This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Dear Stifle. Please let me know what you think about the "request for undeletion" that I posted above several weeks ago. If you are not the right administrator to ask, please refer me to the correct address. Thanks for your time. Aborig ( talk) 06:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Stifle. I need an advice. How should I handle a Wikipedian who puts a link to a Wikipedia policy, writes something between a pair of quotation marks that doesn't exist there and then asserts that it is in the linked policy page? Surly, shouting "you're a liar" isn't my option, is it? (Though he has the cheeks to call me a liar and his quotation is already affecting an AfD.) Fleet Command ( talk) 08:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Stifle. Just wondering if you can revisit the article issues you noted for Dave Chalk (entrepreneur). A number of Wiki contributors have made changes to address your valid concerns. This has been a huge learning on how to create neutral Wiki biographies. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monmorong ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I see you opened an AfD about Sante Kimes due to an OTRS ticket opened by Kimes' attorneys. You may also be aware of the ANI thread [1] and SPI [2]. User:Jfaia (the suspected sock) has been inserting an "official link" [3] to a newly created page apparently having something to do with Kimes. Do you think you could check with the attorneys that the site is actually under her control and that she wants it to be designated as her official site? Thanks.
71.141.88.54 ( talk) 22:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
We are under more sock attack. If you do contact the lawyer, it might be helpful if you can ask them to call off the socking. Thanks. 71.141.88.54 ( talk) 03:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your recent work at FAC! I'm going to be going through soon to promote/archive. Could you please revisit the various nominations where you opposed and see if the nominators have addressed your concerns? I'm looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adenanthos cuneatus/archive1 in particular. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you added "trainwreck" as outcome of a discussion. While I agree in principle, I think it would be good if you could be more specific. If "trainwreck" is a commonly used Wikipedia term, you could link to an explanation of it. If it is not, then the choice of term could be further explained on the appropriate pages. Mlewan ( talk) 12:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Please re-edit to include the standard outcome text "The result of the deletion discussion was No consensus. in bold as the outcome in the closing notes and top of Talk page, and include "trainwreck" nonbolded descriptively. It would have been a trainwreck if discussion had veered off into incivility and dispute resolution. I empathize with your frustration with the SPAs and ATA arguments, but wish it had not spilled over into the usual closing procedural stuff. Not all deletion discussions can be as short and sweet as WP:Articles for deletion/Nylon (magazine), or as stimulative and productive in terms of direct article improvement. But this AfD resulted in discussion of, and addition of, explicit inclusion criteria at the top of the article, per WP:LIST#Lead section or paragraph, and the discussion of more, which has appropriately moved to article Talk. -- Lexein ( talk) 14:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll merge. Please let me see the old one. Johnbod 13:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
How is it possible for this page to be suddenly deleted without warning and before community consensus was reached to allow the deletion process to continue? The discussion was still very active and I myself was busy replying to criticisms but next thing I knew, the page was deleted without warning or explanation? How many poeple were involved in deciding if the arguments had merits and where do they explain their reasoning? (new article creator) ChrisStefan 14:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I really hate to bother you about this, but i didnt see a response back on deletion review of Casual (rapper). i normally would not be this annoying about it lol but i have asked several admins to help me restore the article and they have ignored me. Please help me, this article was deleted unjustly and now the article has been edited beyond deletion concerns. i just want to sleep at night knowing the article is back on here haha. thank you. AlexLoeher 16:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dragon Quest X. 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. 陣 内 Jinnai 17:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Extravagance. 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. Colonel Warden ( talk) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Keeani Lei. 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. Шизомби (Sz) ( talk) 06:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I posted a request for something to be whitelisted. [4] It was Not done due to lack of reply.
I take this to mean that I am supposed to have replied to something, but I'm not sure what. Or does it mean that no one responded to the request so it lapsed?
