Jump to content

User talk:Stifle/Archive 0311

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 09:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

ECCA AfD, and accusations of socking/canvasing

The discussions linked to here in no way support a conclusion of sockpuppetry or canvasing, and I'm not sure why you thought that would be a possibility. The post I made on Wehwalt's talkpage was in relation to a prior incident that involved both of us and the identity of ECCA's author. The post I made on the author's talk page was self-evidently kosher, as I was merely informing her of the AfD. I'm not sure why you suggested merging or relisting due to socking, as neither action was appropriate given the facts of the case. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I should have written "canvassing" rather than "socking". Requesting users to come to a vote/discussion with the expectation they will vote your way isn't appropriate; see the "audience" criterion of WP:CANVAS. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'll make the same point here that I did on my talk page: I never requested any user come to the AfD. I informed the author of the article that the AfD was taking place, after confirming her identity with an editor we've both worked with. That is all. Perhaps you'd like to read the provided links more closely before making such allegations. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil

Stifle, you left unanswered replies in Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil's FAC nomination. The image you complained that lacked sources is not being used in the article, but another version of it which has source. Please respond there. --Lecen (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Malati_Dasi_with_Bhaktivedanta_Swami_in_Vrindavan_1975.jpg needing permission

Hi Stifle. May I ask you to please confirm the image's OTRS permission on Commons? An email containing the owner's permission was forwarded on March 1. I apologize for this queue jumping request, which I wouldn't have made if it were not for the image being used to illustrate a DYK nomination poised for its Main Page chance. Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll need either a ticket number, some part of the email address it was sent from, or the email subject to have any chance of finding the ticket. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer.
  • subject: Fwd: Permission to use your pic on Wikipedia
  • sent on: March 1, 2011 5:52:23 PM GMT+05:30
I hope this helps. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Your ticket number is 2011030110008973; I cannot currently process the ticket because I am at work and Commons is blocked there for some reason. If you post that ticket number at Commons:COM:ON someone will probably clear it for you. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Stifle. Much obliged. Cinosaur (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Left a clearance request hoping it will get processed faster than such requests there usually do. :) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just got it cleared. Wow. That was fast! Thank you very much again. Cinosaur (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for undeletion

how do i take the stuff from the page college girls (are easy) out so i can add it to jesse itzlers page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nophonenophone (talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've transferred it to User:Nophonenophone/College Girls (Are Easy); please tag it with {{db-userreq}} when you are done. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

thank you for the tip about ~ singing, i actually did not know about that and find it quite helpful. Nophonenophone (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Metal Temple

Stifle, I am the webmaster and editor of Metal Temple magazine. It's an online magazine that's been around for more than 10 years and I just want to add a wikipedia entry but the previous one was deleted even though I tried to make it as neutral and informational as possible. I want to recreate it so I just wanted to know if that's ok.

--Palanthas (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Stifle, thank you for deciding on the deletion request on 2011 Chinese protests. On the AfD page there, I have suggested that one could create a redirection link 2011 protests in China to this article in case it will be kept. There are already the redirections 2011 protests in Bahrain, 2011 protests in Egypt, 2011 protests in Tunisia not unrelated to the article in question. A user looking for the Chinese protests might start typing "2011 protests" and then see the autofill options "Bahrain, China, Egypt, Tunisia" if there will be a redirection. Thank you very much for consideration, Best Zhangjiandong (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what you're asking me to do, but there is no reason not to create such redirects, and you do not need permission to create them. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

File:Xp mode.JPG

This Commons file seems a copyvio to me. However, somehow, I am unable to connect to Wikimedia Commons domain. Whatever the problem, I can't go to Commons, let alone nominate it for speedy-deletion. Will you please nominate it? Thanks in advance. Fleet Command (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll go one better and delete it. I'm a Commons sysop :) Stifle (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Fleet Command (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A penny for your thought...

Hello again, Stifle. Sorry to bother you again. Just wanted to know whether you can make anything out of this. I send User:Jasper Deng a message and he sends back this message to me. Before I do anything short of assuming good faith, what do you think of this reply? Am I missing something? Fleet Command (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's perhaps not friendly, but I don't think anything useful will come of arguing further with him. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
My message is not friendly? How? Fleet Command (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
His isn't. If you are going to take it further then you need to think about what you want to accomplish. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Aha! His message! No, I just disregard him. I don't want to pick a fight. I was just worrying that I did something wrong, which you say I didn't. Thanks and cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Juliet The Huntress

You tagged Juliet The Huntress as a hoax. However, when I look at http://www.pwpix.net/superstars/i/ivelissevelez/, it isn't obvious that it is a hoax. To be sure, the article has many problems, but I'm uncomfortable deleting it as G3.--SPhilbrickT 19:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

  • If it's not a hoax, it's probably an nn-bio. RHaworth was happy to delete it; I have no objection if you and he want to agree to undelete it. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Not a big deal, I will drop Rhaworth a note.--SPhilbrickT 13:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Just an FYI, last !vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bajalta California was a sock. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


Bug report

Dear Stifle, I do realise that this is not the place to report a bug, but the requirement of creating a separate account with Bugzilla, just to report a Wikipedia bug, seems to me very unattractive (I am already in the danger of getting totally confused with my almost countless separate account names and passwords).

