User talk:Stifle/Archive 0509a

One compliment, a thank you and a question...

Howdy Stifle, first a (very) belated April 1 compliment. Your sig got me a good one, "Damn who is this tleSif?", "Hang on that sig looks familiar...". Secondly a (very) belated thank you for your !vote of confidence in my RfA, you're one of the mop wielders I have considerable respect for and your nod of assent made my day. Finally my image question. I updated a commons image here with a slightly better version. When I linked it across in this article, it refused to update. After scratching my head, I realised it was because we still have this version stored locally. I went to slap a "nowcommons" on it, then remembered - Damn I'm an admin, I can kill it myself! Then I had a crisis of confidence, "What if I kill it and find that it's out of process?" "Hell, what if Stifle finds outs and comes after me, guns blazing?" "Oh shit!" So to prevent all that needless bloodshed, can you tell me if I should delete the local copy? (I've checked the files and where they're used etc) And is there anything else I need to do when I kill it? Cheers, Paxse (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking since the images aren't exactly identical we shouldn't be deleting it without an FFD. However, I seriously doubt that anyone will mind in this case, and I've deleted it.

On a side point, you don't need to put in external links for those images. [[:File:RinzaiGigen.jpg]] and [[commons:File:RinzaiGigen.jpg]] will work, and look like this: File:RinzaiGigen.jpg and commons:File:RinzaiGigen.jpg.

Happy adminning! Stifle (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Paxse (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

CA PROPS

i dont get it. prop 8 passed but the judges have to approve of it. in this section of CA PROPS it doesn't say anything about a passed prop needing judicial approval via judges. can you explain and source? (email removed for privacy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfvace (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I have not the slightest idea what you're talking about. Can you please clue me in? Stifle (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Video screenshot

Hello, Stifle. This video is actually mentioned twice in the article Steve Foley. Any reason you want it deleted? If not I think we can remove all the deletion tags. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to File:Replacements-When It Began-video.jpg. Please note that images of a music video are only supposed to be used in the article about that video. In most other cases, including showing what a person looks like, they will be replaceable by an alternative free image. Feel free to explain on the image page above the deletion notice why you feel the image should not be deleted, and an administrator will review it in a day or two and make a decision. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Whitelist

I've come upon MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#visitsubotica.rs and I really don't see a reason why should this page be blacklisted, so I left a message there. In case I don't find any specific reason not to, I'll go ahead and add it to the whitelist. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 10:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Replying over there. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of my page

Hi, I'm sorry but why my page "Benjamin Vasserman" was deleted? All data on my page was truth, for the international awards were given links. I'm internationally recognized Estonian printmaker and now after some years I am no good to Wikipedia! Very very strange case!

Benjamin Vasserman (82.131.46.17 (talk) 11:42, 3 May 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?

The article Benjamin Vasserman was deleted after a consensus to do so was reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Vasserman. If you feel that I have not followed the deletion process correctly in deleting this page, please make a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Blogs

In a recent DRV you said "The references are almost all to blogs which don't qualify as reliable sources." While the specific blogs in the article might have been unreliable, such a sweeping statement is untrue, because a blog is merely a format used to display information. It's reliability depends on who wrote it and their reputation. (someone wrote WP:BLOGS which explains what I'm trying to say much better). I hope you'll read the linked page and look further before declaring a blog unreliable.- Mgm|^(talk) 16:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's a failure of the associativity law. If I'd said "and" instead of "which", it would have conveyed my intention better. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, pretty much. It would've been even better if you explained in more detail why you considered them unreliable. (That source is crap at fact checking, It gives no clue who wrote it, or something along those lines would all help.) = Mgm|^(talk) 17:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Heineken Cup penalty shootout

This page clearly states that the penalty shootout score was 7-6, not 21-18. – PeeJay 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Headsup: a discussion wrt the possibility of renaming

"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Hi, I thought I should know that I indented your duplicate !vote. Thanks. :) — neuro^(talk) 21:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd have just removed it (and have done so now). Thank you too. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Marzena Kamizela

As far as I can count the majority of the people giving statement voted for Keep. Why even debate the person and the abuse she was exposed to when you have made up your mind? OscarPetterson (talk) 08:01, 4 May 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?

