User talk:Stifle/Archive 0508b

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Already done quite a while ago. Stifle (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Greenhouse Gas Management Institute

   * The exact title of the deleted page

Greenhouse Gas Management Institute

   * The reason why you believe the deletion was not correct

You indicated article does not indicate its importance. Code A7 was listed.

You went on to protect article. 15:03 (Protection log) . . Stifle (Talk | contribs) protected Greenhouse Gas Management Institute (repeated recreation [create=sysop]) +- 15:03 (Deletion log)‎ [Stifle‎ (2×)]

   * Any references or sources to back up your claim, particularly if the deletion reason was A7

I admit that the GHG Management Institute is a relatively new organization. But it is a non-profit, so there is no commercial self-interest in having an article. It is the only global training and educational organization in the world addressing the need for professionals that can ethically and skillfully account for greenhouse gas emissions, which is the basis for the Kyoto Protocol as well as all other policies in the world. The Institute's founding partners include the World Resources Instituet (which has an article in Wikipedia) and the Carbon Disclosure Project (also has an article). The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (has an article) has selected the Institute to train its experts, as has the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol Secretariats, and the World Bank (all three have articles).

Although new, this organization is already recognized as world's the leading training facility for addressing climate change.

Buy Wikipedia's own standards represented by existing articles, I see no reason why this article should have been deleted.

Sincerely, mwgillenwater —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwgillenwater (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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

You have not provided any reason why this organization is important or significant (see WP:ORG for some sample criteria), nor any references to reliable sources. If it is truly notable, it will have been written about in some newspapers or magazines, which you should be able to indicate online.

If you can provide such references I will consider undeleting the article. You can alternatively make a listing on deletion review. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

On Ahmad-Shahi Pavilion

Dear Stifle, I should be most grateful if you kindly had a look into the problem with regard to the above-indicated photograph. For further details, please consult the talk page of Polly: [2]. With kind regards, --BF 19:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerne that image is unusable because it is released under a license on the list here. Please see this page for a list of valid licenses. Please note that by order of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, which you will read here, having permission to use an image just on Wikipedia is not considered sufficient. Please feel free to suggest to Mr. Wales, at the village pump (policy), or elsewhere if you think that this is wrong, but all the actions that Polly has taken have been in accordance with Wikipedia policy and while you may feel that image use policy is changing by the day, the two pages I have linked for you with licensing information have been unchanged since March 20th. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And to get back to the root problem, please note that there are multiple different Creative Commons licenses. Some include a requirement that derivative works are released under the same license, which Wikipedia allows, but others prohibit commercial use or the making of derivative works, and those images aren't usable on Wikipedia at this time. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. But could you please have a look yourself and see whether the CC attached by Hamed Saber to this particular photograph is one that is acceptable to Wikipedia? You see, there are several types of CC and I may have used the wrong one. The source is here: [3]. But aside from all these, as I have told to Polly, Hamed Saber has in the past given Wikipedia a blanket permission for using all his photographs; the only condition in his statement was that his name be mentioned as the photographer of the photograph used. Kind regards, --BF 19:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look and the photograph has the "=" sign which stands for "no derivatives". As such, that particular version of the license isn't valid for use on Wikipedia. You did in fact use the wrong one, in this case.

As I have mentioned previously, by edict of Jimbo Wales, a permission to use photographs on Wikipedia (only) isn't considered sufficient, contradictory as it may seem. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please have a look here: [4]? The last but one paragraph contains Hamed Saber's statement with regard to use of his photographs on Wikipedia. --BF 20:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That would cover it, I think. Let me see what I can do. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! Many thanks! --BF 20:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've placed a statement on the image page at Image:Kushk-e Ahmad Shahi, Niavaran Palace Complex.jpg. If you upload any more images from this user's flickr site, you should include that statement as well so that anyone checking out the image won't need to bother you to confirm that the image is usable on Wikipedia. I've let Polly know as well. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Stifle, thank you very much. I have seen that the removal tag has already been removed, which is very pleasing. Kind regards, --BF 20:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Subsection break for ease of editing

Dear Stifle, I just received the following from Polly. I do not know what she is talking about.