Thanks for your help, BillMasen ( talk) 16:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for closing the AfD. I have raised the page for user talk:Moonriddengirl's thoughts due to the copyright issue remaining outstanding. You may not be interested in expressing any opinion, but might want to keep an eye on the issue for reasons of precedent and how best to create an on-going positive consensus. Cheers -- Fæ ( talk) 11:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The header that you added to Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films points to an older discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, not the discussion that just finished, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd nomination). Also, how was the final result reached? BollyJeff || talk 13:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd nomination) on the 15th but it is being edited still by an editor today and the SineBot is autosigning their comments. History. Not sure if it is somethng that needs admin attention or not. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 19:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Would you delete and salt Mike Da Poet? You participated in a DRV in July 2010, where you suggested that Mikie Da Poet be listed at WP:DEEPER (which it now is) because of the considerable disruption of the DRV process (see the DRV links at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikie Da Poet). Deletion has now been circumvented at the title Mike Da Poet. There also appears to be sockpuppetry going on per my comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/6stargeneral. Cunard ( talk) 10:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Stifle, I would like you to please reconsider your decision to close this AFD as a keep. Your decision appears to be based that more editors than not have a desire to keep the article. I would argue that type of decision is based on votes. In every keep vote, they were asked to explain how the subject meets any notability guidelines, the primary one being WP:GNG which is clear that multiple independent reliable sources are needed to verify notability. After two weeks of being on the chopping block, no one has been able to improve the article with additional references. The subject also has not met any of the criteria in WP:BIO. One of the editors in particular engaged in discussion with me about their keep !vote and they could not explain how the subject met notability guidelines ending their contribution to the discussion with " He meets WP:GNG guidelines" but unable to explain despite clear evidence to the contrary being visible at the bottom of the article where it lacks references which are the basic standard of WP:GNG. The existing references are 1) Wordpress blog, and 2) A non existent website that doesn't show up in archive.org and lacks even mention of the subject in the URL suggesting it is not significant coverage but more likely a trivial mention. Per the Administrator instructions for closing AFDs, #2 you are to use guidelines to determine consensus. You're rationale "and it is not for me to differ" is untrue. Your responsibility as the closing administrator is to weigh in the discussion to determine if there is consensus that is based in community established policies. It is absolutely within your scope to differ from the counted !votes.--v/r - T P 19:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of David Kenny. 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. v/r - T P 21:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Stifle. I could use an advise regarding [5]. User:Peterlaeshen damaged the article to such extent that after eight edit attempts, I gave up and restored the last version by ChrisN. The main issue that concerns us here is copyright violation and copy-pasting, as well as a sudden drop in contents quality. I have sent Peterlaeshen a warning but I strongly feel it deserved the attention of ANI. On the other hand, this user is a newbie and I feel I should not bite him so hard that is beyond recovery; maybe he has done so in Good Faith. So, I though I could use your advise. Fleet Command ( talk) 08:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted this article. I wasn't aware that the discussion was taking place. I think as the article's creator I should have been informed? As you may be aware, this happened while an ArbCom case on the topic was ongoing. One of the ArbCom outcomes was that WikiProject World's Oldest People has been asked to seek help from experienced, uninvolved Wikipedians. I actually created that article in a good faith attempt to clear up the very messy series of articles belonging to the project. My logic was that an article on a topic should be that, while a list should be a list. I therefore split Longevity claims, removing the list items into the article created. User:Nick Ornstein copied the list items back, hence the duplication that was commented on in the AfD. Would you be able to comment, preferably at WP talk:WOP on what you do see as a logical format for the series of articles on long-lived people? Thanks very much. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I would issue a warning but as it is seemingly about me I wanted an uninvolved party to take a look. FOund an image of an article - sourced to the Associated Press. Tagged it for deletion. The dif ( dif) appears to be an attack on myself. (Please please, please take the time to learn about copyrights. You can even go to a place called Wikipedia if you don't want to take college level classes or get a law degree.) Thanks. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 19:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me asking you to take another look at this: I welcome further discussion. MartinPoulter ( talk) 21:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Please change or withdraw your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle County Charter Academy. Longstanding consensus is that elementary schools are not notable in the extreme. The "award" that the school won is nowhere near important enough. Abductive ( reasoning) 15:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Stifle,
I note you closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lulu Popplewell (2nd nomination) as a keep and then added a little template to Talk:Lulu Popplewell. This template now reads This page was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. Whilst this is true, there is a problem here with the link contained in this sentence which is to the article's first afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lulu Popplewell when it was deleted. Is there a way to link to correct afd discussion? ( Msrasnw ( talk) 16:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC))
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Boroka. 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by your statement at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Giridharilal_Kedia, where you said: "This deletion was over a year ago."
