User talk:Stifle/Archive 1208d

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

Images of David Thouless (b. 1934), Max Jammer (b. 1915) and Houshang Golshiri (d. 2000)

Dear Stifle, I should be grateful if the above first two images could be saved. The fact is that American Physical Society, from whose web pages I have copied these two photographs, is a non-profit professional organization. Yes, I do realise that one should write to them and ask their permission, however since I have other dealings with them, I do not see myself in a position to go and beg them for photographs which aside from depicting two remarkable men, have zero market value - I cannot imagine that our youths are quite so keen as to hang posters of these men in their bedrooms (and posters made of such low-quality photographs as these). At the time when I uploaded these two photographs, there were no free images of these two men on the Internet. In particular in the case of Max Jammer, given the fact that he was born in 1915, I genuinely think that it is somewhat disgraceful that we should just wait for his death before displaying this little, and economically worthless, photograph of his on Wikipedia.

Further, you may also wish to have a look into my today's exchanges with User:Peripitus, [here] and [here]. I sincerely believe that User:Peripitus's behaviour is truly unacceptable --- he should stop bossing over other people and moreover have at least the courtesy to listen to what others tell him. One often has the impression that being on Wikipedia is like living amongst hooligans (as you can see, I asked him to restore the image that I had uploaded and that we ultimately would put the matter to your judgement, but he has totally neglected what I asked him to do - what is that makes these people think that they own Wikipedia?). For your information, Houshang Golshiri has been one of the most iconic literary figures of his generation (he is just not one of many - if you talk about him with the people in the know, then you will realise in what a high esteem he is held). With thanks and kind regards, --BF 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC).

Ps) I did not mean that you should be writing to American Physical Society. I meant, that those who spend their lives getting pleasure out of deleting the images uploaded by others, should learn to write, at least from time to time, to the relevant organizations and ask for their permissions (this is particularly relevant here, since the person who tagged the above first two photographs for deletion, introduces himself on his talk page as an Assistant Professor - so, at the very least he should be able to write letters). Restricting one's mission on Wikipedia to annihilating some other people's contributions is not very constructive in an environment where building is the prime motivation. As far as I am concerned, since I have been on Wikipedia I have truly written tens, if not hundreds, of letters to all around the world for obtaining permissions for photographs to be uploaded to Wikipedia (you may still remember the amount of work and energy that went into getting the photograph of Bahram Bayzai on Wikipedia). Kind regards, --BF 01:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC).

