User talk:Stifle/Archive 0508c

Johnny Cash

Hey Stifle, why the full protection on Johnny Cash? I don't see any evidence of edit warring, just a few vandalism reverts. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have used vandalism as the summary. I've unprotected it now. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mighty Leaf Tea

Hello Stifle,

Thank you for responding to my inquiry yesterday regarding recent quick deletion of Mighty_leaf_tea

If I understand, the objection was based on A7 - - artilcle about a company doesn't indicate importance or significance.

Our reading of this article suggests that it meets this standard - but I am having the company re-write the article to make this more clear - in terms of notability, the article referenced a New York Times article, verifying that Mighty Leaf Tea is a major US provider of specialty teas, and an innovator in the tea bag segment of the market.

Futher, if you compare this to the articles on other US tea companies: List_of_tea_companies It would appear that this article as originally posted is consistent with these - if the Mighty_leaf_tea article were to be deleted, then it would seem many/all of these related articles would fairly be in the same boat.

Regardless, I have asked the company to add to the article indicating historical significance of the company to the US tea market, innovations, and additional 2nd party referencs - these should be available later in the week.

Can I repost at that time?

Thank you,

Nedvansise (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)NedvanSise

The NY Times page contained only two tangential mentions of the company. I can't stop you from reposting the page but you should make sure to put in citations that not only mention the company, but explain what makes it notable. See WP:CORP for a list of ways a company might be notable. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Westlake, County Londonderry

Hi. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westlake, County Londonderry. I'm a bit confused by your comment though. I'm not denying that Westlake exists, but rather that it's not notable. There are lots of things/places/streets that exist but that aren't notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've posted another comment at the AfD discussion page. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

adenin TECHNOLOGIES

I left a question on the talk page about this citation. Don't I get and answer? Amyyaley (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Adenin TECHNOLOGIES was deleted as it was an advertizement. You can recreate it if you wish but please read WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:BFAQ first. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lauri Lebo

Lebo was the principle reporter covering Kitzmiller vs. Dover, which not only established case law against teaching Intelligent Design in American classrooms, but was the subject of a highly-rated documentary on PBS, and several books.

Lebo was not only a York Daily Record reporter, she wrote a book about the Kitzmiller case, from her inside perspective as the daughter of the fundamentalist owner of a Christian radio station, WWII-AM who supported the school board and its use of creationist text books.

Lebo has testified before the FCC on media ownership law as both a reporter and a station owner.

There are thousands of outside references to Lebo. Blog posts about her alone must number in the tens of thousands by now.

Kitzmiller v. Dover has Wikipedia entry.

Her husband, singer-songwriter Jefferson Pepper, has an entry.

The station she owns, WWII-AM, has an entry.

By what possible criterion is an entry on her not notable?

I wanted to simply put a placeholder article in. I was editing Jefferson Pepper's entry and was amazed that there was no entry for his wife, Lauri, who is far more well-known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarionADelgado (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This page exists, so I am not sure why you are complaining to me about it. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bryncoch RFC

Stifle,

You recently deleted my page Bryncoch RFC, I'm presuming notability as this is the main hit I used to get nailed with. Could you revert this as I am creating the entire Welsh rugby league, mainly as informed stubs, with the hope that others will contribute. I struggled hard in my early days to get this up and running, but have now created over 100 clubs, most of them with over a hundred years of history, but with a distinct non-geek/tech following making follow up contribs slow. To see how far I have come please check: List of Welsh rugby union clubs by division, which before I started held only about 20 clubs. This is a serious long term project which I have spent hundreds of man hours building. It has notability, it's just buried in time and needs effort to create. Thanks,FruitMonkey (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I notice that you referred to an article as belonging to you. Please be aware that nobody owns any articles on Wikipedia.

Bryncoch RFC was deleted under criterion 7 (under Articles) of our criteria for speedy deletion because it appeared to be an article about a club which didn't indicate why it was important or significant. Please see WP:ORG for details of what might show notability. If you think that these criteria are met, please explain which one and provide citations from reliable sources to back up your claim, and I will consider undeleting it.

