User talk:Stifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Please reply to me here if possible.
  • If your message is about an AFD or other discussion that you want me to (re)contribute to, I will generally not reply other than by checking the page and adding a comment.
  • I will normally reply here and copy my reply to your talk page, but may sometimes use {{talkback}} or, occasionally, reply here only.
  • Please don't leave your email address. My email address is and you can contact me there if you have a request that needs to be answered privately. However, if you email me with a request that is not private, I will respond on your talk page.
    • Exception: if you are requesting the text of a deleted article, then make sure your preferences include a valid, confirmed email address, as I will email the article to you at that address (only).
  • I have disabled the "ping" notification for mentioning my username, as I find it tiresome.

Johnny Terris[edit]

FYI, in case the ping doesn't work: WP:REFUND#Johnny Terris. JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it okay for me to remove AfD tag on Sara Bronin?[edit]

Wondering.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I've removed it, should have done so whilst closing the AFD but my script failed. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Asking Your Support[edit]

Hi, good morning. I noticed that you are very active on the State of New York University page. I wanted to let you know that the page of one of the trustees Joseph Belluck has been nominated for deletion. I would really appreciate it if you could support the page so that it is not deleted:

Thank you very much Nwerner1 (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vysyaraju Kasi Viswanatham Raju[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but your closure does not correctly assess community consensus here:

  • Nominator says "I'm sure any sources may be non-English and offline" not true, as shown below, a question of fact
  • Necrothesp votes "definite keep", citing WP:NPOL
  • I voted "keep" citing sources, and NPOL
  • Cutest Penguin voted "delete" sayimg that the subject would be notable if true, but says it is a hoax, "Hoax" is not true, a question of fact, so the vote reverts to "notable"
  • Fuebaey changed his vote to "keep", citing my sources and NPOL
  • Nyttend voted "Delete" "per Fuebaey", since Fuebaey changed his vote, this reverts to "keep", for the "Hoax' see Cutest Penguin
  • Sulabhvarshney makes a Comment which is shown to be irrelevant, since the (incomplete) list in question begins only in 1951, and the subject was a member before that

The result seems to be a clear "keep", since there remains not a single argument for deletion. I will add the sources and the info to the article as soon as I come to it. Kraxler (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

As noted in my talk page header and FAQ, I consider all my deletion decisions carefully before closing and do not change them based on talk page requests. In any event, no consensus and keep are functionally equivalent. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't request to change it. Read my message, and think about it. Kraxler (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought about it before I closed the discussion; you're welcome to list at Wikipedia:Deletion review if you feel so strongly, but if you do not want the closure changed, then I am not sure what you are here for. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Pointing out mistakes to prevent them happening again in the future. Constructive criticism. Improving quality. Kraxler (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree, if there was a mistake. There wasn't. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

IFA Paris[edit]

Our Wiki page IFA Paris has been deleted? Why? We are one of the biggest fashion schools and all the other fashion schools can have a Wikipedia page, but we can't? We changed a lot and tried hard to make it sound satisfactory.. How can I reinstate it? Thanks in advance. Nikki38394724 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

IFA Paris was deleted because the community consensus said it should be. No two articles are alike and each one stands or falls on its own merits, so I am unable to entertain suggestions that because another article exists, yours should also.
It won't be possible to reinstate the article unless further and better reliable sources can be provided to show that the school is properly notable. You'll also need to review the conflict of interest rules. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to us. We understand that just because another article exists, it isn't a valuable argument. But the page for example is even more worthless than ours was and is also missing credible sources, yet nobody decides to delete it. No idea why our page became a victim. We would like to reinstate the article, making it simpler and narrowing it down to everything for which we have reliable sources. How do we get started with this? Can you give us a helping hand? Thanks.