I am looking into this. As an initial point, I don't feel that Peripitus has behaved unacceptably. If you were new, I might argue for a WP:BITE violation, but that's mostly it. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
For my own reference, the images in question are File:David James Thouless.jpg and File:Max Jammer.jpg. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The images were deleted because you placed a false license tag on them. Specifically, you claimed that they were released under the GFDL, which they are not. If you wish to now make a claim of fair use about them or otherwise dispute the deletion, you should make a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, the general rule that non-free images of living people are not permitted is not something that admins made up to stop you from improving the encyclopedia; it's a rule that the Wikimedia Foundation came up with (see foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, item 3). Similarly, we will only use a non-free photo, even of a dead person, if no free one exists.
As I've mentioned to you before, I cannot overturn the decision of other administrators. There are no "senior admins" or "appeal courts" here.
Finally, while I understand that you get frustrated when content you added is deleted, please understand that flying off the handle and being incivil is unlikely to accomplish anything other than reduce people's willingness to help you. See for example Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Rather than rushing in and demanding that a page or image is restored, or that someone should write to some university requesting a license to use a photograph, ask what can be done to move forward in the situation. Yes, in some cases, this means sending off yet more emails asking for images to be released under the GFDL. Such is life :) Stifle (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
As for the images of Thouless and Jammer, although they are exposed on the website of APS, they are not properties of APS - the copyright statement on the web pages of APS concern other things, not these petty photographs (APS trades in scientific knowledge). The copyright statement GFDL may not have been the appropriate one, but my point was that rather than deleting the photographs, someone would better take the initiative and write to APS, officially asking permission from them (as I wrote earlier, it does not serve my professional reputation well to write to them and beg them for photographs). Be it as it may, I think it does not make much sense to talk any more about these photographs; now people will have to wait until these gentlemen die before they can see how they looked like when alive (this is the way we celebrate life in our times).
I believe that your reprimanding of me for my exchanges with User:Peripitus is not justified. Mind you, it was he who interfered with my work (have you ever seem me getting my nose into the works by others? No, rather, there are always others who seem to sit in some dark alleys ready to attack me). User:Peripitus's argument is that the extant free images do the job, but he is badly mistaken. First, the entry of Houshang Golshiri contained no photograph before I added mine yesterday. Second, the aim of a photograph is not merely to show some regions of black and white (or of other colours) resembling the subject of the photograph; its aim is also to convey some aspects of the character of the person it shows. Consider this photograph of Ludwig van Beethoven: [1] (reproduction of a painting by Joseph Karl Stieler). Look in particular at the eyes. The genius in those eyes are to be found in Beethoven's music - as you may be aware, it is said that music lost its innocence through Beethoven. The "madness", if one may use the word, that are visible in the eyes of Stieler's Beethoven, is also to be found in Beethoven's magical music. In other words, use of a reproduction of Stieler's painting of Beethoven in Wikipedia is absolutely the right choice: it shows something of Beethoven for which Beethoven is best known (his wild and melancholic soul). Now to Golshiri. The present photograph (courtesy of User:Peripitus) shows a young man sitting cross-legged. What does that photograph convey about Golshiri? Absolutely nothing! That photograph could equally have been a photograph of mine or of thousand of other men sitting cross-legged. It only happens that it may remind those who have known Golshiri of him. Now consider the photograph that I added yesterday. One sees something very specific in it; it depicts not only the face of him, but also something of his character: those eyes, the way he looks, his face, that forehead, etc. They show something of Golshiri the man. That photograph brings Golshiri to life; one sees a person of flesh and blood, one with whom one would want to talk; someone who has a fire burning inside him.
Had the world come to its end by using my uploaded photograph? The clear answer to this question is: no! Above all, the kind of copyright statement that I had intended to use is the one that I (or perhaps even you) have used for the photograph of Charles Wheeler (journalist), so that Wikipedia would never have been held responsible if some people copied the image. Secondly, the source of the image at issue is online whereby all and sundry can copy the image as many times as they wish - it is not so that I had copied an image from a private collection whereby its exposure on Wikipedia would have made it unduly available to the public. Thirdly, who on earth (of all the relevant people) would have complained by exposing the photograph at issue on Wikipedia? Golshiri himself is long dead (almost for a decade). No, the way I see things is that some people here on Wikipedia want to dominate. They set their minds on something and always manage to find some text in the Wikipedia guidelines to get away with their destructive actions. It is very odd, to say the least, that it is again I who has been found the guilty party in this sad and totally wasteful episode. You might wonder whether User:Peripitus had heard of the existence of a person named Golshiri until yesterday. And of course, you should wonder where this gentleman gets the authority from to tell me what to do and what not to do and what image is appropriate and what image is not. Lastly, you mention "please understand that flying off the handle and being incivil is unlikely to accomplish anything other than reduce people's willingness to help you." While I thank you for your kind advice, never in my life have I kept quite in order to receive favours from others. In this connection, I remind you of what I mentioned above about Beethoven and Stieler's painting of him. As Beethoven, Golshiri was a very special character and I sincerely believe that he deserves a photograph on Wikipedia that somehow brings that special character out.
Before closing, I have no intention of spending one more minute on the issue of these photographs. It is overwhelmingly clear to me that the people who have the least to say about a subject matter wield the most power to get their stamp of ignorance pressed on that subject matter (last time it was Unruled Paper, and the person who managed to evict me, had not even seen the film). In the present case, User:Peripitus, who most probably has never read a single word by Golshiri, has determined how Golshiri should be depicted on Wikipedia. It would be exactly the same if someone who had never heard of Beethoven had the power to determine the image of Beethoven to be used on Wikipedia. In this light, I sincerely believe that User:Peripitus has been wilfully disrespectful towards me (not that I demand that any action be taken against him; I just find the intellectual callousness that prevails on Wikipedia dumbfounding - I absolutely mean this!). --BF 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
As you don't wish to spend more time on the photographs, I'll just remind you that this project is about creating a free encyclopedia; while it may improve the encyclopedia to add additional non-free images, the Wikimedia Foundation has indicated that it does not wish us to do so.
My message was not intended to reprimand you regarding your interaction with Peripitus, and in so far as it did, I withdraw that. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Stifle. I maintain that exposure of the images of Thouless and Jammer on Wikipedia were perfectly lawful. Please look at any online newspaper and/or magazine, and you will realise that all photographs exposed by these have a separate photo-credits section (or caption) in which the copyright status is one of the items (consider for instance the following photographs on the website of TIME: [2] - the names of the photographers implicitly imply that the pertinent copyrights belong to them). As I have said earlier, the copyright marks on the web pages of APS have bearing on the contents of these pages, and not on the uncredited photographs. I emphasize that I do not wish hereby to imply that I am/was right, only that if some person had taken the trouble and written to APS, today these men, Thouless and Jammer, were not defaced (the painful thing is that the person who originally tagged these photographs for deletion claims on his Wikipedia page that he is an Assistant Professor in Communications! What Communications! I sincerely believe that unless people can provide supporting evidence, they should not be able to make such unfounded claims on their Wikipedia pages.).
Regarding the photograph of Golshiri, I had taken it from here (see in particular here). This is as public a place as one can get. Please note that by law the copyright of photographs belong to the photographers who have taken them. Can you find any copyright statement (or, equivalently, names of the corresponding photographers) attached to any of the hundreds of photographs on the above-indicated web site? Legally, there is no difference between this photograph [3] and the one presently displayed on the Wikipedia entry of Golshiri. Above and beyond this, the type of copyright statement that I had intended to use (which was similar to that used for the Wikipedia photograph of Charles Wheeler (journalist)) would not allow people to reproduce the Wikipedia photograph (they would have to go to the source, which I had indicated). In view of all these, I simply cannot comprehend the basis on which User:Peripitus has been allowed to overwrite me. It seems to me that being rude and inconsiderate pays off on Wikipedia: go and annihilate someone else's work, and get away with it by citing an unrelated verse from the Wikipedia's Holy Book of Rules (this will not say that I have always been polite; however the undisputable fact is that I have invariably reacted impolitely in response to the rude behaviors of others). User:Peripitus totally neglected my repeated requests to restore the image that I had uploaded. Who are these people who are so full of themselves? I had not been as furious as I have been (and still am) had User:Peripitus even heard the name of Golshiri until the day before yesterday.
Any way, as I said earlier, I do not intend to pursue these matters any further (I have already wasted enough time on this utterly senseless business). Kind regards, --BF 05:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC).
I have no doubt that everything you have done was lawful; as I said, however, Wikipedia aims to be a free encyclopedia and any non-free content is liable to be rigorously challenged.
A copyright statement does not have to be attached to a work for it to gain copyright protection (unless it was published in the USA before 1978).
If you can confirm that any of the photographs you wish to upload (or indeed any others at all) were taken in Iran and published over 30 years ago, then they are free to use and that is the end of the matter. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. The photographs of Thouless and Jammer were certainly not taken in Iran (Jammer's photograph is however older than 30 years - he is now about 94 years old). The provenance of the photograph of Golshiri is unknown to me (specifically, it does not seem to be older than 30 years - the setting of the photograph suggests that it must have been taken by a friend or associate, as opposed to a professional photographer). As an aside, Thouless is truly one of the greatest physicists walking around us (please mark this: he is certainly one of the future Nobel Laureates in physics - he has already received all prestigious physics prizes that one can think of). There are some scientists who are reputed to be great, but Thouless is truly great, and most original. Kind regards, --BF 13:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC).