Very new and unregistered users are not generally counted in deletion discussions, to counter issues of people being canvassed from other sites to influence the discussion unfairly. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Editnotice-15-Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles

Hi
I did, when I moved it to Template:Editnotices/Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Per-page editnotices in namespaces with subpages disabled do no longer work in MediaWiki namespace, so they are loaded through the namespace-wide notice. Those editnotices are living as subpages of Template:Editnotices now, so I moved it there. Check it out at , you'll see the editnotice even though I deleted MediaWiki:Editnotice-15-Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles again.
Cheers, Amalthea 10:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Aargh ... I see, I made a mistake. Namespace 15 is Category talk, I thought it was Category, so I moved it to the wrong place. It wouldn't have worked at the place where it was since Category talk doesn't have subpages either, but my attempt to fix that didn't quite work. The one you created now at Template:Editnotices/Category talk:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles does.
Sorry for the confusion, Amalthea 10:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Seems to be fine now. Thanks for dropping by. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection level on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Hey, you indefinitely semi-protected this article because: "I really don't see why IPs should have any need to edit this page; everything they've done recently has been vandalism". Though most of the anonymous edits in the history are vandalism, I'm not seeing any evidence of a serious vandalism problem in this article. It has been reverted 3 times since April 20th, which is practically a snail's pace. I know that high-profile targets of regular vandalism have been subjected to indefinite semi-protection before, but this doesn't seem like a paradigm case to me. I'm inclined to unprotect the article. Can you rethink your position? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mention at my talk page wizard, I don't object to anyone unprotecting a page I protected if they think it's justified. I do think my protection was reasonable, but won't stand in your way if you don't agree. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

KinbaCon page

Hello. I'm writing about this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#kinbacon.org You said that can't find deleted page. But the reason is that link to the official KinbaCon website kinbacon_org is blacklisted. That's why I wrote to the MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. We are not spammers. What should we do that link to the site will be whitelisted? Thx for the help. And here is the page, that was deleted - http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/KinbaCon —Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenBDSM (talk • contribs) 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Since there is no page about Kinbacon on English Wikipedia, there is no point in us whitelisting it. If you're going to create a page, it might be different.

If you want to use it on Russian Wikipedia, you'll have to ask them at ru:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Stifle (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing Twinkle gadget

You mentioned that you didn't know how to remove the Twinkle Gadget for a particular user. I haven't tried it, but its instructions say that it can be disabled for a user by adding the user to a "noallow" list on the gadget's .js page. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm still stalking here: That's right, but all the user's skin js files (monobook.js et al) should be protected as well, otherwise he can very easily import it there. Amalthea 00:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Seems like a fairly extreme measure, although I suppose there are times it might be necessary. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Blacklist

Hello. I see you added "Voy.com" to the list per my comments, but it still seems the site can be added to articles w/o the typical denial message (I tried it out on my profile). I remember reading that before a site is blacklisted, it should be removed from all articles. Does this need to be done for the block to "activate"?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it means I screwed up somehow. I'll post back at the spam-blacklist talk page to get someone to check it out. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Stifle, I'm truly humbled. Thank you kindly. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor judgment

Wow. You put a logo that's the main identifying image for an article up for deletion and added a deletion tag to the article, when that was surely more work for you than just filling in the two or three lines of appropriate information on the image's fair use rationale template? Robert K S (talk) 14:59, 5 May 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?

I have nominated a lot of images for deletion lately. Can you please specify which one you are concerned about, so that I can respond to your accusation? Stifle (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not accustomed to using wizards to talk to people and I don't plan on starting. If, similarly, you're using automated processes to put images up for deletion, that may be part of the problem. I do apologize for not specifying the subject of my notice, however. I was referring to the infobox image on the Jeopardy! article. The issue is taken care of, so you need not reply. I just think it's senseless to risk deletion of a valuable image (thereby compounding the amount of administrative effort needed to be applied to the problem) by taking actions which may have cost more effort than the action that would have saved the image. Such process could use improvement. Robert K S (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I tagged File:Jeopardy title 2008.png as lacking a fair use rationale. Now that you have added one, there is no further problem. I tag a large number of images (by a semi-automated process) for deletion, and I am not in a position to know what the rationale for the use of most of those images is. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ASA Midwest Tour Joe Shear logo.

I have an email from both myself, and Scott Lofquist (the copyright holder, who gave me permission to post the work, as well as provided it for me) in to permissions-en@wikipedia.org. A guy by the name of Joe Daley is handling it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justingrosser (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you don't need to do anything else with this. But thanks for dropping by. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Your statement that I would go out of my way to sabotage AfDs reflecting the merits of their articles is an insult, and by all appearances a deliberate one. (A bit of a harsh interpretation, but note that you also take the time to insult ARS and goad everyone on it.)

Shut up and leave me be. --Kizor 09:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon; I did not mean to insult you personally. The "you" in my first diff was a plural "you", referring to the ARS as a whole.