Possibly unfree Image:Kushk-e Ahmad Shahi, Niavaran Palace Complex.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kushk-e Ahmad Shahi, Niavaran Palace Complex.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC) --Polly (Parrot) 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Is she trying to take revenge on me for not having got her way? Kind regards, --BF 20:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

She has also put a message here: [5] (see the photo gallery). What is going on? --BF 20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And here: [6]. This strengthens me in my belief that some psychopaths get their way into Wikipedia just for making people's life a hell. This Polly has kept me from doing any useful work on Wikipedia for this Saturday. --BF 20:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Polly is taking the action designated by Wikipedia for when a user believes an image is free but not obviously so. You can add your opinion on the matter at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 May 10#Image:Kushk-e_Ahmad_Shahi.2C_Niavaran_Palace_Complex.jpg. It is recommended that comments left there are concise and brief. Stifle (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is clear to me what Polly is doing, but why should she be doing all these? Who is benefited by this utterly senseless enterprise? Polly, who calls herself a Parrot, says that the image is "disputed", and it turns out that Polly herself is the one who is doing the disputing! This is called sadism. Now, I can go and put my opinion somewhere, but this is all waste of time. As you have yourself verified, Hamded Saber has given the permission to use his photographs, and now Polly has become the public prosecutor number one. Where has this Parrot got the idea that the photograph is disputed? You have witnessed that since you have known me I have been constantly struggling with exactly the same type of people: photo editors! Why are we playing these senseless games? Why cannot someone tell to Polly and her ilk the most obvious that this is not the way an encyclopaedia can get written. Believe me, I feel I am just mad, leaving and then coming back to get involved with exactly the same type of people as before. What can I add to the discussion that I have not said already? Why are these photo-editors not held responsible for their sadistic actions? I expect that that discussion will have by now attracted a bunch of psychopaths demanding the immediate deletion of the photograph at issue --- I have discovered that there are some people who constantly roam Wikipedia pages, just like vultures, looking for victims and always ready to strike. Kind regards, --BF 22:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC).

As to why Polly has made her decisions, I can't tell. If only I were psychic... Stifle (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a very healthy common sense, so you should know without being psychic. There are people who derive pleasure from causing other people inconvenience. I often think of a class-mate that I had in the first year of primary school, sharing the same school bench between us (I still remember his name). I vividly remember that every time that he saw me solving a math problem, he automatically began counting numbers in the reverse order (say from 100), thus causing me lose my concentration; on doing so, he invariably waited for me to protest, and on hearing my protest burst in laughter. To this date I wonder where this five- or six-year-old boy had learnt this nastiness. Time moves, but people remain following very rigid patterns of behaviour; then that child, today Polly. Suddenly I am afraid of tomorrow. Have you read that poem by John Milton on my talk page? Kind regards, --BF 23:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have. I think you have summed up your predicament. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --BF 11:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Re

Ok, I will archive it. Actually I prefer the talk page to grow at least 120 KB in size so that each archive can remain in similar size. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Line of Succession to the Hawaiian throne (Keoua Nui)

What do you mean it does not exist? Currently all Hawaiian pretenders are not descendants of any of Hawaii's eight monarchs. Every one of them died childless or their descendants died out. But the Kawananakoas and Keoua Nuis, descend from the last Big Island alii or king, Keawe-i-Kekahi-ali'i-o-kamoku II. Both house descends from the Big Island chiefdom's throne and even distantly to the other three major islands. This is a line of succession of an abolished monarchy. All articles on the other line of succession of other abolished monarchies like the monarchies of Austria-Hungary, Legitimist France, Bonapartist France, Orleanist France, Georgia, Iran, Korea, China, Two Siciles, and etc should be deleted since their throne doesn't exist, so by definition a line of succession to it is non-notable. KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, they should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket

Could you please verify that ticket #2008041110026206 verifies that Image:Machinedrum.jpg is released under the GFDL, and if so let me know on my talk page? A user has claimed this and I just want to be sure it's all in order. Stifle (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that the subject/owner has given "express permission" for the above image to be used on Wikipedia. License was not specified but the ticket was closed as successful - Alison ^❤ 23:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User rights

Umm, I just removed those again. Let's not do that, nor set a precedent. They're not required as you're already sysop but if that changes, it can then be addressed. I'm particularly wary of granting IPBlock-exempt right now - Alison ^❤ 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Spoilsport :P Stifle (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorrreeee :D As you can see, it stood out like the proverbial sore thumb!! :p - Alison ^❤ 23:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Stanisław Orzechowski - undeletion.