While there was a deletion a year ago, the editor requesting the review did not work on that version (unless as an IP or other user name) but did work on the versions deleted a couple days ago.
However, I'm puzzled that the explanation given is "deleted due to the lack of information for Giridharilal, in internet", which isn't the rationale in my delete. So, on the one hand, it seems obvious that the question is about the version I deleted, on the other hand, it clearly is not.
However, part of the reason for writing to you is to make sure I understand how to restore an earlier version, if required. It appears that if an article is deleted more than once, the redlink is to the entire history. Am I correct that if one wanted to restore the 12 January 2010 version, one has to check all the boxes in the page history and then manually uncheck all edits after 12 Jan? I think an alternative would be to restore everything, then go into the history and use the restore this version option. I'll emphasize I have no intention of doing that in this case, but I have had some requests for restoration of deleted articles, and it occurs to me I wasn't sure what to do if the request applied to a prior version.-- SPhilbrick T 14:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I posted a request at Wikipedia:Blocked external links/Current requests. Since you created that page, [8] I'm hoping you can address the request. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 17:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
*# Spam-blacklist requests may be posted at
MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.
) I ultimately followed the instructions at
Wikipedia:Blocked external links. I just modified that page to lead others to the correct page. In my quest, I also ran across
Wikipedia:Spam blacklist, which I just modified to provide better info. --
Uzma Gamal (
talk) 09:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
In reference to "Possibly unfree images"File:Abirc.jpg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_February_23#File:Abirc.jpg Here is the story, I am new to wiki and have never done all these, so I am sorry as I have also sent an email to you,meant for only urgent issues. My issue is not that urgent per say, but I need help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achau24 ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I am missing something on this one? Why would anyone want to delete the illustration? This one includes portraits of the stars of the show and is surely much more informative than the average illustration for a musical (typically a reproduction of the album cover or a show poster with LESS informative matter)? Just interested in what is special about this particular case, as it would seem to otherwise lay a precedent for rendering wiki "picture free", except perhaps for charts and diagrams. Isn't "decoration" a worthwhile thing in itself at all?? If not then many thousands of pictures on wiki would seem to need immediate deletion! -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 03:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Stifle. Do you plan to return to Maria Amélia's FAC nomination? I answered your remarks there. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 18:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you tagged Al-Khaburah for deletion. I've also nominated Al-Shabab (Oman) for AFD. There seems to be an arguement that these clubs are inherently notable despite major concerns about actual lack of solid sources or coverage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Stifle! When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1001 Internet Jokes as delete and deleted 1001 Internet Jokes, you didn't delete 1001 Internet Jokes II which was part of the AfD - not sure if it was intentional or not (but am guessing not, as you didn't mention deleting just one of the articles when you closed the debate). The AfD link on 1001 Internet Jokes II was broken by an edit a couple of days ago but it seems very unlikely that that could have prevented any interested parties from participating in the discussion. Thanks, -- bonadea contributions talk 18:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to let you know I contested the proposed deletion of this article. This club has played many seasons in the top flight league of Oman and finished third in the main cup competition a few years ago. I've expanded the article slightly and added some references, but feel free to take it to AfD if you disagree. Best regards. Jogurney ( talk) 01:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Dear Stifle. Please let me know what you think about the "request for undeletion" that I posted above several weeks ago. If you are not the right administrator to ask, please refer me to the correct address. Thanks for your time. Aborig ( talk) 06:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Stifle. I need an advice. How should I handle a Wikipedian who puts a link to a Wikipedia policy, writes something between a pair of quotation marks that doesn't exist there and then asserts that it is in the linked policy page? Surly, shouting "you're a liar" isn't my option, is it? (Though he has the cheeks to call me a liar and his quotation is already affecting an AfD.) Fleet Command ( talk) 08:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Stifle. Just wondering if you can revisit the article issues you noted for Dave Chalk (entrepreneur). A number of Wiki contributors have made changes to address your valid concerns. This has been a huge learning on how to create neutral Wiki biographies. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monmorong ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I see you opened an AfD about Sante Kimes due to an OTRS ticket opened by Kimes' attorneys. You may also be aware of the ANI thread [1] and SPI [2]. User:Jfaia (the suspected sock) has been inserting an "official link" [3] to a newly created page apparently having something to do with Kimes. Do you think you could check with the attorneys that the site is actually under her control and that she wants it to be designated as her official site? Thanks.
71.141.88.54 ( talk) 22:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
We are under more sock attack. If you do contact the lawyer, it might be helpful if you can ask them to call off the socking. Thanks. 71.141.88.54 ( talk) 03:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your recent work at FAC! I'm going to be going through soon to promote/archive. Could you please revisit the various nominations where you opposed and see if the nominators have addressed your concerns? I'm looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adenanthos cuneatus/archive1 in particular. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you added "trainwreck" as outcome of a discussion. While I agree in principle, I think it would be good if you could be more specific. If "trainwreck" is a commonly used Wikipedia term, you could link to an explanation of it. If it is not, then the choice of term could be further explained on the appropriate pages. Mlewan ( talk) 12:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Please re-edit to include the standard outcome text "The result of the deletion discussion was No consensus. in bold as the outcome in the closing notes and top of Talk page, and include "trainwreck" nonbolded descriptively. It would have been a trainwreck if discussion had veered off into incivility and dispute resolution. I empathize with your frustration with the SPAs and ATA arguments, but wish it had not spilled over into the usual closing procedural stuff. Not all deletion discussions can be as short and sweet as WP:Articles for deletion/Nylon (magazine), or as stimulative and productive in terms of direct article improvement. But this AfD resulted in discussion of, and addition of, explicit inclusion criteria at the top of the article, per WP:LIST#Lead section or paragraph, and the discussion of more, which has appropriately moved to article Talk. -- Lexein ( talk) 14:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll merge. Please let me see the old one. Johnbod 13:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
How is it possible for this page to be suddenly deleted without warning and before community consensus was reached to allow the deletion process to continue? The discussion was still very active and I myself was busy replying to criticisms but next thing I knew, the page was deleted without warning or explanation? How many poeple were involved in deciding if the arguments had merits and where do they explain their reasoning? (new article creator) ChrisStefan 14:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I really hate to bother you about this, but i didnt see a response back on deletion review of Casual (rapper). i normally would not be this annoying about it lol but i have asked several admins to help me restore the article and they have ignored me. Please help me, this article was deleted unjustly and now the article has been edited beyond deletion concerns. i just want to sleep at night knowing the article is back on here haha. thank you. AlexLoeher 16:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dragon Quest X. 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. 陣 内 Jinnai 17:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Extravagance. 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. Colonel Warden ( talk) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Keeani Lei. 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. Шизомби (Sz) ( talk) 06:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I posted a request for something to be whitelisted. [4] It was Not done due to lack of reply.
I take this to mean that I am supposed to have replied to something, but I'm not sure what. Or does it mean that no one responded to the request so it lapsed?
