User talk:Stifle/Archive 1108
Page contents not supported in other languages.
You participated in an AfD Discussion on the article Jack Stack that resulted in that article being deleted. I have done some more research and have found a professional career and other sources and believe that the subject now meets WP:ATHLETE. Because normally articles like this are almost always kept, I decided to be bold and just place the article back where it was with the updates. However, if you still believe that there is a reason to delete this article, we can take it to any discussion forum you prefer.
To be fair, I am notifying everyone who made a comment on the AfD. If you wish to make any comments, it might be best to put them on the article's talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I wish to challenge the deletion of a page that you deleted.
Please consider restoring this article. (loved the wizard) Thanks for your time! Yago Stecher (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey there...
The following diff lists the log for Image:JPChangeux-small.jpg which you deleted Oct 22nd but the same uploader re-uploaded it on the 27th. If it is the same license as the deleted one, should it be re-deleted? It is claimed the image was provided by the subject and is public domain; no proof was provided after the previous nomination back October 1st. Thanks for your consideration and if I have made some logic or procedural mistake, please let me know. Thanks again. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stifle,
Could you have a look at the "Nick Savoy" page? The page got deleted by an administrator for personal reasons and now it's undergoing deletion review.
Your input is much appreciated. Thanks in advance.Camera123456 (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Whenever you are ready to come back, since you protected the article indefinitely, given the attempts at discussion on the talk page, if you find it appropriate, could you unprotect the article? While the 3O seems to have offered a middle balanced position, the fact that no one else has responded probably means that they are just waiting on the protection, unfortunately. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Who is the person who decide if a website should or shouldn't be in ths list?I say it to you, because I've seen that you have decide in the past.--RobCatalà (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
You made this edit: http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Three-card_Monte&diff=234761094&oldid=231760841Adding "even if the game is played without the usual sleight of hand, it is unfair to the players, as the payout is invariably even money, whereas the true odds are 2/1." Are you sure that's right? I understood from reading it that you win twice your bet if you guess correctly, otherwise you lose your bet. If there's no sleight of hand, you have a 1 in 3 chance of winning. So 2 * 1/3 + 0 * 2/3 = 2/3 , so on average you only keep 2/3 of your money per game. I don't see how the "payout is invariably even money" or "the true odds are 2/1." The correct statement seems to be that the payout is 2 to 1, but the odds of receiving it are only 1 in 3.Rotiro (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you possibly give me a copy of this article? (you said in the AfD that you would do if someone asked.) I'll transwiki it to Wikibooks as suggested. How would I go about that? Sticky Parkin 13:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi -- I wanted to drop by to address your sock puppet / sleeper account comment on the Nick Savoy page. I think it's unfortunate, since we've had these sock puppet accusations before, also with no grounds. I did want to refer you to a post on a large seduction community based forum that might have sparked some people to come by even if they hadn't been active on wikipedia or active for some time. (http://www.theattractionforums.com/forum/discussion/81896-savoy-has-wikipedia-page.html)
I didn't think it was wikipedia policy to judge the content of an article (which coaster7 and I have worked hard on, as have others) negatively based on the identities of some of those who have supported it. I do agree that a couple people don't seem to have large editing histories, but, leaving mine aside, pro-undeletion (is that a word?) comments have also come from long-established users such as WoodenBuddha, Mathmo, SecondSight and so on.
I hope you're doing well and have a moment to take a look at the progress on the article. Best, TL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Stifle, would you be opposed to me editing {{welcome-auto}} so that its parameters worked in the same way as, for instance, {{welcome}}? I'd also expand the documentation and add additional logic to the template itself for handling of all optional parameters. Let me know! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you able to make the final decision on the deletion review of Freebiejeebies discussion and recreate the deleted page? Pretty much all the comments have gone my way and I'm keen for the deletion to be overturned, are you able to do this for me and recreate the page? Thanks very much Simon2239 (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Happy birthday, Stifle. :) Have a good day. GlassCobra 10:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Stife, I too am a bit unhappy with some of the overzealous response some of the oppose !votes are receiving. However in general, discussion at RFA is an excellent thing and I must say IMHO that was a rather petty threat. I doubt any Bureaucrat would give much weight to a !vote made in response to perceived oppose badgering. It also makes little sense to factor in the behavior of others when considering your !vote, in the end an admin won't be any better or worse for whatever drama happened at their RFA. "Concerns about communication skills" is a valid reason for hesitation, but using a vote to make a point is just not the way to go.
P.S. sorry for not using your "wizard", its late and, like any human being, I prefer the mode of communication with which I am most accustomed. Icewedge (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I wish to challenge the deletion of a page that you deleted.
Please consider restoring this article. Schmoovy Schmoov (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm making this proposal here. Feel free to discuss. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stifle
I did leave a message on the Talk:Squatting_(framework) just want to bring it to your attention. I'm not asking to undelete Squatting but rather clarification to why it was deleted in comparision to other web application framework like I've mentioned.
I like to know because I'm planning on tidying up some of the Perl stuff on Wikipedia and bring it up-to-date and more inline with the Perl5 Wiki and this includes adding a couple of other Perl web frameworks which aren't currently listed on Wikipedia (and have even stronger cases than Squatting because they're more established).
Also I do plan to try again with Squatting but not till it gains a bit more traction and notability ;-)
Many thanks for your time.
regards Barry
Draegtun (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I wish to challenge the deletion of a page that you deleted.