Article, which i just started yesterday, was deleated before i could even expand it. Maybe i should keep it in sandbox, at least there it would survive 12h. So please, undelete it and if it`s possible paste in User:Mikołajski/Sandbox2. Thanks in advance. Mikołajski (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

RomexSoft

Could you please uprotect the article RomexSoft? I have read about images and copyright but didn't manage to make the necessary changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuegoazul (talk • contribs) 10:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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

It has been decided that RomexSoft should be deleted and the deletion was endorsed. As the page has been persistently recreated, it has now been protected to prevent this. Therefore it will not be unprotected. There is no appeal possible from this decision. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick answer and I appologize for taking so much of your time.Fuegoazul (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you haven't taken so much of my time, or indeed very much at all. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the note, yep, virtually every time I protect something it's to semi-protect to prevent low-grade vandalism, so I guess the autoconfirmed protection level just comes naturally to my fingers. :-) --Stormie (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rob malley redirect

Hi Stifle,

your edit summary for Rob malley says "certainly not an unlikely typo". I'm wondering whether you noticed the lower-case 'm'?

Joriki (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Many people searching for a term in Wikipedia will type only in lower case, or in mixed-case, and may type the URL directly of their desired topic. As the software will assume that the first letter of an article title, but no more, is upper-case, and redirects are cheap, I see no reason to delete this page. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Gitmo detainee articles

Hey there, I noticed your opinion on the WP articles on each individual detainee - and while I tend to agree, I see it more as an issue of each article needing a good run-through with an NPOV and COATRACK brush - than deletion. Details about what the detainee is accused of, whether they participated in any riots or hunger strikes, their judicial proceedings - that all belongs - but I agree with you that there's quite a stretch of COATRACKness to them as well, talking about "the Bush Administration" and such.

If possible, I'd like to find three or four users from differing backgrounds/opinions, to sit down and hammer out an exact format that meets those standards, and have it applied to each Detainee article. I wonder if I'd be able to persuade you to help with such a venture? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess so, as long as it's over a reasonable length of time rather than all going to be wrapped up in a week. However my tendency is strongly in favour of deleting all those pages unless the detainees have been written about in a context unconnected with their detention. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

that strikes me as looking at it upside down. their continued detention and the various events that occur during it are sufficient prime importance. A sufficiently notable one event is notable. Being detained there is about as notable as it gets in the real world. You may possibly want multiple sources talking about their detention, and think that some of the articles do not have it, and that would be reasonable. But this is like asking that a medal of honour winner be notable for something besides the events he got the award for. DGG (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See, I completely disagree with you. As I understand it, your opinion is that being detained in a particular prison camp confers notability, and I can't find myself agreeing with that, any more than I would say that anyone who's ever been in Mountjoy Prison, or anyone who's ever been in the army is notable. The events that happen at GTMO, the war (or conflict, or difference of opinions, or whatever word we're using) in which those detained there have been involved, and so on, are notable, but the individual people are no more notable than any front-line fighter or common criminal. And while I agree that attention should be called to any misbehaviour of US troops that may be taking place there, and to the circumstances which led people to be detained there in the first place, I very firmly believe that Wikipedia is not the place to be doing that.

However, I must congratulate you for spelling "honour" correctly. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I seems to have both spelled and capitalized it wrong--from the wording I must have been alluding to the US medal. Those at least with individual international attention are notable, and this has been the case for any adequately looked for--and even such have been challenged by some editors. At least some of the people in Mountjoy also have become notable from what they did there. I doubt we'll convince each other. DGG (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the article for Mountjoy Prison. I agree it would be a mistake to start creating articles about random convicts there, even if there were sources that fulfilled WP:VER's requirements. But no-one argued that we create articles on all the convicted felons in any conventional prison.

May I remind you Guantanamo captives are not convicted felons? As of this writing only two percent of the captives have faced any kind of charges. And those charges are very controversial.

Ordinary convicts faces charges in a conventional, established, legal code. Legal codes have precedents. Legal systems have established rules of evidence -- all absent from the procedures the captives started being subjected to, two and a half years into their detention.