Thanks for your help, BillMasen ( talk) 16:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for closing the AfD. I have raised the page for user talk:Moonriddengirl's thoughts due to the copyright issue remaining outstanding. You may not be interested in expressing any opinion, but might want to keep an eye on the issue for reasons of precedent and how best to create an on-going positive consensus. Cheers -- Fæ ( talk) 11:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The header that you added to Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films points to an older discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, not the discussion that just finished, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd nomination). Also, how was the final result reached? BollyJeff || talk 13:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (2nd nomination) on the 15th but it is being edited still by an editor today and the SineBot is autosigning their comments. History. Not sure if it is somethng that needs admin attention or not. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 19:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Would you delete and salt Mike Da Poet? You participated in a DRV in July 2010, where you suggested that Mikie Da Poet be listed at WP:DEEPER (which it now is) because of the considerable disruption of the DRV process (see the DRV links at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikie Da Poet). Deletion has now been circumvented at the title Mike Da Poet. There also appears to be sockpuppetry going on per my comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/6stargeneral. Cunard ( talk) 10:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Stifle, I would like you to please reconsider your decision to close this AFD as a keep. Your decision appears to be based that more editors than not have a desire to keep the article. I would argue that type of decision is based on votes. In every keep vote, they were asked to explain how the subject meets any notability guidelines, the primary one being WP:GNG which is clear that multiple independent reliable sources are needed to verify notability. After two weeks of being on the chopping block, no one has been able to improve the article with additional references. The subject also has not met any of the criteria in WP:BIO. One of the editors in particular engaged in discussion with me about their keep !vote and they could not explain how the subject met notability guidelines ending their contribution to the discussion with " He meets WP:GNG guidelines" but unable to explain despite clear evidence to the contrary being visible at the bottom of the article where it lacks references which are the basic standard of WP:GNG. The existing references are 1) Wordpress blog, and 2) A non existent website that doesn't show up in archive.org and lacks even mention of the subject in the URL suggesting it is not significant coverage but more likely a trivial mention. Per the Administrator instructions for closing AFDs, #2 you are to use guidelines to determine consensus. You're rationale "and it is not for me to differ" is untrue. Your responsibility as the closing administrator is to weigh in the discussion to determine if there is consensus that is based in community established policies. It is absolutely within your scope to differ from the counted !votes.--v/r - T P 19:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of David Kenny. 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. v/r - T P 21:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Stifle. I could use an advise regarding [5]. User:Peterlaeshen damaged the article to such extent that after eight edit attempts, I gave up and restored the last version by ChrisN. The main issue that concerns us here is copyright violation and copy-pasting, as well as a sudden drop in contents quality. I have sent Peterlaeshen a warning but I strongly feel it deserved the attention of ANI. On the other hand, this user is a newbie and I feel I should not bite him so hard that is beyond recovery; maybe he has done so in Good Faith. So, I though I could use your advise. Fleet Command ( talk) 08:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted this article. I wasn't aware that the discussion was taking place. I think as the article's creator I should have been informed? As you may be aware, this happened while an ArbCom case on the topic was ongoing. One of the ArbCom outcomes was that WikiProject World's Oldest People has been asked to seek help from experienced, uninvolved Wikipedians. I actually created that article in a good faith attempt to clear up the very messy series of articles belonging to the project. My logic was that an article on a topic should be that, while a list should be a list. I therefore split Longevity claims, removing the list items into the article created. User:Nick Ornstein copied the list items back, hence the duplication that was commented on in the AfD. Would you be able to comment, preferably at WP talk:WOP on what you do see as a logical format for the series of articles on long-lived people? Thanks very much. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I would issue a warning but as it is seemingly about me I wanted an uninvolved party to take a look. FOund an image of an article - sourced to the Associated Press. Tagged it for deletion. The dif ( dif) appears to be an attack on myself. (Please please, please take the time to learn about copyrights. You can even go to a place called Wikipedia if you don't want to take college level classes or get a law degree.) Thanks. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 19:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me asking you to take another look at this: I welcome further discussion. MartinPoulter ( talk) 21:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Please change or withdraw your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle County Charter Academy. Longstanding consensus is that elementary schools are not notable in the extreme. The "award" that the school won is nowhere near important enough. Abductive ( reasoning) 15:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Stifle,
I note you closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lulu Popplewell (2nd nomination) as a keep and then added a little template to Talk:Lulu Popplewell. This template now reads This page was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. Whilst this is true, there is a problem here with the link contained in this sentence which is to the article's first afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lulu Popplewell when it was deleted. Is there a way to link to correct afd discussion? ( Msrasnw ( talk) 16:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC))
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Boroka. 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by your statement at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Giridharilal_Kedia, where you said: "This deletion was over a year ago."
