User talk:Stifle/Archive 0209c

7:57, 26 January 2009 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Phillipbrutus.jpg" ‎ (FFD Jan 14)

I wish to challenge your deletion of an image.

• The image's title is Image:Phillipbrutus.jpg.
• I feel this image can be used on Wikipedia.
  • This image is available under the following free license: {{PD-FLGov}}

Court ruling trumps copyright notice on the page where the image is found. Please consider restoring this image. End the message with your signature, obtained by typing ~ four times. Template should do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 01:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

I said already that your "Template should do this." since it can and does everything else! Did you not notice? Elvey (talk)

The argument made on the FFD page was that the image was not "made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any state, county, district, authority, or municipal officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of government created or established by law of the State of Florida", not that the template didn't apply to it. Please provide evidence that the image is in fact covered by that description.

You may alternatively file a deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I found no link to an FFD page. But the image was stated to be from http://www.myfloridahouse.gov, an official FL gov't website. It's certainly funded by the FL legislature; surely the offical website is not run on a volunteer basis. --Elvey (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the FFD page: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 January 14. How do you know that the photograph was made pursuant to a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business? Stifle (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think my previous comment already answered that question. Clearly you don't. I guess deletion review is the next step. Thank you for your time.--Elvey (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OTRS-Hebrew

Done 8-) . -- Avi (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox German municipality

I was wondering if you would think about changing the current layout of the box in coordination with most of the othe rinfoboxes to have a larger map underneath the coat of arms. The current layout renders it that the map is so small it is the same size as the coat of arms which on most wikipedia settlements is at least 200 px while the coat of arms often well under 100 px. Most of the time the map is four times larger at least than the coat of arms, not the same size. For instance on Hockenheim you'd expect the map to be roughly the same size as a the photograph. Add to the map a thick locator pin that we currently have rather than the thinner pin used on the French communes map for instance and it makes the scale of the map awkward especially as we now have much higher quality pin maps. How about flags and coat of arms go side by side on top and you display a decent sized map underneath as with most other countries on here. As for as I can see it is only a hadnful of countries like Germany, Austria and Switzerland and perhaps Norway that insist on keeping it. Any thoughts? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're posting this here; the template talk page would seem to be a better place. Or if you think it will be non-controversial, just edit it yourself or place an editprotected request. Stifle (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I did post at the template. Perhaps a link woulod have been more useful for you. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, location. I put in Template:Infobox German municipality and couldn't find anything. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Des_ark page

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

• The page title is Des_ark.
• I have read the reason for deleting the page and I feel it was incorrect because Des Ark are a notable band. They began as a rock band, but all the members, bar Aimee Argote, left. Argote continued making music with just an acoustic guitar. She is an accomplished musician, employing harmonics and unusual time signatures. She also writes unusually frank lyrics.
• The following sources back up my claim:
  1. The deleted Wikipedia article lists Des ark's albums. These serve as sources to judge their musical development.
  2. The transition from a rock band to a solo music project is detailed here: http://modernfix.com/?page_id=1714
  3. Harmonics and unusual time signature: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmYdix-XGmg
  4. Unusually frank lyrics: http://www.lyricsmania.com/lyrics/des_ark_lyrics_22289/other_lyrics_52916/the_subtleties_of_chores_and_unlocked_doors_lyrics_736973.html

Please consider restoring this article. Maryrosecook (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Those sources are not reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources? (e.g. newspaper articles) Stifle (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Pittsburg City Paper says "recent recordings present more nuance and quiet contemplation than her earlier..." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1305241551.html
2. The Independent Weekly calls her latest live record "a masterpiece of modern folk music" http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-1502924321.html

Maryrosecook (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is effectively press release content. You may file a deletion review request instead. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:BLUDGEON

You have to be joking. I didn't nominate the article, but when the nom failed, I followed the process that WP provides "if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly": I politely raised the issue with the closing admin ([1]), and not being satisfied with their answer in that forum, brought the issue to DRV which is precisely what DRV exists for. I explained my position politely and gave reasons for why I thought there was consensus. WP:BLUDGEON is utterly inapt here, and invoking it in these circumstances is highly insulting.