Nikki38394724 (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

As I've already explained, we don't have a particular order for dealing with suboptimal articles.
Have you read WP:COI? Stifle (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've read it. We would like to reinstate the article, making it simpler and narrowing it down to everything for which we have reliable sources. How do we get started with this? Can you give us a helping hand?
Nikki38394724 (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you've said all that already. Repeating the same thing isn't going to help. As you've read the COI rules, you'll know that we don't encourage organizations to write about themselves. You would need to file a request at WP:REFUND for the article to be undeleted as a draft, and then when you feel that it is appropriate as an article, file a request at WP:DRV for permission to move it into the main article space. I will not be in a position to do any of these things for you. If you find yourself unable to file the necessary requests, try filing a request for help at WP:HD instead.
Please note that I am unable to provide further assistance on this matter. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


Hmmm. I thought I changed that to \.guru, which would only match the blog tld. Never mind. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  • All that was there was \bguru\b which I think hits anything where guru is neither preceded nor followed by any alphanumeric character. I think you want \b\.guru\b but I am not confident enough in regexen to be sure I'm right. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought I fixed it. Never mind, the spamming was low level and is probably manageable. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened[edit]

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Philip Wright (bishop)[edit]

I would have thought that Philip Wright (bishop) was the correct name for the page, rather than Philip S. Wright. It is my under under standing that Wikipedia biographies are to be named according to the name the person usually or commonly goes by. When disambiguation is needed, in the case of bishops (bishop) is place behind their name. I understand middle names and middle initials are a deprecated form of disambiguation.

I do understand that the url [1] which you use to support your remaming of the article refers Philip S. Wright but it also refers to him as Philip Wright ("Bishop Philip Wright is married to Mrs. Carla Suite-Wright") Wayne Jayes (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  • The request came in from Roman Spinner and was marked uncontroversial, so I completed it on that basis. If you feel it is not uncontroversial I will revert it and you can discuss amongst yourselves. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for adding to your talk page one additional posting regarding this topic. All such future comments will be taken to Talk:Philip S. Wright#Article main title header Philip Wright (bishop) or Philip S. Wright —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list[edit]

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my inappropriate non-admin closure[edit]

I apologize for the inconvenience caused, and will try to gain more experience before I return to closing AfD discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  • No problem. We all have to learn sometime :) Stifle (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


Well, I copied and pasted it because I knew it would be deleted eventually. Thanks for deleting it without telling me so I couldn't put my work that took me about 12 hours total, or more. You made my whole day. EDIT: I apologize for the rude message. I understand. Not David Brown (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Political alignment - Página /12 newspaper in Argentina[edit]

Hi Stifle, good to hear about you, your role in Wikipedia

I am not going to add any drama to Wikipedia, because there's not. There is drama in Argentina, but that is another matter

I am new as a wikipedia contributor, so I apologise if I have not played the rules by the book. All I have tried to do is to correct a highly hypocritical appearance stating that Pagina 12, a newspaper in Argentina, is aligned with "centre-left" or something that is called "progresismo". This newspaper founded by Jorge Lanata who was subsequently ousted, has become an utterly unconditional supporter of the Kirchners who rule Argentina for nearly 12 years at the point of even defending the undefendable like the appointment of a former torturer (General Milani) as Chief Commander of the Armed Forces. No matter what Cristina Kirchner, the president, says or does, in open and clear contradiction with previous statements and anything commonly admitted as being "leftist", it is supported and defended by Página 12. Their main contributors, a group who call themselves "Carta Abierta" have clearly expressed in their newspaper to support and vote for "Frente para la Victoria", Cristina Kirchner's party.

I therefore find it natural that they should assume their political alignment and not perversely, on the foreign versions of Wikipedia at least (Argentine readers cannot be fooled), call themselves "centre-left"

If, because this presumably big supporter of the Kirchners, called "Banfield", has prerogatives to block me on Wikipedia's Pagina 12 page, so be it. I just thought I would try to end hypocrisy

Thanks for the opportunity to express myself anyway

Liberté&justice (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I take absolutely no position whatsoever on who is "right" about the article, and have no intention to do so. The one thing I observed was that you broke the three-revert rule, which is why I blocked you. Stifle (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hard left[edit]