While there was a deletion a year ago, the editor requesting the review did not work on that version (unless as an IP or other user name) but did work on the versions deleted a couple days ago.
However, I'm puzzled that the explanation given is "deleted due to the lack of information for Giridharilal, in internet", which isn't the rationale in my delete. So, on the one hand, it seems obvious that the question is about the version I deleted, on the other hand, it clearly is not.
However, part of the reason for writing to you is to make sure I understand how to restore an earlier version, if required. It appears that if an article is deleted more than once, the redlink is to the entire history. Am I correct that if one wanted to restore the 12 January 2010 version, one has to check all the boxes in the page history and then manually uncheck all edits after 12 Jan? I think an alternative would be to restore everything, then go into the history and use the restore this version option. I'll emphasize I have no intention of doing that in this case, but I have had some requests for restoration of deleted articles, and it occurs to me I wasn't sure what to do if the request applied to a prior version.-- SPhilbrick T 14:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I posted a request at Wikipedia:Blocked external links/Current requests. Since you created that page, [8] I'm hoping you can address the request. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 17:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
*# Spam-blacklist requests may be posted at
MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.
) I ultimately followed the instructions at
Wikipedia:Blocked external links. I just modified that page to lead others to the correct page. In my quest, I also ran across
Wikipedia:Spam blacklist, which I just modified to provide better info. --
Uzma Gamal (
talk) 09:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
In reference to "Possibly unfree images"File:Abirc.jpg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_February_23#File:Abirc.jpg Here is the story, I am new to wiki and have never done all these, so I am sorry as I have also sent an email to you,meant for only urgent issues. My issue is not that urgent per say, but I need help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achau24 ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I am missing something on this one? Why would anyone want to delete the illustration? This one includes portraits of the stars of the show and is surely much more informative than the average illustration for a musical (typically a reproduction of the album cover or a show poster with LESS informative matter)? Just interested in what is special about this particular case, as it would seem to otherwise lay a precedent for rendering wiki "picture free", except perhaps for charts and diagrams. Isn't "decoration" a worthwhile thing in itself at all?? If not then many thousands of pictures on wiki would seem to need immediate deletion! -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 03:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Stifle. Do you plan to return to Maria Amélia's FAC nomination? I answered your remarks there. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 18:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you tagged Al-Khaburah for deletion. I've also nominated Al-Shabab (Oman) for AFD. There seems to be an arguement that these clubs are inherently notable despite major concerns about actual lack of solid sources or coverage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Stifle! When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1001 Internet Jokes as delete and deleted 1001 Internet Jokes, you didn't delete 1001 Internet Jokes II which was part of the AfD - not sure if it was intentional or not (but am guessing not, as you didn't mention deleting just one of the articles when you closed the debate). The AfD link on 1001 Internet Jokes II was broken by an edit a couple of days ago but it seems very unlikely that that could have prevented any interested parties from participating in the discussion. Thanks, -- bonadea contributions talk 18:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to let you know I contested the proposed deletion of this article. This club has played many seasons in the top flight league of Oman and finished third in the main cup competition a few years ago. I've expanded the article slightly and added some references, but feel free to take it to AfD if you disagree. Best regards. Jogurney ( talk) 01:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)