Deletion of 'Chris Salvatore' entry

I wish to challenge the deletion of a page that you deleted.

  • The page title is Chris Salvatore.
  • I have read the reason for deleting the page (No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion) and I feel it was incorrect because, as I mentioned in my comment as to why it should not be deleted, I was in the process of gathering information on the artist. Chris Salvatore. I was going to include other sources and more information on this particular person and just needed a day or two to gather it. I am not sure why this entry was not considered fine, considering it is a bio piece about an up-and-coming artist. The artist himself is not putting the entry on Wikipedia. I am.
  • The following sources back up my claim:
    1. Out Models
    2. Chris Salvatore Music
    3. IMDB

Please consider restoring this article. Or, at the very least, inform me what I need to include to ensure that it isn't deleted in future. Could you also send me the source-code I had typed up for the article?

Bwucie (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and your help in investigating the matter.
Wikipedia aims to be a knowledge resource for everything that is notable. Notability is a prerequisite to having an article here, and the main indication is having been written about in multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. WP:NMG gives some alternate criteria for musical artists.
I regret to advise you that I will not be undeleting this article at this time. Aside from Mr. Salvatore appearing not to meet the notability criteria, The first source is or appears to be a model catalogue, myspace is not a reliable source, and anyone can add anything to IMDB. As requested I will shortly email you the text of that page to your registered Wikipedia address.
You are entitled to appeal this decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, so much for Wikipedia being part of the Web 2.0 revolution. I guess it is no longer part of the democratic web. At least now I know. And if you had bothered to read the actual article, you would have noticed that it said he was a singer, song-writer, MODEL and ACTOR. But clearly you didn't.
Bwucie (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review

Thanks Stifle. Do I have to comment there? It seems the editor now is satisfied with my reasoning why the article was deleted. --Efe (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to comment, although it's customary to. In this case I doubt it's needed though. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the article has been recreated. Looks good now. --Efe (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sonnal Thaan Kathala

OK Stifle, now I have already removed all the vandalism and inserted citations, as what I undertook to do. Happy? And do you know what other Tamil movies or Tamil Nadu related articles has been deleted? There may be other wrongful deletions like this, and so if you can give me a list, I can tell you which one deserves and which doesn't. Thanks. Selvaraaj (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no issues with the article Sonnal Thaan Kathala. But you don't need my approval, or that of any other admin, to build articles.
I don't have any details on what articles under a certain topic have been deleted. A Wikiproject may have more details. While you can view a list of all articles ever deleted at the Special:Log/delete, I doubt that will be very useful. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I am just telling you that I have lived up to my commitment of removing vandalism.
I visited Wikiproject Category Indian Cinema and Wikiproject India but couldn't find any details there. The log has too many entries, I may be a grandfather when I finish browsing. Do you know which other administrator will have details of other deleted Tamil movies / articles prior to this? Thanks. Selvaraaj (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
All administrators are equal, and none will have any details of deleted articles from a specific category. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The vals

Hi Stifle. I know that your wizard says to go right to DRV if I am questioning your AfD close, but there is a twist to this, and I would like your opinion about that before I go to DRV. I have recently been in a lengthy discussion with MBisanz about the timing of closing a discussion. I even made reference to one of your own comments during that discussion. It is contrary to policy to close a deletion discussion earlier than five days (unless it is a speedy close or a WP:SNOW close), but current practice is to do exactly what you have done, close it once four days have passed. This AfD might be an example of when the full five days of discussion are important: two articles in a major newspaper, The Belfast Telegraph, exist, which raises the possibility that other sources could turn up. Also, none of the "delete" commenters in the discussion actually addressed the issue of why two articles in the Telegraph is insufficient to meet our notability guidelines. I'd be grateful for your thoughts about not just this specific AfD, but the whole issue of deleting articles after four days of discussion rather than five. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, while the official written process says 5 days, it seems to be customary at this stage that this is five calendar days rather than 120 hours (or in the alternative that discussions can be closed once they appear on WP:OLD). If you can come up with any other sources, I'll happily review the closure, but keeping it open for a few more hours doesn't, I think, make that much of a difference.
Of course you're free to go to DRV. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've done some more searching, and in addition to the two Telegraph articles, there are two in The Irish NewsThis one mentions Yoko Ono being a fan, and that they toured the UK with Ocean Colour Scene. This one says they headlined the Belfast part of Amnesty International's Small Places Tour. Thanks for taking another look. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the article for now. I'm notifying the people who "voted" delete in the AFD in case they wish to renominate. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsure Deletion Review

I worked hard to have this article published and it is very doscouraging to see a cult member suggest the press and others are not telling the truth. I have no care for their feelings but on merits Neil deserves to be in wikipedia.