I do maintain the opinion on ARS, however. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Chile–Finland relations

I have expanded Chile–Finland relations to WP:DYK status with reliable sources. Would you reconsider your vote at the AfD. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Replying over there. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

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)

The site claims FL has a copyright on it.--Elvey (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We'd better keep this discussion to the DRV, if you don't mind. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As you are actively endorsing your own deletion there, I think it's productive to continue the discussion where it had ended. I don't much care where it continues, but I wish it to continue. You haven't responded to some questions I've posed here or there. Please do. Thank you for recognizing that your comment there was insulting and apologizing for making it. --Elvey (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the discussion boils down to that you feel the image is in the public domain for various reasons, and I feel that it is not, and that the reasons you have supplied aren't correct. A simple difference of opinion, but I don't think either of us is going to convince each other to change their mind. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking questions in an attempt to reach a common understanding. Please cooperate by answering them.--Elvey (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't consider this to be a question and won't be giving an answer. If I've misinterpreted this as a non-question, please let me know. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

See red, above, and on the DRV.--Elvey (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not seeing any questions there. I am only going to place further discussion on this issue at the DRV. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Stifle, thanks for the welcome back. I spent far too long on a business trip and returned at my work's peak silly sales season. It's good to be back online again - Peripitus (Talk) 03:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		"The "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar should be awarded to a user who figures out an elegant solution to a particularly burdensome bottleneck or problem, or who identifies a means to improve Wikipedia in a profound way." This Barnstar is awarded to Stifle, for his igenious idea which will probably completly change Article Rescue Sqaudron Thank you. Ikip (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion to change the page to a wikiproject was igenous. It made me realize that, yes, ARS is simply another wikiproject. Simple idea, profound implications. Ikip (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :D Pity it's looking like it won't work. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Thanks for the fix on the high school picture image — as I'm an admin, it's been a long time since last I needed to place a delete tag myself. I work a bit with image deletion, but mostly just duplicates of Commons files and orphaned fair-use images. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Your comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BQZip01_4

"...as soon as he equated image policy on Wikipedia with fair use, that knocked him out of my book. WP:NFCC is deliberately stricter than fair use. The mistake suggests a lack of understanding about our policies..."

I'm not entirely sure what Fuchs meant by that and I never insinuated that image policy on Wikipedia=fair use. I simply stated that copyrighted images need to be used in accordance with the law (fair use) and Wikipedia policies/guideline (by which I include WP:NFCC); after all, if its use is illegal under fair use, we aren't going to use it on Wikipedia...but that doesn't mean the law doesn't have to be taken into consideration. I wholeheartedly welcome a review of my previous actions in the WP:FFD arena and I think you will find appropriate interpretation of such policy within Wikipedia.

In any case, I appreciate the feedback. If there is anything I can do to alleviate your concerns, let me know. Have a pleasant evening/day. — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You said that "A copyrighted image of a living person whose prior image does not have any significance" or "a current sports figure's publicity photo" would be eligible for speedy deletion. They aren't; they are tagged {{subst:rfu}}. The remainder of your answer was a regurgitation of a policy page. To me, it showed a lack of understanding. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Lowsman.jpg

You removed an rfu tag from this image, stating that it's not replaceable.

What prevents any wikipedia editor from taking a picture of one of these trophies? There are multiple copies of these in existence today. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the background to these trophies, but a picture that a Wikipedia editor takes will be non-free as well, as the trophy design is presumably copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion

Stifle, Gaia Octavia Agrippa 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! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 20:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Image deletion stuff

Hi, you left me a message regarding File:Villa Terrace.jpg. I had tagged it "disputed non-free", and you informed me I should have posted it at WP:PUI. thanks for the info. Now I see you've tagged the image with a "di-no permission". Does this mean I don't need to post it there? Or should I go ahead and post it anyway? It looks to me like a pretty blatant theft. -Freekee (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The "no permission" is an alternative to PUI, and I should have told you that as well as that there was nothing more for you to do on this image. Sorry for the confusion. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't had had had had had had had had had had had enough...

I'm hoping to keep the conversation about this article active and avoid the usual fleeing from a topic that takes place after an AfD has closed. There was much talk about merging this article but little agreement on where to merge it to. Therefore I am informing everyone who participated in the debate of the ongoing conversation here in order to bring this matter to a close sometime in our lifetimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree images

Back in December, you tagged File:Hollow0004.png for PUI, but I can't find anywhere that you listed it there. Could you revisit it and try to remember why you so tagged it? Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I listed a block of a user's uploads for deletion because he had uploaded a lot of images which he did not have the rights to. It also appears that I delisted it afterwards. Probably a Twinkle bug. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Playing the odds

Since odds are good that you'll be the agent to receive this letter, I wanted to give you a heads up. :) We have an odd permission letter that should be coming in from User_talk:Shiptradenews#Procedure. I've created a release based on recommendations from the mailing list. (Please tweak it if you see any problems with it. :)) I hope it will go smoothly with him from here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, seems fine. I've been doing more info-en than permissions work lately, but I'll know this if I come by it. Stifle (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

__NOTOC__

Why do you have this on this page? I find it rather editor-hostile. It stifles discussion.--Elvey (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

__NOTOC__ <!-- please don't remove this, add new messages at the bottom -->

I manage to have discussion even with the comment. ;) – Quadell ^(talk) 01:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't find the table of contents useful, and the comment is just to ask users not to change that and to add their comments at the bottom.