The bug at issue concerns the search box; since a number of days, or perhaps a couple of weeks, typing into the search box does no automatically remove the dimly-printed word "Search", whereby the word to be searched gets attached to the word "Search". My experience is that removing the word "Search" by hand and subsequently typing the word to be searched, often gets one to an empty page; one needs here to type the word to be searched once more, and the search engine proceeds as it is supposed to proceed (and as it used to proceed until recently). It seems therefore that recently they have introduced some bug, or bugs, into the software of the search engine.

I take this opportunity and make mention of another shortcoming that one might consider a bug; I have reported this bug more than a year ago, to no avail. The problem is that one no longer can check the URLs in one's texts during the preview stage; to check these URLs, one needs first to save the file one is editing (on clicking on a link during the preview stage, one is presented with a pop-up warning message, stating things that I have never had the patience to read in full --- warning messages must be concise and not comprising verbiage). In practice, this shortcoming, which I am inclined to call a bug, leads to unnecessarily lengthy "history" of Wikipedia entries; this is because one often finds faults with the links that one has used after having saved one's text. This shortcoming was introduced into Wiki editing software after some upgrading of it over a year ago; prior to this, one could check the URLs at the preview stage.

I should be most grateful if you would kindly bring the above problems to the attention of the people concerned. With kind regards, --BF 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I haven't been able to recreate the bug, but I'll post on WP:VPT and hopefully someone there will be. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
    • They seem to have corrected it, not long after writing the above message! Could it be that some of the people checking the pages (for irregularities, violation of Wikipedia principles, etc.) may have taken the initiative and reported the problem, before you having seen my message? But any way, many thanks for the trouble. --BF 14:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
      • That is likely. I am aware that the technical people are trying to deploy some new software to the site, and from time to time it makes a bit of a mess of what's already there. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Tia Keyes

Dear Mr Stifle,

I have read your FAQs and it still seemed appropriate to ask directly here. Would it be possible for me to do (redo) an article on Tia Keyes article and have it put in the mainspace? I am recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page and it suggested I first contact the deleting administrator.

The article is now here:

I feel it now more adequatley meets our criteria than when it was deleted. The previous discussions are here

  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tia_Keyes The result was No Consensus defaulting to Keep, DGG's research has persuaded some that he meets the relevant guideline but others remain unconvinced that he does. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
and

In the debate that led to your deletion it was inidcated by some that the article was too early "heading for notability but is not quite there yet". Prof Keyes has since published many more articles and has now been cited 1000 times.

The criteria for inclusion I have in mind is Wp:prof and quote Web of science stats in support of notability.

As additional evidence of notability

  • Her and her team's work has also been highlighted in the RSCs' Highlights of Chemical Biology, in ChemNet and by the publication of her work in their journal Chemical Communications: a journal published by the RSC which includes descriptions of new work deemed to require "rapid publication" of "significant work".
  • She has also jointly authored a book (with tow of her colleagues from DCU: Johannes G. Vos, Robert J. Forster) Interfacial Supramolecular Assemblies : Electrochemical and Photophysical Properties, Wiley, 2003. which has been subject to a book review in the J. Am. Chem. Soc.

If you are still unhappy with this article could we have it in the mainspace and then another Afd or would you have any other suggestions. (Should I just make a new page?) Thanks in advance and best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC))

The page has not been locked so you are welcome to move it to mainspace. If another editor thinks it should be redeleted, then you will receive a notification and be able to make your case. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks (Msrasnw (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Wikimedia Secure Server

Hello, Stifle. Looks like I am locked out of Wikimedia Commons for the time being. Please verify for me: Is Wikimedia Secure (https://secure.wikimedia.org) up and running? Do you have any difficulty accessing it? I am receiving Request Timed Out error message down here. Fleet Command (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. But please, when you have a query that anyone could answer, post it on a noticeboard. This one should go to WP:VPT. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Miners post-rescue of 2010 Copiapó mining accident

Hello,

You marked this page for deletion per WP:PROD recently. The page was created as a daughter article to support a transition of the main article (2010 Copiapó mining accident) to WP:SS since the main article has been tagged once again as WP:TOOLONG. This was one of four new daughter articles I proposed we create to facilitate the transition to summary style. There is a discussion on the main article's talk page about the transition. I disagreed in good faith as noted in the edit summary when I removed the tag from Miners post-rescue of 2010 Copiapó mining accident but have since thought more about what we were trying to accomplish overall.