Indeed, to the extent there has a breach of civility or wikiquette, I would suggest it's been by the commenting admins: since I DRV'd the nomination, commenting admins have offered three responses: fobbing me off with curt dismissals simply asserting that there was a consensus, without giving any reasons for that view, or even attempting to refute the reasons I'd offered, insinuating that I was misusing DRV ("DRV is not the place for a second AfD discussion") even though I was quite plainly using it for precisely its designated function, and now, invocation of policies explicitly predicated on ignoring the presumption of good faith ("Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view ... beyond the limits of good faith"). None of these are particularly helpful to building the encyclopedia, engendering respect for administrative action, or fostering civility. If my reasoning in requesting review is faulty, reviewing admins might show a little courtesy and explain why, instead of (so to speak) "bludgeoning" me - although stonewalling is the more apt term - with the sort of responses mentioned above.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I must add, I have found the response to the DRV terribly disappointing - not because people haven't agreed with me, but the unreasoned manner of that disagreement and the persistent bad manners of those responding, as mentioned above - assuming bad faith, assuming ignorance, and so forth.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  WP:BLUDGEON refers, inter alia, to responding to every single comment in a discussion trying to explain why it is wrong or argue with it. With due respect, that seems to be what you have done in the DRV in question. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  When commenters are simply ignoring the key issue, assuming that there was no consensus and evaluating the DRV on that basis (which of course misses the entire point of DRV - making it even more ironic that I was accused of being in the wrong place), it doesn't seem unreasonable to try to steer them back on course. I had already asked that commenters address why they think there was no consensus, and when subsequent responses continued to ignore that, I'm stuck in a silly situation where I have to reiterate the question.

  WP:BLUDGEON is concerned with attempts to bring people around to one's side by various strategies thought to be deleterious (or at least unproductive); questions directed at having commenters explain or elaborate on their position seem beyond its boundaries (although I concede that frustration got the better of me in the second sentence of my 01:19, 18 Feb; that is understandable, though, in light of what I see as the brusque attitude of the revewing admins and their persistent failure to engage with the actual issue of whether a consensus existed vel non, and if not, why not).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  I've replied to your concern on the DRV page in the meantime. On a hyper-technical point, any user, not just an admin, may contribute to a DRV. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And I've in turn replied there. :) Thanks for the pointer on regular users; I had thought, for some reason, that only admins were to comment on DRV. One would have expected that a review of an admin's decision would be peer review; as you said in your comment, Wikipedia isn't a court system, and I often think it would do well to borrow a lot more from that world than it does. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Deletion of a photo from Ruben Diaz Jr.

Dear Stifle,

On February 16 you deleted the following photo:

• 12:55, 16 February 2009 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg" ‎ (Listed on PUI for over two weeks: Since Jan 15)

This photo was deleted from the Ruben Diaz Jr. article.

I do not believe this photo should have been deleted.

On January 16, 2009 an Administrator named Tony the Marine wrote the exact procedure I should follow, in order to properly upload the photo.

You can read this procedure, as sent by the Administrator, on my talk page (1/16/09).

I followed the procedure to the letter.

1) Permission was sent by Ruben Diaz Jr. to permissions-en@wikimedia.org

2) A notice that Permission was sent to OTRS was prominently placed in the Image File of the photo.

3) The deletion notice was removed.

4) The photo was uploaded.

5) I notified the Adminstrator of all this on 1/21/09 (see my talk page, 1/21/09).

6) The Administrator acknowledged this and approved on 1/21/09 (see my talk page, 1/21/09).

In view of this, I do not know why you deleted the photo.

I tried to re-instate the photo but was not able to.

With utmost respect, I ask that you re-instate the photo, or communicate the reason why the photo was improper.

I will then seek to resolve this, as expeditiously as possible.

Thank you for your assistance.

MBernal615 (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2009 (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?

It does not appear that the permission email you sent to OTRS was received and validated.

