Freefall you ought to be. Alas, it really will involve some time because it is a serial story, and the current panels are shocking — that is, they have a total surprise that I do not think many readers saw coming...The story is well developed and very logically constructed. I’d like to see it win a Hugo. It’s really good." -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle, March 2, 2014, http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/forced-sale-of-crimea-learning-math-prince-igor-and-the-hearing-log-continues/

The original AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freefall (webcomic) -- Modemac (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• A bit late in the day but as you would have seen from my banners I am rather inactive and in any event User talk:Stifle/FAQs#I_disagree_with_your_AFD_closure waives any requirement to discuss AFD closures with me. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Freefall (webcomic)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Freefall (webcomic). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Request for Comment

There is a Request for Comment about "Chronological Summaries of the Olympics" and you're invited! Becky Sayles (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Julien Blanc

You tagged Julien Blanc with {{Criticism}}, which added a box to the page that says "This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject. Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material." Not including the References section and two paragraphs at the top of the article (the lead and "Work with Real Social Dynamics"), this article's Controversy and criticism comprises the entire article. Therefore it may be better to either tag the article with {{POV}} or to add {{Criticism section}} to the sections within Controversy and criticism that you believe compromise the article's neutral point of view? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone recently renamed Controversy and criticism. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm removing the criticism tag. Content related to criticism and controversy is already integrated into the article as a whole. If you believe there is a problem with one or more of the article's sections, tag those instead of the article itself. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Blac Haze

Hey, the article would have been kept since it was relisted twice and it was more wanted to be kept. Why did you close it? I am going to request a deletion review since I can add how Let Me Holla At Cha was on the charts and Res-Sa-Rec-Shun got an AllMusic review. It was also noted he sounded just like 2Pac. 174.4.163.53 (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, deletion discussions are decided based on consensus and Wikipedia policy, not a vote. Notwithstanding that, there were four deletes to two keeps. I believe my closure was correct. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well could it be restored or sent to me by email? I think more people would want it kept if asked as well. Bozo33 (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I can do that, but can I ask what you propose to do with the article if I restore it? Stifle (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orlyval, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mobilis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mia Jones (Degrassi: The Next Generation)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mia Jones (Degrassi: The Next Generation). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gloss 17:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santosh Mehrotra

Dear Stifle, I am writing to ask for a little more explanation for your decision to delete and salt the article. My reading of this is that closure was incorrect as it did not reflect consensus of the debate given the timing of the contributions. The article as written and as nominated was probably autobiographical and overpromotional. And this led to the nomination of the article and to the support for deletion and salting by User:David Eppstein. He suggested the article "would need a ground-up rewrite by a neutral party to be sure of getting rid of the promotional content and so far the only significant contributor to the article has been the subject". I subsequently did that and thought I had removed all the ‎autobiographical material and rewritten the article in a more neutral tone and provided additional supporting references. I have contacted User:David Eppstein here User_talk:David_Eppstein#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FSantosh_Mehrotra. I thought I should ask here for advice. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC))

Hi there, I consider all my deletion decisions carefully to ensure they are appropriate and this is no exception. A clear majority of opinions were in favour of deletion and as User:EEng noted, the sources need to actually exist in reality, rather than in likelihood. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Collier

Hi Stifle. I think the sources provided by Yankees10 (talk · contribs) and the analysis by Rlendog (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Collier clearly demonstrate that Zach Collier passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. At the time of redirection, the article contained several paragraphs of encyclopedic information about the subject that was sourced to multiple reliable sources. Would you consider revising your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Collier from "redirect to List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks" to "no consensus"? Thank you for your consideration. Cunard (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• No. But redirection is a normal user action which can be undone by any editor who feels it is appropriate, in line with WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification, I have restored the article. Cunard (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• The restoration was reverted, so I have taken this to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 20#Zach Collier. Cunard (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

PRIME (PLC)

I removed the prod tag from PRIME (PLC) after replacing the reference/link for the specification from the one listed on the alliances homepage with the one from International Telecomunication Unions (ITU) standards organization. The alliance has an upcomming standards proposal listed on their homepage. I could not find a reference/full text outside of alliances homepage so I left that link.

I did find some deployment figures in papers presented at international converences, but they all date back some years. So I thought it might be valid to cite the alliance on that?

Please let me know if the changes are not yet enough to satisfy a removal of the prod tag. Emb.enth (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Game set listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Game set. Since you had some involvement with the Game set redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)