I agree with you that as a standalone article, the daughter article in question is severely lacking in its style and structure whereas it was tolerable as a section within a larger article.

After further consideration, it appears that to alleviate concerns the proposed daughter article would need a major rewrite from it's current form. I don't have the time to attempt that these days and it does not appear that there is much interest by other editors to do so either. The existence of the daughter article does not save all that much space from the main article so I am considering requesting CSD:G7 ( {{db-author}}), for Miners post-rescue of 2010 Copiapó mining accident as the daughter article's author and the primary editor of its main article. After the daughter article is deleted the attempt to summarize that section of the article and economize on space would be suspended.

My question is, if I request CSD:G7 for this subordinate article, how hard would it be for me or another editor to recreate it if the situation changed and there was will to write it properly in the future. Looking forward to your suggestions. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be very straightforward; you would just post at WP:REFUND and request it. Or if they refuse, ask me or another sysop. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ownership of Map at Whadjuk1.jpg

The map was drawn by me, using a template base map and power point and was an ajustment from two sources. The sesquicentenial "Atlas of Human Endeavour" produced for the 150th Anniversary of the founding of Western Australia, and the second was Ian Tindales maps of Australian Aboriiginal Territories produced in the 1930s and kept by the University of Adelaide. I would be interested if there was someone else claiming ownsership of the map, as I know of no other map showing Whadjuk territory with a separae colouring, within the Noongar people, or showing the circumcision line in this way.John D. Croft (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Livingincm The user has been given plenty of warning. Please get rid of his fake Amazing Race. 174.1.48.24 (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Charlotte Coleman

Hi, re this edit - which specific claim do you want a quotation for? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That she began to use crack. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Okeydokey, that's verifiable - it's in both articles. Will add quote to citation. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Kiyoshi Shiina article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kiyoshi_Shiina Can you please move it to my userspace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/shiina so that I may edit and add and then do a deletion review. thanks CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's done. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

thank you :) CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Tochukwu Ipere

That was a very sensible form of decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tochukwu Ipere, and one I might well borrow in future. This is just to inform you that the author requested undeletion, so I have restored it and made a note on the talk page that it was "Restored as though contested PROD". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion of "Architects' s Alliance of Ireland" was inappropriate and not properly justified

Hi Stiffe,

I do not know your real name but you have my real name written below. I have created the article “Architects’ Alliance of Ireland” that you have deleted without warning and without starting any dialogue.

I am trying not to be offended, but I feel that your deletion of the article was inappropriate and not properly justified. I hope to be able solving the issues with you. If this is not possible I will start a deletion review.

First I want to say that Architects’ Alliance of Ireland was created in reaction to an injustice which seen many self-taught architects in trouble within the Republic of Ireland. The Architects’ Alliance of Ireland views are not shared by most registered architects. There is conflict between the Alliance and the RIAI. This conflict is reflected on Wikipedia as it is core with the subject. The same issue is true in any article with a disputed subject. I can give the following example which I am aware of:

Church of Scientology - Iraq war - Jacque Fresco to quote only 3 of them.

Your deletion of the article was justified as follow: A7 (No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): Also WP:COATRACK, WP:CSD#G10, and what-not):

With reference to A7, the subject significance is well detailed in the article. Many press articles about the association were provided as well as links to political debates on the subject. Can you please explain why this is not significant?

With Reference to WP:COATRACK, the subject is well centered to the association and its actions. There is nothing else behind it. If you pretend that the article was created for another purpose than to inform on Architects’ Alliance and its actions, please give details. You are the first and only person to make such a claim.

With reference to WP:CSD#G10, the article never threaten anyone. Architects’ Alliance has a critical approach on the registration procedure in Ireland, it is critical of the RIAI, it denunciates wrong doing and injustice, but it does not threaten. Legal procedure were started but the article only state that they were started it does not threaten to start a procedure. If you have found material that threatens anyone please give detail.

Stiffe there are surely some improvement to be made within this article, but I think that your deletion was inappropriate because your reasons for deletions are not founded. I have also noted that you deleted the “critics” section of the RIAI article without any valuable reason. I perceive your act as censorship and I suspect that your opinion on the subject is partial.

I will be starting a deletion review in the next 24 hours.