• If it was validated, you would have received a reply with a ticket number in the subject. Please let me have the ticket number.
• If you did not receive such a reply, please tell me the email address you sent it from and to, and, if you remember, the subject line. I will then search the email database for it. (If you don't wish to supply that information onwiki, you can email it to me.)

Chances are good that this is a misunderstanding, and we should be able to work this out quickly. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Stifle,

Thank you for responding about the Ruben Diaz, Jr. photo.

Below is the information you requested, regarding the permission that was sent to OTRS.

Thank you again for your assistance.

MBernal615 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[email details removed for privacy]

Excellent. I've found that email. It stated a file name Diaz_photo-2.jpg instead of the correct name File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg, which was why the email team couldn't connect it with that particular file.

There are, however, some other issues with the image permission. I've issued a reply to that email explaining the issues, which you will see as you are copied on it. Please quote Ticket: 2009011610025989 in any further requests. Stifle (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-upload of Ruben Diaz Jr. -- Not Working

Dear Stifle,

Thank you for verifying the permission for the Ruben Diaz Jr. photo.

You mentioned "some other issues" with respect to the image permission...

When I read the Image File, the only issue I saw was that the photo had been "listed on PUI for over two weeks." That issue has now been clarified and addressed.

Here are the latest three entries in that file:

• 21:25, 19 February 2009 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg" ‎ (oopsie)

• 21:24, 19 February 2009 Stifle (Talk | contribs) restored "File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg" ‎ (3 revisions and 1 file restored: permission received)

• 12:55, 16 February 2009 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Diazphoto-2 .jpg" ‎ (Listed on PUI for over two weeks: Since Jan 15)

I am not sure what the "oopsie" refers to, in your last entry.

I spent two hours last night and another hour today, trying to upload this photo.

Could you please assist with the upload of this photo - either upload it, or convey a clear set of instructions, so that I may complete this process?

I would greatly appreciate your help.

Thank you,

MBernal615 (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I restored the photo before realising the permission was not valid, so I deleted it again.

Please see your email for further details. I am not permitted to disclose details of OTRS emails onwiki.

Do not attempt to restore or reupload this image until this issue has been resolved. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Various artists

I have nominated Various artists, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various artists (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

On a photograph

Dear Stifle, I should be grateful if you would kindly pass a judgement on the status of this photograph. User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise has left a related message on my talk page (in response to my statement on Ebrahim Golestan's image page), which you may wish to consult. Personally, I believe that it amounts to utter madness to chase a 87 year-old man for a worthless photograph, leaving aside that it is below my dignity to even contemplate to contact him for asking him about this photograph. If asked, would he say "no"? He is a man of great substance and an iconic figure; her daughter is running one of the most prestigious art galleries in Iran. With thanks in advance for the trouble, --BF 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC).

The best thing to do here is ask fotopages.com to confirm that the image is over 30 years old and thus PD in Iran. It doesn't qualify for the fair use unless you can identify the copyright holder, replaceability aside. Otherwise, you will need to find and contact the copyright holder — it isn't enough for Wikipedia that the copyright holder wouldn't care. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. At present I have no time to go after the case - in fact, I don't think that fotopages.com can have anything useful to say: they simply collect, and display on a single page, the photographs that people place on their personal pages on fotopages.com. I am however of the opinion that the Wikipedia policy is simply defective; please have a look here; clearly it is utterly nonsensical to be so demanding when the Internet is awash with the same photograph. It is like making a great deal of effort to calculate some quantity to 100 decimal places, while one a priori knows that the input data are accurate only to, say, two decimal places; almost the entire effort thus turns out to be spent on calculating utter nonsense (i.e. noise) over 98 decimal places. I am really serious; laws are there to serve us, i.e. humans, and we are not there to serve some arbitrary Wikppedia rules that make no sense in the case at hand. Yes, if the photograph at issue were that of a Hollywood celebrity, it would make perfect sense to do what you suggest. Whose right is going to be violated by exposing the photograph of an 87-year-old man, given the fact that the relevant photograph is of no economic interest to any person? Any way, as I said, I have really no time to pursue this matter. I find it however very sad that some of the Wikipedia policies are very reminiscent of those of the Taliban in Afghanistan; fundamentalism is fundamentalism. I am very much inclined to talk about the Talibanization of Wikipedia. --BF 23:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is more that Wikipedia aims to be the free encyclopedia — that means that we do make the extra effort to use free content, and only use non-free content under strict criteria, including that there must be no plausible way of replacing it with free content. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that no one can determine the true owner of the photograph at hand; the link that I provided in my previous message shows that even a person has uploaded this very photograph into his/her Flickr page and marked it with the All Rights Reserved copyright statement. Who is to determine the actual owner of this photograph? In this connection, I point out that by law when the owner of an object cannot be established, it becomes public property (think of the people who die intestate: their properties are taken over by the state). My dear Stifle, whither has gone your much-appreciated idealism of last year? Why do you respond to me in the Official Party Language? It is an absurd premise that maintaining the photograph at issue were tantamount to a violation of the Wikipedia aim of being a free encyclopaedia! You must know that! --BF 14:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC).