I am not a wiki specialist and its hard to follow this. But I read the review and much if not all of the information is incorrect.

The person "Neil Carrick" has a personal vendetta again a church? I don't care if he does or doesn't his notability is mainly he contacted The Baltimore Sun, The IRS, The FBI, and other government groups, newspapers including The Berkshire Eagle about the sexual and financial abuses. IF you read the Greater Grace World Outreach article it uses the same references. THose references including things that happened prior to Neil being at the new church which include a multi-million bankruptcy for abuses against a well known family. Neil didn't go after a church he lost his family to a group all well known groups consider a cult.

The person who asked for the review seems to be very misinformed. Also it is obvious he is not a contributor but just mad at Neil. HE did not sign it. He states Neil has a vendetta, but Neil didn't write this article and that is pretty obvious. It also states he is a lawyer in the same paragraph, which he isn't. Neil never finished at JHU. HE holds no degree. I think he is confused because Neil when this whistle blowing took place help the attorney General of several states in a legal brief to the courts and he prepared other documents via a group of lawyers he hired after loosing his family when on the run.

The Baltimore Sun ran a front page story, then a few years later the Berkshire Eagle ran a story, there are lot of corresponding articles that information that shows that Neil was in front of others who achieved the whistleblowing on the organization.

The google book is a well published book by a prof. at U of Maryland, that is found in many library's across the US. He was also at Johns Hopkins Hospital and Johns Hopkins University. While the book only mentions Neil by name a handful of times, it mentions his organization almost throughout 1/2 the chapters.

The groups that Neil either started or was involved in at their infancy created lasting change and created intense press. THey also help create lasting change in schools in Baltimore.

TO underscore it is obvious that GGWO as organization lost most of its affiliations, missionaries, and a large portion of members is an understatement. Its top leader all but 3 of 12 would resign and oppose the church. Neil lost his family and to this day lives in fear of being hurt by members of the church.

If you read the transcript of George Robertson formally the Vice President of Maryland Bible College and Seminary, now the head of Scientology's Cult Awareness Network discussing the death of a scientologist you can see Neil has been historically correct on the church, and the press including 60 minutes has a well. Again I don't think this is a vendataa but based upon fact and realistic understanding of what he did to end their abuses.

I DOn't know what to do, and frankly if every time somebody writes an article for wikipedia, if somebody with opposing views who will lie to have it deleted is accepted out of hand than what is the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryster (talkcontribs) 17:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
As I believe I explained to you previously, if you feel that I did not follow the deletion process correctly, you may make a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I'm happy with my closure of the AFD. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


You just prodded one of her articles. There seems to possibly be a bigger problem--I just deleted two as apparent vandalism, because they were part of a set on a station where she'd copied the contents from another WP article on another station, but if so, there are bigger problems involving past contributions also. What's your sense of it? DGG (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that she's either trying to cause a nuisance by creating a walled garden about some TV station she just made up, or she's trying to create an article about a station that does exist, using the other article as a starting point. I'm leaning towards the former from looking at her contributions, but I'm slower (lately) to speedy stuff like that as vandalism (call it excessive AGF if you like). I've left her a message. If she does continue, I'd support deleting the articles as nonsense vandalism and consider blocking her. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have pasted a discussion I have had with DCG. I believe it is appropriate to mark these articles as nonsense. Porturology (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

These articles on the non-existant NX network are just rebadged articles from other networks, while I accept they may not be copy-vio given Wikipedia's copy status, they are nonsense and I will request sd on this groundsPorturology (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
2 qys, tho: first, hoaxes can only be speedied if they are patently nonsense--it has to be clear on the face of it that its impossible. Second, what about that editor's other contributions? The articles that started this we will get rid of, bu tthe problem is also the other stuff which this now casts doubt upon. DGG (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have had a quick look at the other articles and I can't find anything quite so blatant but i will continue to check on the rosary hour. A major American sports network that has as its main sport, Australian Rules Football! Not even someone from Melbourne would believe that and therefore it should be considered nonsense Porturology (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You were quite right - most of the edits are vandalism and I have reversed them. I notice that Ellinejerk is thought to be a glovepuppet of a banned user so I will leave to you as an administrator to sort out that mess Porturology (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like most of the edits have been reverted and DGG has blocked her for 4 days. I'll leave it in your capable hands. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Help My articles Suck!