Regards

--Christophe Krief (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to open a deletion review. I am happy with my deletion decision and will stand behind it. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stiffe I will start a deletion review. I was hoping that you would have been more willing to explain your acts. Can you explain at least why you have removed the "critics" section from the RIAI article? Isn't it wicki rules to have balanced opinions expressed in an article? The RIAI article is drafted as if there was no issue with the registration procedures when in fact there is urrently contacts with the European Commission and the Irish Government on this issue. There was last year a Dail meeting on this subject. Are you realy aware of what is going on in this field? --Christophe Krief (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see all of this is coming from a small group with an agenda, with a side order of sour-grapes that they aren't recognized by the powers-that-be. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Architects' Alliance of Ireland is a legal association. It includes over one hundred and something members. I used to be a member of the association but resigned when I found myself taking other routes.

However, the association has now a reputation within the architectural world in Ireland. It represents and speaks for many non-registered practitioners as well as its memebers. Through their website you can access videos of a political debate that their action has helped to induce in the Dail. Many important political figures were present, including newly nominated ministers such as Hogan and Quinn.

The association was the subjects of many articles, including some in the Law Society of Ireland gazette. Maybe you should read these articles before challenging the article on its significance.

You seem to be taking the subject lightly. I was hoping that administrators on wikipedia would be more attentive when deleting an article. Why didn't you propose the article for deltion and start a discussion? Why have you deleted it without asking for more information. You must admit that your way of action is very suspicious. --Christophe Krief (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm Irish and am well aware of the situation. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your Irish citzenship does not prove anything. Have you heard of AAoI before. I guess not... Because you are not involved in the field of architecture. AAoI is composed of a large majority of Irish people. It is not related to Irish conflicts between the Norht and the Republic.

Do you know that in the UK, France, US, Belgium, Italy, and so on, when the registration of architects was first implemented there was a grand-father clause included in the Act. This has not happened in Ireland for reasons that are unclear? You are not aware of this and many other things...

Have you made some reasearches before deleting the article. If you had you would have realised your mistake.--Christophe Krief (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: European Working Group on Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding

Hello Stifle, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of European Working Group on Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 02:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Androids

Hi

Thanks for userfying User:Chaosdruid/List_of_Androids rather than deleting, but I am a little confused over why it would have been considered a candidate for deletion?

Can you explain a little more under what criteria it would have been considered and why it could not have been left as a work in progress.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  • The article does not currently contain any sources, and is just a few pictures and names. Work in progress that has not yet reached the level of a mainspace article should be kept in userspace until it's ready. Stifle (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a list of Androids and their articles. There are no sources as, as far as I can see from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists), there do not need to be any as this is a list more akin to an index of articles. The articles themselves are very well sourced and verified.
Can you please suggest exactly what sources you think need to be included? Chaosdruid (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're making a table, then all the columns in the table ought to be populated before the article is considered live. Stifle (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, thx for that - I will endeavour to make it as complete as possible before putting it back :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

MobileCDN

Hi Stifle

I noticed that you had rejected a speedy deletion for the article about Mobilecdn. This article was authored, and indeed it would seem every update to it has been made, by the CEO of the company concerned. (see https://nodpi.org/forum/index.php/topic,3643.msg35429.html#msg35429, and https://nodpi.org/2011/03/22/phorm-interactive-fraud-and-dan-truax/). Please would you reconsider deletion of the MobileCDN article, or advise how best to proceed given the obvious impact of COI? Should I undo his edits? (... which would probably leave a blank article). Many thanks. Felixcatuk (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This was over two years ago; a speedy deletion would not hold up. You should nominate the article for deletion or generously edit it down. Stifle (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

OTRS help

Hi Stifle. Since you have access to OTRS, would you look at the query on my talk page at User talk:Cunard#Hi and thanks for your help! and undelete the images uploaded by Cgomez007 (talk · contribs) if adequate permission has been granted? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The permissions-commons queue is currently around 12 days; if Cgomez007 has not had a reply within around that time he should leave a message at Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. It wouldn't be fair to allow him to skip the queue. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for shedding light on the backlog at permissions-commons queue. All users should be treated equally so I agree with not letting him skip the queue. Cunard (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem. The current backlog can be checked at Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard, in case you need it in the future. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I'll keep that link in mind. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algeria–Kosovo relations

I think this is the first time I've ever been edit conflicted while trying to closing an AFD. My result was the same, of course. Re: merging, it looked just like a quotefarm so I didn't see a point to that either. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I know the notability bar for bilateral relations article has been set insanely low, but this was never going to reach it. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

WP:PROD for Numediart

Hi! This is the second prod. Shouldn't it be sent to WP:AfD instead? Thanks!--Shirt58 (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle/Archive_0311&oldid=1144608276"