Now the Ruben Diaz Jr. article has been re-routed.

Dear Stifle,

With respect to the the Ruben Diaz Jr. article, you wrote the following to me:

• Please see your email for further details. I am not permitted to disclose details of OTRS emails on wiki.

I am sorry...Where is this E-mail? Where do I find it?

I'm sure I haven't looked in the right place...could you please tell me where to look, so that I may read and comply with it?

Also, the Ruben Diaz Jr. article is now very difficult to find.

A person now has to type in "Ruben Diaz wikpedia" and then select Ruben Diaz Jr. from a list of other names.

This is not the case for any of the following:

Robert F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kenndy Jr.

Jesse Jackson and Jesse Jackson Jr.

Freddie Prinze and Freddie Prinze Jr.

My question: is this re-routing connected to the issue of this one photo, for which Ruben Diaz Jr. issued permission?

If you can, please tell me the protocol I must follow, to resolve this issue of the re-routing.

Thank you as always,

MBernal615 (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I can't disclose the contents of OTRS emails on Wikipedia. I cannot make any exceptions. Please check your AOL email.

This issue would not have anything to do with finding Ruben Diaz. As there are three different people on Wikipedia called Ruben Diaz, entering Ruben Diaz (no need for "wikpedia") brings you to a list of people by that name so that you can choose the right person. This won't be changed. For the other names you chose, there are only two people with those names, so the procedure is different. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Maps created by User:Baku87

Hi Stifle, there are problems with two maps ([2][3]) made by this user, which I had nominated for deletion per WP:OI. They are apparently based on this map (which Baku87 moved from the ADR article [4]) with the difference that the territories which are showed here as disputed areas between Azerbaijan and Armenia or Azerbaijan and Georgia are shown as part of ADR or as "lost lands" of modern Azerbaijan in the maps of Baku87. All the users who have voted for keeping those maps are Azeri users and many of them are almost every day involved in edit-wars. The point that concerns me is that if those maps will not be deleted they will be again and again a source of continued edit-warring, something already is going on ([5][6][7]). Can you help in some way? ARe you an administrator which deals whith similar problems or is there a place here in wikipedia where we can ask other users for their help. --Vacio (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2009 (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?

Due to past negative experiences with getting into other users' disputes, I have stopped intervening. You may wish to leave a message on WP:AN where any administrator who can help will reply, or check out WP:DR. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

T:CENT

I recently edited T:CENT [8] and then saw there was an archive link at the bottom. You seem to be the only person updating it, so I am wondering if there is some sort of standard procedure for updating it and if maybe a bot could make the task easier. Any ideas? MBisanz ^talk 08:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No; to be honest it's ad hoc. The way I do it is simply figure out whether any of the discussions have died, and if so, take them off the template and summarize them in appropriate section of the archive. It would not be suited to a bot, which could not identify whether a discussion was over, where to put it, or what related pages to place on it.