You may alternatively file a deletion review request. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

unexplained copyvio tagging on commons

Hi! I notice that you tagged for speedy deletion my photographs of the Tiffany window "Education". I've removed these tags, as you did not explain why you think they are copyright violations. As should be clear from the descriptions, the window itself is public domain because the creator died over 70 years ago. The images are tagged as PD-self because, as a stained glass window that varies considerably in appearance based on complex lighting conditions (and has elements of 3-dimensionality), photographs likely create a new copyright (mine, in this case) which also needs to be released or licensed.--ragesoss (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added licensing explanations to the image pages to prevent future mix-ups.--ragesoss (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I tagged them because the page they were taken from was marked "all rights reserved". Thanks for the clarification. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned Webbers

You might want to nuke the rest of Category:My Normal characters and My Normal for the same reason as Ned Webbers: Hoaxalicious™. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Already done. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi,you removed a speedy tag i placed on an article,which i had tagged as G7,stating that I was not the only author/contributor.I assure you that I am the only contributor.If you look at the history,you'll find that all major edits are by me and my dynamic IP's and the other changes are all trivial or vandalism.Please remove the article. - Amog |^Talk 10:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note the following changes which were not made by you:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

However notwithstanding the above I may delete the page if you can explain satisfactorily why you want it deleted, bearing in mind that revocation of GFDL is not permitted. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I can prove that those are my IP's.If you'd look here you'd find one of my first comments on Wikipedia,made in august last year.That was an unsigned comment,and is made from the same IP as edit #3.But if you'd look at the contributions of the first IP,you'll find that I attempted to blank/delete the page before all that contribution.That is my only proof,as i cant really trace dynamic IP's. As for edit #2,if you'd look closely,it is a trivial edit. - Amog |^Talk 10:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've said I'm willing to overlook that, but why do you want the page deleted? Stifle (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well,there are a couple of reasons.One of them could be notability.Another is that there is a COI,as i am the man's grandson.(You can see that from this bit of vandalism by a cousin of mine),and there was a definite NPOV,as I learnt when I got a little more experienced as an editor.I guess there may be other reasons,but these are majors. - Amog |^Talk 10:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should let the community decide by way of an AFD? Stifle (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe,but can't you delete it under G7? I did prove that mine were the major edits. - Amog |^Talk 10:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

G7 isn't really used for articles that have been around that long. It's generally when someone realizes they've made a mistake in creating an article (or other page) and want to spare everyone the process. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

All right.Make an AfD then.What exactly should i do? - Amog |^Talk 10:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made an AFD, you'll find it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakolath Ramachandran. You can post there saying why you think the page should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay,but please change the portion of 'contributions from other users and IP's'.It was nearly all mine.Amog |^Talk 10:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Quantifica article deleted

Can you tell me why in what way my article was advertisement? What should I change? I used articles made for competitors and nobody seem to think their articles were advertisement: Gartner, Forrester Research, Informa... Check these out. Bebeagrafe (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time? The answer to your question can be found by choosing the appropriate selection from this page. Please note that the page was deleted by User:RHaworth and not me. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. But can you tell me why in what way my article was advertisement? What should I change? I used articles made for competitors and nobody seem to think their articles were advertisement: Gartner, Forrester Research, Informa... Check these out.Bebeagrafe (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete the page. Please contact the user who deleted the page. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you did not delete it, but the user who did told me to a deletion review and so I did. And then you were the first person who added something to it. That's why I'm asking you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebeagrafe (talk • contribs) 13:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Let's take the discussion up at the deletion review, then, where everyone can see it, rather than here. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested copy of article

Please send me a copy of the Soft Charisma article so that I may add in the appropriate references to remedy the reason it was deleted.

66.25.50.21 (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please send me a copy of the Soft Charisma article so that I may add in the appropriate references to remedy the reason it was deleted.