Dear Stifle,

I came on wikipedia for my first time to write an article on a set of magazines that I didn't see on this site. I don't know how to write an article very well obviously, since it was deleted. The magazine article is HRO Today. I was wondering if you could give me some pointers on what I could do to make it appropriate for your site. Attached below is a copy of the code from a revised article.Any help would be great in this matter. Thanks in advance,
Cj Solvent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj solvent (talkcontribs) 11:39, 22 December 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?
Please don't place draft articles on my talk page or any other page. You can link to the draft article instead.
Sorry, but I am not in a position to help with articles. Please try WP:NCHP. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Request to relook at AfD closure

Hi Stifle, can you please go over the AfD which you closed as "No consensus" for Putinjugend, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Putinjugend. There is some confusion amongst editors who voiced their opinion to keep this, as to whether this is a disambig page or an article. You will note, that, for example, I voiced my opinion to redirect (instead of a disambig), but once it became clear that some of those who were voting for keeping were of the opinion that this would be an actual article, I changed this opinion to delete. As you can see from Putinjugend as it stands now, this has got to be a first that the disambiguation is referenced. Has this occurred on WP before? Apart from being a WP:NEO, it is one that is used in English as a pejorative; we are not here on English WP to document German usage of German terms, but rather English usage. Note in the AfD that I have used Google results as an indication to show that this is not widely used term in English, but is rather used by a very small minority in a pejorative way, and if it were in article, it would be removed as per WP:UNDUE, something which I have already done. And it is a term that if was used (and especially linked to) in an article outside of the disambig page would also be removed as per WP:UNDUE. You will also notice that in referencing the disambig page, that they have utilised almost every WP:RS which utilises the term; this demonstrates that this is surely a protologism, and hence we shouldn't even have a space for it on WP.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, it does make me wonder if some of those who voted keep for Putinjugend, would also vote keep for eSStonia (эSSтония/эSSтонии) using the same arguments they used there, e.g. It's a wellknown term and it's not up to Wikipedia to decide if it's a correct name for Estonia or not., wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasures., This term is used in mass media. Besides, the article seems to be well sourced., eSStonia is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place., etc, etc, etc. You can be sure that those people would be the first to come in with their Delete votes because it is a political pejorative neologism used by a small section of the world to describe modern-day Estonia; much like Putinjugend is used by no more than 1% of the world to describe these organisations. It has nothing to do with neutrality as they portray in the Putinjugend discussion, but everything to do with pushing WP:FRINGE views and presenting them as the majority, and normal, view. You can check for yourself Google results for eSStonia, эSSтония/эSSтонии. Those results show that eSStonia and its Russian equivalent is used on a much wider basis, than is Putinjugend, but is eSStonia were ever to be created, it would rightly be deleted as an WP:ATP/WP:NEO, yet, a term which in English usage is used as an attack is allowed to stay. What about Baby killers linking to Vietnam veterans, would that be an acceptable redirect/disambig page? Especially as the term is very well documented in relation to the protests against the Vietnam War. Would that be an acceptable redirect/disambig?

Surely you will understand that recalling Nazi history/names and applying it to modern-day people/organisations is surely inflammatory, and the arguments by many to keep the article (for that is what most of them regard it as) have nothing to do with neutrality, but pushing of a WP:FRINGE view and presenting it as anything but. For if neutrality was what it was all about, they would have said keep, but move to Pro-Putin youth movement...funny that this is a neutral term, but one which none of those saying its all about neutrality would ever use, as it is much easier to use Putinjugend, which of course is anything but.

As asking you to look over this again is required before taking to WP:DRV, I would appreciate it if you could give it the once-over again. Thanks, --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 13:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
I think the article changed quite significantly between being nominated and the closure, and many of the deletion !votes were predicated on the article being non-neutral and/or offensive, which it does not appear to be.
There's nothing to stop you from suggesting a move, redirect, or merge on the article talk page, but there was no consensus in the deletion discussion to delete the article, and as such I must decline to amend the closure. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


Stifle, the fuss that has been raised over the guitar image is frankly baffling. The image tagging is designed to show the social impact of YouTube, and the guitar video is described in the text of the article, including a New York Times article about the video. It is tiring to argue with people who show their enthusiastic interpretation of WP:NFCC in a manner that makes illustrating articles difficult. Please reconsider on this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
Having looked at the image in context it seems reasonable to use this as fair use, so I've removed the tag. However, you will need to beef up the rationale on the image page — currently it declares that the purpose is "to provide an illustration of typical video playback on YouTube", which is clearly not accurate. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Love Systems

Hi Stifle,

I've been working on a company page and I could use some feedback on the page. I've followed the guidelines of WP:Corp but I'm not sure if everything is fine. If you have time to review it, I would really appreciate that. The page in questions is

Thanks in advance. Coaster7 (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not generally in a position to help with articles. I can tell you that that draft article could do with better referencing — very few of those citations seem to be to reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Helena music video screenshot.jpg

I don't know how you can argue that the image "does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article" when there is an entire section about the music video. – Zntrip 21:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
Indeed there is a section; however, just because the image is discussed in the article does not mean that it significantly adds to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding — this is a requirement of WP:NFCC. Can I ask you to read that page, and if you come back and still think that the image meets all those criteria, I'll remove the deletion warning tag and nominate the image for IFD instead to get a proper community discussion? Stifle (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read over everything and I still disagree. – Zntrip 22:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Shroud Image

OntstaanLijkwade GiovanniBattista.png

I'm curious why you think should not be removed for being the same image as It is plain to me that the first is the bottom half of the second painting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.
The current criteria for speedy deletion allow for redundant images to be deleted only if one image is identical to, or a scaled-down version of, the other. There is very often an encyclopedic use for a cropped version of an image. Feel free to nominate the image at WP:IFD if you still think it should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:I'm Not Okay (I Promise) alternate cover.jpg

Of today's round of images, this is the only one I would like to challenge on the same grounds as the other alternative cover image. I agree with you regarding the speedy deletion of the promotional cover and the music video clips. – Zntrip 18:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, same result. Stifle (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Andrew D. Parvensky which you speedily deleted