I would suggest that you try to put a summary in the archive of the ones you trimmed. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I did those, it was harder than I expected. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pakistan libya.jpg

Hi Stifle, would you mind restoring this image and its associated talk page (if appropriate). My rational is here (which I should have added to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2009 February 6, not just on my talk page). I further do not believe the uploader was properly informed, or the community for that matter, because the notification was repeatedly removed from the image and the article where it was used. Some more discussion involving this image can be found here. Thanks. --Van helsing (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

 Done Stifle (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Queen of Swords image

I created the image from a picture within a dvd set as I explained on the page. It has been there 7 weeks with no interference. This was from a French dvd not even titled Queen of Swords. Have they complained? Have any of the possible copyright owners complained if you could find them? I 'd like it back, pleaseREVUpminster (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

While I notice you used the message wizard, you should not select the "other" option when one of the other headings covers the deletion in question (in this case, speedy deletion).

In future if you post on my page about a specific page or image, it would be very helpful if you quoted the exact name of the page or image so that I can find it more easily.

File:Queen of Swords.JPG was deleted under criterion 7 of our criteria for speedy deletion, because it did not have a non-free use rationale specific to, and naming, the article on which it was used. I will undelete the image for you, but you need to add a valid rationale soon, or the image will be redeleted. If you need information or help writing a rationale, please ask at WP:MCQ.

There are also some other problems with the image — it is tagged as a cover of a video/DVD, but it does not appear to be one, and it is far too large. You will need to trim it down to 500px across or smaller. Stifle (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I did write a rationale as advised by another editor using a template for comics and altering it for the image. as for reducing it, I am a novice at this. It is only big where the image is stored, not on the article page. I do not think I have the software or the knowhow to reduce it.REVUpminster (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Rationales have to be specific to each use of the image. You have to explain, in your own words or using an appropriate rationale template, how the image meets each of the criteria at WP:NFCC. I am unable to do this for you. As I mentioned, if you do not add such a rationale, the image may be redeleted. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• I had another go, I even managed to reduce the image, I tried the template and also left my own words. I hope I have done what you want. exhausted!!REVUpminster (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

  Looks good. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

drv comments

Instead of our contradicting each other at every drv--(if you give what I consider a misstatement of policy, I will contiue say why I think so, and if I do obviously you will continue to say I'm wrong ) perhaps we can come up with a statement we could both agree with--or at worst, apply both edits at the same time to save each other the trouble? DGG (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

How about:

While not considered absolutely mandatory, it is stated in the deletion review instructions that "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". It doesn't appear to me that this instruction was followed here, and I'm curious to know why. Or, if I missed the discussion, I'd appreciate a pointer to where it took place.

Feel free to edit. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

perhaps more about the advantages of doing so.

As the instructions indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting administrator for an explanation and possible reconsideration. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, or was there some special reason?

DGG (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've used that more or less, viz:

As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, or was there some special reason?

That will be the request from now on. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinion, please, re redirect

Does it make sense to ask to recreate the salted Joyce McKinney as a redirect to the much more substantial Mormon sex in chains case? If so is this a DRV matter or a simple decision by an uninvolved admin such as you? The new article is, I am pleased to say, not simply a product of my own sweat. Uncle G has at least doubled the initial work I put in, and I have hopes that others will add relevant cited items too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into this later, if that's OK. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course. There is nothing at all urgent about this :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Stifle (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It does seem to make sense that way. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premier 993 (National Express West Midlands)

Just letting you know the the nominator gave a reasoning for deletion for both bus routes AFD articles. I don't know if you saw it, so mentioning it. Secret ^account 14:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Germans DRV

Hi, Would you be good enough to review my comment in the DRV, which seems to be in line with what GRBerry was suggesting in his remarks. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I'm happy with my !vote. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

96.4 The Wave image

Look, since i'm not very good at uploading images, why don't you do it for 96.4 The Wave ? Jonny7003 (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that having multiple copies of logos are permitted by Wikipedia policy. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Milton Van Dyke.jpg

I was not aware that fair-use images of living people are not allowed. But now I know. Sorry for keeping you busy with my bad reading of the guidelines on this :-) Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Stifle (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)