Sc0ttkclark (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sent to your registered email address. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Refactoring and removal of my rationale in an AfD debate

Stifle, you [4] removed my rationale in an AfD debate. This is offensive and improper. Please put my comments back. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, I refactored it (and other long comments) to the talk page. This was because the comments were so long that they impeded the reading of the day's AFDs. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't refactor, you, at best, pruned. You removed my rationale, and signature, from the AfD page. You certainly shouldn't have removed my signature, and my rationale was not unusually long. The moving of Abd's reponses, which were very verbose and not disputing my !vote, was justifiable. However, you should have left brief notes explaing the removal of material at the location of each removal. I have replaced my text that you removed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Regarding [5], at the moment, he's blocked, not banned. SQL^{Query me!} 09:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of rollback

If you think persistent addition of an incorrect infobox to Paul O'Grady (sometimes twice a day, every day) by a continuous stream of sockpuppets of User:WJH1992 who was blocked over six months ago, yet persists, it not a proper subject for rollback, perhaps you will care to spend the hour or so I spend DAILY dealing with this pest. Just take a look at the history of Paul O'Grady. Are you sure you're an admin? And your talk page "wizard" wastes my time. There are more vandals out there. --Rodhullandemu 10:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll watch the page once it's dealt with.

Yes, I'm sure I'm an admin, and for quite some time longer than your good self. Please remember to be civil.

I'm sorry that you found the talk page wizard unuseful. I receive a great many messages, mostly from new users, of the "why did you delete my page" variety as well as messages that should go to an admin noticeboard. The system is a way of managing messages so that they go to the right place, or helping users to find their own answers. The link to reply to a message is just two clicks in and I think it is as accessible as possible while serving its purpose.

Don't feel that you have to reply to this if you are too busy vandal-fighting. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

About speedy deletion of STX Citinet

STX Citinet was first page I've created, so sorry if I broke any rules. But I was going to add more information eventually. And by the way if page STX Citinet was candidate for deletion please review the pages about Mongolian televisions. (They are listed on Communications in Mongolia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yabar (talk • contribs) 11:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

reply

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

Deleted Page

"Edward R. Morrison"

I'm not even done with it! Geeze! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaea (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You could e-mail it to scaeascaea@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaea (talk • contribs) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it to User:Scaea/Edward R. Morrison. When it's ready, you can move it back. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

College Football Deletions

Please immediately cease and desist deleting pages such as H.B. Hucles and the dozen or so other articles that you deleted from the Prairie View A & M Univeristy football coach pages. These pages are a part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football project. I ask that you restore these pages at once. If you believe that they should not be posted, please provide an opportunity for discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Those biographies were deleted under criterion 7 (under Articles) of our criteria for speedy deletion because they appeared to be articles about people which didn't indicate why they were important or significant. Please see WP:BIO for details of what might show notability. If you think that these criteria are met, please explain which one and provide citations from reliable sources to back up your claim, and I will consider undeleting it.

You may alternatively file a deletion review request. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gottsch contains a discussion very, very similar to what you are seeking. Wikipedia:WikiProject College football considers all head coaches of NCAA and NAIA schools (past and present) to be notable. Please in the future, if a page is associated with a project, consider checking with that project's participants before taking rash action and deleting over 20 articles without discussion or opportunity to review. Sources were cited for each and every page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources cited were not reliable sources. They were links to the school's own website. Please provide some citations to news media or other coverage of some of the coaches and explain what makes them notable, because the articles didn't.

I do not have the time to check each WikiProject to determine whether or not they claim ownership of any particular article before deleting it, and just because a WikiProject feels that a page should be included does not imply that there is a community consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe these responses from you!

1. I did some research on the logs. You deleted 22 bona fide articles and their talk pages in six minutes. That's an article every 16 seconds, including the talk page. Even as an administrator, how can you honestly make an objective decision in that amount of time?
2. You obviously went too fast, because the source cited was the college football data warehouse -- at least the primary source, and it's considered reliable. This is one of the standard sources for our project.
3. As a courtesy, it is common habit among our project to include a link to the schools athletic page to assist with timely research, especially within the season.
4. You are an administrator. You should take the time to coordinate with projects.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Not all of the articles had talk pages, so that rate is higher than the actual one. Having noticed a series of similar pages which appeared to be nn-bios, I opened them all in tabs from the template at the bottom of the article, and deleted them seriatim.
2. The college football data warehouse looks like someone's web project. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
3. No problem with that.
4. That does not follow.