Stifle, this page of mine that you recently deleted included the prima facie evidence of notability; a citation to an article in a major newspaper by a staff writer that covered him exclusively. That is more than a reasonable indication of why the subject might be notable, that goes pretty far towards establishing notability. Icewedge (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
I would not agree with that assessment. My sister has had an article written about her in a newspaper, but that wouldn't support an article about her.
However, I note from the deleted history that another admin previously declined a speedy deletion request on the article. As such, my speedy deletion wasn't correct and I will restore the article and reopen the AFD. Stifle (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that one single makes a person notable, but it does make them notable enough to avoid speedy deletion. The first speedy tag was declined by Epbr123 for a reason. Icewedge (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Deletion Nominations

You're absolutely correct in nominating those two detainee articles for deletion. Start checking the list of detainess at Guantanamo Bay through their links and you will see the same boiler plate over and over again listing the legal proceedings. The author is creating a record for POV purposes, nothing more. Get ready for the backlash, though, because they are total zealots.Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep an eye. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Aroon Oscillator

Hi. You have declined CSD on this one. I had given 2 links. One in the CSD and other in Talk page. The 1 or 2 lines in lead extra is by editor. Rest of the first section is verbatim from the CSD nomination link. The next section is near total verbatim from the next page given (probably 1 line stripped off from the two sections in source page). Hence nominated CSD. Kindly review and let me know your suggestions. And in case you are busy, talk to you next year. Happy holidays and wish 2009 is better for all and sundry. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 11:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to butt in. :) I'm not Stifle, but I was coming by to drop him some Holiday Spam and since we spoke yesterday, your name caught my eye. I went to see if I could help shed some light on things, since copyright is where I spend a lot of my time, and discovered that the pasting may be more extensive than you'd realized. This seems to be the point of copying for the opening section and the first several lines of the subsequent,, since it also contains the lead and since the "interpretation chart" is also present at that site (beginning "Chande states....") This blog makes clear that it is not a quick mirror of Wikipedia's article, since it quoted that close in February 2008. Since it is a pastiche of multiple sources, I have listed it at the copyright problems board. If after reviewing that new source Stifle decides to speedy, I will naturally have no objection. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the current status of the article (WP:CP) is fine. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Holiday Spam! But sincerely meant :)

It's very nice working with you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now that I've made nice, time to ask a couple of favors: I'm trying to address more images at PUI, not merely add them. I'm only going for things that seem clear to me at this point, but I just wanted to ask you to please let me know if you notice me doing something wrong. It seems to me that more admins would be useful there, but I'm not a "diving in" kind of person. :) Also, I think perhaps you added PUI to the pull-down menu--I believe I saw note of that to Garion somewhere. If you did, could you possibly add a similar "Listed on [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems|CP]] for over seven days"? That would simplify my life greatly. :D (If you didn't and/or can't, I'm going to have to track down somebody who did and/or can, because that's brilliant.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the peace wishes. I'll add that option to the dropdown (which you'll find at MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown). Stifle (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! (I didn't know mere mortals could change that! :O) I'm back and hacking at the vacation-resultant backlog at CP. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Norwegian photographers

It seems to me that you are violating your own principles in nominating this article for deletion. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I find no basis in WP:N or in the AFD policy for "As per the previous AFD, this dead-end list consisting mostly of redlinks would be better as a self-maintaining category." There are many lists on Wikipedia, and there is no time limit for when it needs to be populated. If you think there should be a policy or guideline against lists with too many redlinks, feel free to propose it. Otherwise, these nominations take up time that could have been better spent writing and editing articles, say, about Norwegian photographers. I also want to point out that the first AFD failed, and if anything the basis for keeping it improved since then. --Leifern (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure which of my principles you claim I'm violating, but it's clear that we have different notability standards. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't have a notability standard: instead I use those proposed in WP:N. In your AFD, you made some rather vague comments about "dead end" and "red links," none of which illustrate any element of the WP:N. The general guideline states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The principle you have violated, is that you expect those who voice their views on AFD to specifically state the basis for their view - your AFD had absolutely no substance, and was essentially a repeat of an earlier failed AFD. --Leifern (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't recall having a principle that I expect people who voice their views on AFD to specifically state the basis for their view. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ladora Savings Bank

Thanks for getting the OTRS email archived for File:Ladora Savings Bank.jpg; I'm glad you were able to get to it just a few hours after I sent it, so the donor won't wonder if we really accept the picture. Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Off The Record Double CD B-sides collection (Results May Vary Unreleased Recordings, Demos and More)

Can you tell me if Off The Record Double CD B-sides collection (Results May Vary Unreleased Recordings, Demos and More) is not nonsense, then what exactly it is. Dengero (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It's nonsense, sure, but not patent nonsense. Patent nonsense is content that nobody could possibly make any sense of, like random characters or a series of words that doesn't form any sentences. I think PROD is the correct place for this one. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
In the end, it was deleted as G1 Patent Nonsense [4] Dengero (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Lickets