In our first interaction you asked me to explain which criteria I was using when I called for a "speedy keep". I checked the criteria for speedy keep, and I acknowledged my error, and apologized to everyone in the three places I used it, for my usage. Now you asserted I was ignoring WP:COATRACK. And I asked you to spell out which criteria you thought I was ignoring. You haven't offered an explanation for calling on the coatrack essay.

We are all volunteers here. Ideally, when a wikipedia contributor realizes another wikipedian made a good point, they would say so. Ideally, we would all graciously own up, when another wikipedian's arguments convinced us. But, traditionally, many wikipedians just walk away from arguments they advanced, when they realized they are in error. No one can stop you from walking away. But, no offense, if you can't substantiate this particular argument, or you consider substantiating it to be too much work, then I would really appreciate it, if, at a bare minimum, you refrained from using this argument again.

Finally, I think comments, like yours, about how I was "stretching your assumption of good faith", are very damaging to the wikipedia project. I would really appreciate it if you could confine your comments to content issues, not the character of your correspondents. If you think you have real concern about my contributions, I believe you should be able to find a civil way to raise that concern. Geo Swan (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to explain before and will try one last time. I believe that the majority of the articles about detainees at Guantanamo Bay are about non-notable people and that some of them may be being used to call attention to their plight, in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. This is what WP:COATRACK refers to — to the extent that the articles are about particular detainees, those detainees are not notable per WP:BIO, and to the extent that they are about the notable events (which I admit are morally questionable at best) at the detainee camp, they are going off-topic. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I got your latest reply.

As I think I told you eight months ago, I have tried hard to comply with all policies, particularly WP:NPOV. I think I told you I never thought I would succeed 100% of the time -- which is why I do my best to give every civilly expressed concern -- or hint, that someone thinks I have lapsed from policy a serious, civil reply.

The WP:COATRACK essay you cited does not specifically cite WP:SOAPBOX. I suggest it is extremely unhelpful of you to claim authority under that essay, if what you really meant to cite was WP:SOAPBOX.

If you have a specific concern about what you perceive as a specific lapse from WP:SOAPBOX what I would appreciate would be for you to civilly cite a specific instance, in a meaningful way.

If you think you perceive multiple passages you think lapsed from WP:SOAPBOX can I suggest you start by being specific about just one.

We are all volunteers here. No one can force you to be helpful. What I would prefer -- if you don't think you have the time or energy to be civil and helpful about what you perceive as my lapses -- is that you do your best to hold back from making uncivil and unhelpful comments.

I am still willing to cooperate with you, and other people who think these articles can be improved -- provided you are civil and helpful. I see Sherurcij has a suggestion. I am going to take a look at it now. Geo Swan (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo and help us identify the key problems facing existing Guantanamo Bay Detainee articles, and help us resolve them. (For example, I recently tried my hand at a bit of a rewrite of one section that seemed to draw a lot of COATRACK and NPOV complaints) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 09:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the key problem is that they exist, to be honest. But I'll take a look. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

CSD readded

That is not an assertion of notability at all. I have re-added it, please read WP:MUSIC for more information. asenine ^{say what?} 16:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of WP:MUSIC. An article about a band does not need to meet WP:MUSIC to avoid deletion under CSD:A7, it merely has to contain an assertion, of any type, that the band is notable. A quotation from WP:CSD: "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable". Please feel free to use a prod or AFD for this article. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not contain an assertion of why it might be notable. 4 albums is nowhere in the inclusion criteria, and there is nothing in the article that suggests that it should be included. I will not readd it for now, but will later unless you can explain to me what you consider to be an assertion of possible notability (since having 4 albums is not one). Have a nice day. :) asenine ^{say what?} 16:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, the speedy deletion criteria and criteria for inclusion are completely distinct. An article with the text "Weehaa is an up and coming band in Anywhereville, working on its first EP, here are the members and here is our myspace page" is eligible for speedy deletion. A page needs to be devoid of any actual or potential indication of notability to qualify for speedy deletion. If there is a claim, however tenuous, that the subject is notable, then it does not qualify for speedy deletion. That does not mean that it is notable enough to be included, merely that the speedy deletion process is not appropriate for it. I have listed the article at AFD, which is the next appropriate step in the deletion process. Thank you for your understanding. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I understood that, I just didn't differ in my opinion on what the CSD actually means. Anyway, I will participate at the AfD. Thanks for adding it, and have a nice day. :) asenine ^{say what?} 09:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: 'retro honpo' page deletion