You still have not established why those pages should be undeleted. In both our interests you may be better off opening a deletion review as I do not think I will change my mind. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you not changing your mind because you don't want to admit that you did not read the articles with any amount of consideration at all? Or are you not wanting to read the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gottsch similar discussion, where the consensus conclusion was Keep ??? Or are you not wanting to admit that you incorrectly assumed that the source cited was the school's home page when it was the College Football Data Warehouse (which, by the way is a recommended source for the project)? Or are you not changing your mind because you think that college football is a waste of time? What gives here?

Your responses here are not in line with what I would expect of a administrator. You do have a tremendous responsibility for Wikipedia. Take a few minutes and go to our project page. Find a problem? Start a discussion instead going immediately to rapdid-fire deletions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Throwing accusations is not going to convince me of anything. I read the first few articles, determined that they qualified as A7 speedies, and saw that the others were all similar and deleted them as well. I do not have any opinion of college football, good or bad. Just because an article is associated with a Wikiproject does not give it immunity to deletion, and just because a WikiProject likes a source doesn't make it automatically reliable.

Also, can you please indent your posts on my talk page so that they are threaded properly? Stifle (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Indent like this? Okay. Here's the deletion review you asked for.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you've agreed to restore the pages, can you restore the "talk" pages too?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Those that had one, yes. I'll be AFDing them all in a while. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Kulveer ranger

You have deleted the above page, under 'blatant copyright ingringement', yet the data was taken from a press release, the sole purpose of which is to provide information to journalists/writers for publication free from copyright.

Peteclapp (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Peteclapp

Press releases are copyrighted just as much as any other text. Feel free to rewrite it in your own words. Stifle (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, are you able to point me in the direction of one case of copyright infringement relating to a press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteclapp (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. All I know is that content on Wikipedia must be available under the GFDL, and that press release wasn't. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not all content in Wikipedia has to be under the GFDL terms. Photos, logos, screenshots, and even fair use of copyright material is allowed from time to time... as shown in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others and Wikipedia:Non-free content. As an administrator, you should know that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I should have said "text" rather than "content". Stifle (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that there may indeed be proper and fair uses of text-based copyrighted material on Wikipedia from time to time: Category:Quotation templates gives 35 templates as an example.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Vote stacking assertion

Just an FYI, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with notifiying a relevant Wikiproject of improper deletions and/or a deletion review, that isn't considered canvassing or votestacking at all. I was extremely tempted to remove your "vote stacking aside" comment, as Wizardman did, myself. I'd recommend you re-remove as to AGF of Paulmcdonald's notification of the Wikiproject. VegaDark (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My assumption of good faith is being stretched, however. I would have to completely disagree that notifying a group of sympathetic editors with a message of "HELP! Emergency action required!" is not canvassing. Stifle (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I saw the pre-DRV version and got to the DRV through your talk page discussion, the way it was later changed to go so far as to recommending people vote overturn may flirt with canvassing, but I would hope each editor that read that would be able to decide for themselves. Generally, I don't consider something canvassing unless one is specifically saying something like "VOTE DELETE!", or posting messages to people's talk pages selectively. Recommending a specified action on a Wikiproject page and providing reasons behind it, as Paulmcdonald did, doesn't go so far as to fit that mold, IMO. VegaDark (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for listening to my opinion. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Dahlene

Your comment on Oscar Dahlene states "only admins may remove speedy deletion tags" yet the tag says "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." I created the page, I did not remove the notice. It does not say "only an Admin" may remove the notice.

Is this some kind of retaliation for the previous articles you attempted to speedy delete?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Guest9999 was the person who deleted the speedy tag; another admin has since removed it. It is customary for only admins to remove speedy deletion tags, although that custom should perhaps be put down in policy.

I am not attempting to "retaliate" for the articles I deleted and restored, but I would point out that you picked up on an unrelated conversation on my talk page, so it's a bit rich for you to complain about me doing the same. Stifle (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You made the assertion that it was a policy in the history of the page, and I am glad that you have retracted that error here. In the interest of fairness to others, please go to the talk page and make that same retraction.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I decline to do so. Feel free to make a null edit to the page pointing to the diff here if you are that concerned about it. Stifle (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)