With respect, I know we disagree on some things (your DRV being the key one), but you're getting a little picky about things that I see as trivial. It may be healthier for us to avoid each other. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What were you thinking, removing the ToC from MY talk page??? You haven't said anything to suggest it's anything but editor-hostile and stifles discussion.--Elvey (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize; when I left you the talkback template, since the section parameter was _NOTOC_ (with an extra underline either side), it had the unintended effect of removing the TOC from your page.

I'm not required to defend to you every edit and choice I make. You obviously don't want to have NOTOC on your talk page, and you're welcome not to. I choose to have it, and that's my choice. I don't see a valid reason to continue this discussion. Stifle (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed!--Elvey (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS question on PUF

Greetings. I'm not an OTRS user, and I only vaguely understand how the process works. On Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 April 23, IronGargoyle noted that Commons:File:Traditional chinese wedding2.jpg has a permission verified by an OTRS ticket. For reasons I'm unclear on, IG suspects that other images (listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 April 23) might be covered by the same ticket. Can you confirm this? Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 01:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That permission ticket applies only to the one image where it's used. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS checks for the following tickets

Ref: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cherry Springs State Park/archive1

Hi, Stifle. Sorry to bother you again, but could you check ticket number 2421158? It is used to cover Kevin Wigell's File:M51a.jpg, File:M20-Combine1B.jpg, File:CSSP Cygnus Combine1B NR.jpg, and File:CSSP Sagittarius Combine1C.jpg, but I find it strange that it is also used for Tim Hopkins' File:FishingLight.ogv and L A Youland's File:USS Timmerman DD-828 photo-1.jpg.

It's fine for the first four, but has nothing to do with the next two. Chances are Howcheng screwed up the ticket link. I'd suggest checking with him. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, in light of the following two photos' upload by the same user, could you verify the details for ticket 2908186 (covering Curt Weinhold's File:Snowy Domes - Cherry Springs SP.jpg and File:Cherry Springs telescopes.jpg? Thank you very much. Jappalang (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

They are fine. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Deletion of Encyclopaedia Metallum

Greetings. Since when there was a consensus in this discussion? 9x6 doesn't look like a consensus to me. Besides, some of those who wanted to delete the article were heavily biased against it, trying hard invalidate anything I came up with.

When I presented the following article as a notable references, two of them said that it didn't count, because the guy who wrote it is a member of the site. Encyclopaedia Metallum has almost 140,000 members. It's completely stupid to say that everyone who has an account there cannot write anything that can be considered as independent source. The member who wrote it cannot be considered an active member by any stretch of imagination. He barely used the forum and his only contribution to the database was to write two reviews out of more than 43,000.

When I firmly established the notability (see my last few posts in the discussion) of a magazine that printed an interview with the creators of the site (translation here), they said that the interview didn't count because it was "Self-promotion and product placement", which is completely absurd, since the magazine is 100% independent from Encyclopaedia Metallum, and the interviewer "only asked questions. That's trivial.", which looks like some rule invented by him. Since when interviews should be considered trivial if the interviewer only asks questions? Thanks. Evenfiel (talk) 01:41, 10 May 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?

I'm happy with my closure, and I feel that it correctly represented the consensus of the discussion. Indeed, several of the "keep" arguments were straight out of WP:AADD. You're welcome to list at DRV. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/"-cides"

Hi there. You recently redirected "-cides" to -cide following closure of the afd debate for "-cides". Does this mean that the discussion is closed for the other article, List of -cide words, which was added to the discussion as an identical copy of "-cides". God Emperor (talk) 09:44, 10 May 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?

I missed that one. I've redirected it now. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restricted Access Barrier System

FIY I've closed this AfD since you didn't mention trying to find any sources in your nomination. To avoid this issue in the future, please summarise what you've done to try to verify content before nominating an article for deletion. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no requirement to look for sources before nominating an article. It may be recommended, but isn't mandatory. I won't take this any further because the discussion was obviously headed towards keeping, but if it were not, I would be going to DRV. Stifle (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood your nomination then, I thought you had nominated this under the criterion "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Tim Vickers (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it was because the article as I nominated it failed to comply with the WP:V policy by providing sources, and as it had been tagged for approaching three years, I thought it reasonable to believe that the existence of sources was unlikely. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, but as you said, it was heading for Keep anyway. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)