The Wrong Version.svg

What a particularly inept bit of adminship there. Repeated edit warring from one editor across a range of articles, which you then reward by doing nothing over it, but protecting the article in his favoured state for a week. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You will be well aware that protection is not an endorsement of the current version.
I will not dignify the remainder of your message with a response. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
When Garageland is next at ANEW for edit-warring the next article to his version of truth (likely to be Morning Star by his latest edits), are you going to support him in that one too by locking the article to his favoured version? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with User:Stifle that protection of Hard left was justified. Anyone can open an RFC on the talk page to decide if the names of those politicians should be included. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
So bulk-stripping sources is now a content issue, rather than behavioural, even when it's an editor who has just been blocked for edit-warring and calls the rest of us "cunt"s without the slightest admin comment? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, Andy. His blanking edits and bulk-stripping just goes to show how illogical Stifle's actions and occupation of his position is. Attractel (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Stifle, you told us to start talking, but we already have been - I've received no reply. What should I do, talk to a brick wall? There was no consensus to change it in the first place. The only person engaging in edit-warring was Garageland66, which is why I refrained from reverting it again in the first place. This is a procedural absurdity from an inept admin to say the least. Attractel (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    Calling me "inept", "illogical", etc. is not likely to make me want to take your side. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    • But as you're both clearly concerned about my actions being incorrect, I've submitted them for review at WP:ANI. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


do I understand correctly? the 3RR rule means in practice that if a contributor wants to correct a misleading statement and the author of that misleading statement keeps reverting it to his "advantage", the honest contributor just has to sit and sigh? Liberté&justice (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Both users should be discussing their issues and not edit warring. Reverting consistently three times a day for a week is just as bad as four times spread over 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


I wonder whether deleting the image from Material Girl was a mistake. Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song), Talk:Wildside (Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch song), and Talk:I'm Coming Out prove that any rule might allow two cover arts. --George Ho (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  • WMF Policy as enumerated at WP:NFCC cannot be overridden by local consensus, I'm afraid. Those articles would need to have the excess images removed. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I tried enforcing it in "Finally" article, but I edit-warred with one user, MiewEN. Therefore, I avoided doing the same with two others. --George Ho (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

At first I was waiting for your response, but I have no choice but to have the image deletion reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 20. --George Ho (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Your message did not read as though you were expecting a further response... Stifle (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Clement Davies 1948.jpg[edit]

Hi, You recently deleted this image as it was not being used in an article and you then went on to state this in the relevant image deletion discussion. It appears that another editor not involved in this discussion, took it upon themself to delete the image from the article it was being used in and which is still currently under discussion. I have added a comment to this discussion that I will re-up the image but feel under the circumstances, that since you were the deleting editor, it would be easier for you to restore the image file. It would also be helpful if you could then restore the image to the article. This would avoid problems and assist those editors in discussion on this matter. Thanks. Graemp (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, I now see that you have just closed this discussion. Please re-open. Graemp (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Oops. I've restored the image and tagged it properly. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. However, the same editor has again deleted it from United Kingdom general election, 1950 so that it is again orphaned. To avoid an edit war, it would help if you could restore the image to that article with a suitable explanation. Thanks. Graemp (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't remove it from that article, so I'm not going to re-add it either. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
In which case, please be vigilant to ensure that the image does not again get deleted before the article discussion has concluded. Your accidental early closure of the image use discussion may have deterred further contributions. Please can you take steps to bump the discussion to ensure other editors know it is still live. Thanks. 09:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted[edit]

Hi Stifle. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion and subcategories relisted[edit]

Hello. You participated in either the CFD discussion to delete the above category and its subcategories or the DRV discussion regarding those categories (or both). The result of the DRV was to relist the categories for discussion. This is a notification that they have now been relisted for discussion here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

kindly have a look at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist page[edit]

Hi, hope all is well with you. can you please review the whitelist I see that you have reviewed and approved a few of them. So far I haven't got any update from any other Wikipedia editor. Thank you so much! Sid69pua (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You will need to wait your turn. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Kurdish terrorism[edit]

Way back in 2006 you commented (Delete) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish terrorism. An article of that name is back, and I suspect it is the same page reposted. 220 of Borg 16:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)