Your removal of the speedy-delete notice from The Lickets did not abide by Wikipedia policy. Merely releasing albums is not a criteria of notability. Many musical groups release multiple albums but are still not notable. Please refrain from using this rationale in the future, as it is contrary to CSD policy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken with that one. There is a distinction between an article being liable to speedy deletion under CSD:A7 and being non-notable — to avoid speedy deletion, the article need just give the merest hint why the subject might be notable. With respect, I think it is you that needs to read over the speedy deletion policy. Stifle (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
No, the "merest hint" of notability is not sufficient. All sorts of bands give mere hints of notability that are obviously not enough to avoid speedy deletion. I have been marking such articles for speedy deletion for years now. I think I know the drill. Since you insist on removing the SD notice, I have ben forced to take the article to the tedious AfD process, where the article will inevitably be deleted. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't say I agree with you on that one, but I doubt I'll change your mind. Happy Christmas (or other religious or non-religious festival, if you celebrate one). Stifle (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll stick with the original, religious version, and a Merry Christmas to you as well. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Paramount Television Service GIF.gif

I have to respectfully disagree with you that the image "must be tagged for 7 days" prior to being speedy deleted. WP:FUG states:

Fair use images uploaded after July 13, 2006 that fail any part of WP:NFCC, including no use rationale whatsoever, may be speedy deleted 48 hours after notification to the editor who uploaded the image is given.

The WP:CSD#I7 deletion template also says:

The grace period is 48 hours, except that a grace period of seven days is given for images uploaded before 2006-07-13 or tagged with the Replaceable fair use template or similar, and no grace period is allowed for images tagged with a patently irrelevant template. See CSD I7.

Based on this and that the article was uploaded this year, I ask that you reconsider your declining to speedy delete. (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to fix that so that it matches up with the correct version, at WP:CSD, which says "Invalid fair-use claims tagged with {{subst:dfu}} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid non-free use rationale is not added". Stifle (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the clarification. (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Don't Love You (alternate cover).jpg

This is another deletion I am willing to challenge. – Zntrip 22:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, transferred to IFD. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

--A NobodyMy talk 03:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

SS Timothy Bloodworth

Hi, you nom'd this for deletion. Would you like to look at the article now that it has been expanded and decide whether you want to withdraw the nom or not? Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted at the top of the page I was offline for the last few days and this AFD has been closed in the meantime. For what it's worth a withdrawal would not be in order as there was another delete !vote. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem, hope you enjoyed your break. The article is vastly different now to when it was nominated for deletion, so some good came out of your nomination. You may be interested in the discussion at WT:SHIPS re the notability of individual ships and a proposal to create a set of guidelines for them (something similar to WP:AVIATION's notability criteria for aviation accidents) which I feel would assist in the AfD process. Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

your assistance please...

I was surprised when I went to add material to the article on Brian Mizer to find it had been deleted. Mizer recently applied to get permission to visit captives 10011 and 10026 at the top secret camp 7 where "high-value detainees" are held.

The record shows you deleted that article. I would appreciate you userifying the article, its revision history, and talk page, to User:Geo Swan/review/Brian Mizer 1. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. There's not much there though. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Terrorism Deletion Watchlist

Greetings, on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism - I'd like to invite you to add the Terrorism deletion watchlist to your watched articles, as it will allow you to be updated whenever a related article is proposed for deletion. In total, 40% of articles sent/added to Wikiproject Terrorism have requests for cleanup outstanding, whether better sourcing, orphaned or in need of images...please feel free to see the entire list.Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm likely to !vote delete on most of them... Stifle (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Fraternities and Sororities

I saw your comment on the AfD on Alpha Theta Sigma, and while I agree on the Deletion of Alpha Theta Sigma, I am concerned on your sweeping statement about Fraternities. Can you give me a general feeling for the appropriate number of Collegiate Greek Letter Organizations that you consider to be actually notable? For example, do you consider Sigma Nu (which I picked at random from the members of the North-American Interfraternity Conference), a Social Fraternity with approximately 200 collegiate chapters that has existed for 125 years to be notable enough for an article?Naraht (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess so. I don't live in North America so I am detached from the hyper-importance that most people attach to their fraternities, though. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The scary thing is that as a North American and a member of a Fraternity (albeit a Co-ed community service fraternity Alpha Phi Omega), I find that those in the Philippines treat their fraternities with Hyper-importance relative to those in North-America. There have been members of those fraternities killed in "Frat Wars" between some of the Fraternities there (google on "frat wars") which you simply don't have in North America. Also, I noticed you duplicated the conversation on my talk page as well. Thank you for making it easier to find, but if you want to keep the conversation on one page, I'm fine with that.Naraht (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Querry to clearify the type of license granted in OTRS ticket

Hi, stumbled across 47 images that all refeer to ticket #1774518. Some images, like File:David Hancock in 2008.jpg say they are public domain, but most of them are actualy tagged as either GFDL or the "I made this" GFDL/Creatice Commons dual license tag (and at least one have no license tag at all). Would be good to get that clearified, if they are rely GFDL/CC-BY-CA we need add proper attribution, and if they are PD they should not be tagged with a more restricting license (I'd be happy to do the "heavy lifting" if you can just let me know what information needs to be on each image page). Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket says that any images uploaded by Imparo relating to the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta are released under whichever license is indicated on them. As such, they're tagged correctly :) I suspect that any attribution should be to that association.
For your reference, OTRS tickets now have their own interwiki prefixes to reduce typing. For a ticket number with six or seven digits, use [[OTRS:#######]], and for a ticket ID with 16 digits, use [[Ticket:################]]. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi Stifle, the above user is causing problems with image uploads. I'm sure more of them could be deleted too. He's been blocked before but continues to upload images without sufficient rational. He mostly uploads unnecessary music video images (the kind that have 0 encyclopedic benefit) and redundant "special edition" record covers. Not sure if you want to browse through his remaining images. I'm also quite sure he's a sock puppeteer, but that's another story for another day... — Realist2 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through his upload log and tagged most of it for various fair use violations. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Stifle, thank you for your advice. Kind regards, --BF 13:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