Hello, I see that the page for the band 'retro honpo' was speedy-deleted before I could get up some good documentation for their notability. I'm not objecting to the deletion, but wished to see about the chance of revamping the article in the future so that it would merit inclusion. It's my first article and I apologize that I did not get references together sooner. Thanks. Isengrim01 (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't apologize, everyone was new once. See WP:SUBPAGE for how you can work on the article in a subsection of your personal (User) space and transfer it to the main article area when ready. If you want I can undelete the article and move it to such a page for you. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. If you could move it there, I'd appreciate it. Have a great day. Isengrim01 (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, see User:Isengrim01/Retro honpo. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Zorpia.com's deletion closure

The request was closed because no one has done a userspace draft. But I wonder what userspace draft means? I asked the other guy and there was not response.Web 2.0 Junkie (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Antelan has already answered this over at your talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mighty leaf tea

Hello Stifle,

We see you deleted Mighty_leaf_tea without response to my talk comment. Can you provide guidance/feedback on how we can meet whatever standards you regard as lacking? Our comments were not addressed and appeared sound reasoning.

Thank you.

Nedvansise (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)NedvanSise

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?

Mighty leaf tea was deleted under criterion 7 (under Articles) of our criteria for speedy deletion because it appeared to be an article about a company which didn't indicate why it was important or significant. Please see WP:CORP 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) 09:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RfB participation thanks

Hello, Stifle

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. I left this message here, as RfBs are most definitely not RfAs, as I can attest to from detailed (and somewhat painful) experience :) Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair. At least most people have been actually taking notice of User talk:Stifle/wizard/RFA for a change. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Amit Choubey

There's speedy delete, then there's delete it before I've finished telling the author improve the article. Can you undelete it and give us a chance to improve it please. Astronaut (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Done with a prod so that he has 5 days to improve it. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

International Task Force on Preventive Diplomacy

Hi Stifle,

the article "International Task Force on Preventive Diplomacy" has been speedily deleted.

This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement.

However, I am a member of the EWI Institute (you can find me on the staff list) and have explicit permission to put this text, which was taken from the website, on Wikipedia.

How to proceed?

Thanks for your consideration and your time.

Sincerely,

Ward Vanhee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvanhee (talk • contribs) 10:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please have a person with an email address ending in @preventivediplomacy.org send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org stating that the text at preventivediplomacy.org is released under version 1.2 of the GNU Free Documentation License, with no Front-Cover Text, no Back-Cover Text, and no Invariant Sections. This email will be processed by our OTRS team and, assuming there are no problems, the page will be restored.

Alternatively you may place such a statement on the source website. Please mention the article title International Task Force on Preventive Diplomacy in your message so that it can be cross-referenced. If you choose this option then let me know when the statement has been added and I will restore the page. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Adam Boettiger

"Seems to be contributed by the copyright holder" is not a valid reason for keeping a copyright violation. We need proof as provided in a couple of different pages. Corvus cornix_talk 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should have tagged it as {{subst:copyvio}} instead. (An assertion of permission defeats a G12 speedy.) Done now. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that, thanks.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 15:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

2 Things

I don't know much about football, so thanks in that respect, I was just patrolling and tagging CSD where I thought it applied.

Second, why the fake 'you have new messages' box? Isn't April Fools over?— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 16:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice it says "you do not have new messages"? Stifle (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did. I clicked on it a few times before I looked again and saw what it said.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to help with the style

Dear Stifle,

I have written an article about Anyplace Control - remote computing product. I wrote this article only with intention to show Wikipedia users the principles of software operation, its features and technologies utilized. Since Anyplace Control is not only a commercial product - it also posses several interesting remote computing technologies that are not described on the Wikipedia (e.g. Gateway server).

Writing the article I tried to avoid the personal pronouns and other criteria that could indicated it as ads, but you deleted for GL11.

Would you be so kind to point out my mistakes, so I could make my article fit Wikipedia standards? Moreover I plan to deliver a cycle of articles about unique technologies that Anyplace Control uses and the product itself. Isn't my idea the breach of Wikipedia neutrality policy?

Looking forward to your reply. Best regards, Thomas Vysokos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyplace Control Software (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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?

Wikipedia:FAQ/Business should answer all your questions. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 12

I wanted to let you know that I left some additional comments on this article Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 12--Kumioko (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)