Please consider restoring this article. <Tvccs (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)>
About 6 weeks ago, you closed an AFD for New Brooklyn with a Keep decision. Another user is either unaware of this or has chosen to ignore the outcome and has renominated the article here. Of course, when an article is deleted and someone doesn't like that, they can take it to deletion review. But do you know if there is a similar process for people to appeal Keep decisions they don't like? The reason I'm asking is I'm considering putting forward a proposal for just such a mechanism to perhaps cut down on the number of repeated AFDs. Although I'm unaware of a particular "time frame" policy and WP:NOTAGAIN doesn't really give a time limit, I'm constantly seeing AFD renominations for articles that have been kept, sometimes as recently as a few days earlier and more commonly a few weeks. (I'm talking about AFDs closed with keep decisions; as far as I'm concerned "No consensus" decisions are fair game to reopen). Thanks for your time (I prefer responses on my own talk page as I'm trying to cut down on my Watchlist). 23skidoo (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Your AFD response was "If DGG is satisfied that the article should go, thats enough for me.[1]], don't you think you need a little bit of an explanation than that other than going along with somebody because of their experience or because you know them from around here, etc...HairyPerry 19:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I honestly do not know the answer to your question, but I have tried to reason with a few editors. Maybe it just got too emotional, because they felt that I am making them wrong, somehow. If thats what happened, that was not my intention. I was only pointing out that the article fits perfectly fine within the guidelines of WP. However, because I am new to this, they could sense that I could be pushed around a bit.--Fantasia 15 (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stifle. The protection logs for Amir Khan (boxer) show that you were the most recent sysop to semi this article. Would you mind doing it again? It continues to be subject to the same type of frequenty vandalism and defamatory edits, as the edit history will show. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
You sound like the most reasonable one, I thank you, however, politizer sounded like a child when he called me "impolite". Why don't ask to see why they (whoever) did a speedy deletion of the article with out any discussion about it? I did what Fabrictramp told me to do, based on the info he gave. In any case, I don't care anymore. On Wikipedia there is so much misinformation, misspelling, and inaccurate information that its pathetic. I asked a few people their opinion of WP, and the feedback was negative. If WP continues on the same path as its been, it is doomed to failure. It won't a relevent, reliable source of collective information anymore.--Fantasia 15 (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have tried to give a summary of the reasons why I think this shouldn't have been deleted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review - I hope this is the right place? Could you have a look at again please? Thanks SteveDavey (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if you think this is supposed to be a Category, or what? It looks like one, but perhaps it would be a rigmarole to change it to be one. Could it be a list, only it contains links to other lists? Sticky Parkin 17:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
We here at Vornado Air noticed you deleted the page with general information about our company. We understand it is in desperate need of an upgrade but we were actually planning on working on that update in the very near future. Please reactivate the page so we can retain any information that would be lost so we can bring it up to speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.248.147.50 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
hey, you undeleted this article, but there's a talk page that's still deleted. Could you undelete the talk page too? Thanks. --Rividian (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a very interesting question, one that should be addressed in the relevant guidelines or policies if it's not already. I don't know what Dank will say, but my "seat of the pants" rule is pretty much the same as for dead people: If a non-free image could reasonably be obtained that would serve the same purpose, then fair use is probably not valid. The difficulty is in judging "reasonably be obtained" - some living people are recluses, and some recently dead people or people who have changed appearance, such as child actors, will have lots of pictures taken by the general public which "could" be published under the GDFL, with some work. For example, I'm trying to get a free image for the recently deceased Robert Asprin, which entails contacting people who might have a snapshot of him and asking them to re-publish it under a GDFL-compatible license. If I try and fail, then it's strong evidence that using a non-GDFL image would be fair use. The same logic would apply if he were still alive but had become a recluse, or if his face changed appreciably and it was important to use a picture of him as he looked before he changed appearance. The latter can happen for actors and performers in articles about the works they were in, such as Image:Brady Bunch.jpg in The Brady Bunch. Some of those actors and actresses are still alive, none of them look as they did in the 1970s. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that question you-know-where. I've got to run some errands, tomorrow being the day when all Americans must eat a bird the size of a car, but I'll get to it as soon as I get back. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A NobodyMy talk 02:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stifle,
Thanksgiving morning is a great time to catch up on user pages over coffee. I wanted to let you know that I find your views on RfA well balanced, and actually a bit surprising - I figured someone with less than ten thousand thoughtful edits wouldn't have a chance!--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 14:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
PS - the fake talk page alert on your user page gets me every time, darn it.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 14:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you close the wrong discussion? Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Pyramids of Mars (remains on Mars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Stifle, I am really sorry to address this problem directly to you, I am aware it's not popular way, but unfortunately I opened a case here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Osli73 a week ago, and Osli73 is still using alternative way to edit articles (IPs). I addressed this problem to you because I've seen your name in Osli73's block log. Regards. Kruško Mortale (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi - you just deleted a redirect: de Sitter relativity. You did this at the same moment as I was writing a comment to keep the article it redirects to (de Sitter invariant theories, which you didn't delete - there was a page move during the deletion discussion). Can you reconsider whether your action was a little hasty in this light? Thanks, Geometry guy 19:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Stifle can you do me a favor and move an article you deleted Pay through the nose to a subpage on my discussion page Shoessss. I would like to rewrtie - reference - and see if I can bring it up to standards. Thanks for your help. ShoesssS Talk 20:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Just as a heads up, the nominator had actually previously merged that information (see [2] and [3]} to the section where he says it already exists (that's why it exists there) and thus per the GFDL, my understanding is that the contributions of the various editors who originally wrote that content must remain visible, so when he says it is already covered in that section in the nomination and himself merged the content a few weeks ago to the area where he is okay with it existing, the nomination strikes me as odd, because if he believes that section should exist, then we cannot delete the article, rather only redirect the article. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)