Screenshot image

Regarding File:FifthDimensionWeddingBellBluesClip.jpg, okay, I'm not going to go around on this yet again, I give up, go ahead and do what you will. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've transferred the listing to IFD to get a community opinion. Please do understand, though, that non-free images are only used when they are a major aid to understanding an article. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


please unprotect the page Sakshama, when wikipedia is having articles for techfest, techniche and other technical fetivals. then why not a article for sakshama, a technical festival which was started from a small town of india in the year 2007 and now it is going to celebrate it's third version and it has been said as no #1 technical festival of north india. so i want to write a page for it please unprotect it. you can find more at or you can find the same communities on orkut and other social web Aashish K Mahaswary (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
I am not sure why you are contacting me about this issue. If you wish to request that a page be undeleted, please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you wish to request that a page be unprotected, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for unprotection. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for AfD Reconsideration/New Info

Hello! You were the deleting admin for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Haslam (football coach). I have been researching the individual in quesiton and have an article in my user section -- I have found that he is now an athletic director of only the second school in NCAA history to have the "death penalty" placed on one of its athletic programs. I think this is significant, unique, and worthy of consideration.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction--second time under "new criteria", fourth time overall.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I would not consider the article you showed me to meet WP:BIO. The "death penalty" in question was applied to the college's tennis team, so it does not confer any notability on the person who was football coach at the time of the infraction.
However, I don't have veto rights on articles. You're welcome to move it into main namespace, and while I would not delete it under CSD:G4, some other admin might, or it may get nominated for AFD. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Clarification (and you may still be right) He was appointed the athletic director after the other athletic director resigned from the incident involved with the tennis team. The individual in quesiton was at another school at the time of the infractions and was not involved in creating them, just in "managing the results" of the penalties.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national parks of Dominica (2nd nomination)

I closed this as "keep" since it's been open for 8 days with some strong "keep" arguments from experienced AFDers and nobody saying "delete". Thought I'd let you know because you usually don't nominate articles for deletion unless you're certain they don't meet our inclusion guidelines. If you think it should have run a few more days then I'll revert the close. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't dispute that closure. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


You archived a thread where I answered just a few days ago. Did you do that by accident? -- seth (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I've moved it back to active. Good catch. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: your Matt Lee question

I am answering your quesiton, in part, here because, in my case anyway, I spent most of yesterday trying to organize things. Also I am fairly certain the bulk of your questions are aimed at the editor(s) who actual did most of the (re)creation of the articles. I first saw that a link to Matt Lee had been added to another page so I quickly went to the article to tag it for CSD however I saw that a speedied had already been posted, and denied. I also saw that Matt Lee(musician deluxe) had been posted and then redirected to Matt Lee. In looking over the history, that at the time as still somewhat in place, I saw that Joeyboyee had (re)created the article on December 25. In checking the userfied version I could not see where, per the comments at DRV - September 28 by lifebaka++ in reply to Joeyboyee, there had been any request or new DRV to create a new article. But I tried to assume good faith, as a CSD had already been denied, that "permission" to (re)create the new article in mainspace had been obtained. Thusly I focused more on the redirects of Matt lee(musician) to The Divine Horsemen and Matt Lee(musician deluxe) to Matt Lee and I posted a redirect question on the matter. From that post things kicked into "high gear" as it were. The re-directs were deleted, the re-created article was speedied, a few of the other deleted articles "spaces" were protected and an ANI thread was started. As I was posting a response in that thread about possible new sockpuppet issues a new user named Bill Blake990 created an account and (re)created Matt Lee(guitar player). I quickly tagged that with a speedy because it was, now, a recreation of the deleted Matt Lee(musician deluxe) / Matt Lee articles. However the {{hangon}} tag was quickly placed and and I replied to the "new" user that what lifebaka++ had said in reply to Joeyboyee at the September 28 DRV had not been followed and Joeyboyee had simply created a new article on December 25. That resulted in several things - first this new DRV was created followed by my "cleaning" of the headers to reflect a more complete picture, including information on the userfied version. This was followed by a request to userfy and my request/comment that the article was already userfied and "no need to userfy again". However at the same time I was making that post a newly userfied article was created anyway at User:Bill Blake990/Matt Lee(guitar player), thusly creating another version of the article. So by that time, really, I was trying to do research on the old and new, possible, sockpuppet issues as well as asking for all Matt Lee related mainspace names (that were not already locked) to be locked (Which was denied (dif)) and creating/posting info boxes on AFD's, DRV's and userfication on both of the userfied articles talk pages. I only notified lifebaka++ as the DRV was created based on the comments s/he made and to GtstrickyTalk or C as they made the original AFD nom from what I could tell. I wanted to notify other involved editors but by 2 am I was already getting glassy eyed and by 4 am I was pretty much out of it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lee new DRV

(I have been notifying participating admins - I know you already know but here is your courtesy notice) This is a courtesy notice as you were involved in AFD, DRV or CSD's regarding various Matt Lee articles you may want to comment on the new DRV. Also, if you haven't already, you may also want to check out Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirect question and "Need history check for Matt Lee" ANI thread. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)