User talk:Stifle/Archive 0706a

CAN I GET AN OPINION/RULING ON THIS?

Ebenezer (1997 TV) I have deleted your article at Ebenezer (1997 TV) because it's a copy of http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00008G8CT/102-9910219-5257721?v=glance&n=404272. Please don't copy and paste material from other locations. If you want to rewrite it in your own words, please do so. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether you are the person who wrote the amazon review is of no consequence, since the amazon information is copyrighted to amazon and we cannot use it. Even if you were the person who wrote it, you did not say so anywhere and release the information under the GFDL, therefore we cannot use it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trezjr"

Ebenezer

If you bother to look, you'd see I WROTE the amazon.com piece--and it wasn't an exact copy that was posted here.

If you don't want contributions say so.

You could have spoken to me before you go deleting.

trezjr 21:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you contacted me first, I could have removed the Amazon piece--and it wasn't a rip-off.

If you checked the time stamps, you would have seen the article was written BEFORE the Amazon piece was posted.

trezjr 21:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trezjr"

I do not make rulings on other admins. All admins are equal. To request opinions from the Wikipedia community on an admin's conduct, please use Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS, so much!!!

trezjr 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a URL you can give me for this??? I am just looping around in circles trying to find the right page to talk.

Thanks.

trezjr 22:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave it to you, it is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article on Montecasino

Thank you for the support for speedy deleting this article. Now, are you thinking about deleting the Montecasino images? --Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 21:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged them as no source or license, and assuming that they remain so tagged for five days they will be deleted also. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RfA!

Thanks for voting!
Hello Stifle/Archive 0706a, and thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I'm pleased to announce that it passed with a final tally of (96/0/0). I was overwhelmed by all of the nice comments and votes of confidence from everyone. Thanks again, and see you around! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it

Hi. In MONGO's RfC you wrote, "Pokipsy76 almost certainly deserved to be blocked" and several other people have expressed similar sentiments... but I can't see any basis for it. Can you explain why you think Pokipsy76 should have been blocked for [1] & [2]? To me they don't seem to be excessive POV (indeed, "Some disagree" is more neutral POV than "Some conspiracy theorists disagree"), two reverts is not significant edit warring, and the other complaints MONGO brought in after the fact were all similarly minor content disagreements from 3+ weeks earlier on entirely different issues. So far as I can see there was no justification whatsoever for that block even if MONGO hadn't been the one to make it. Yet there seems to be near universal agreement to the contrary, so I'm hoping someone can explain it to me. What exactly did Pokipsy76 do that was blockworthy? The reason stated at the time, that he reverted an admin, really doesn't work for me. --CBD 12:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the overall complaint, not just the one or two edits that led to the block. His edits appear to me to be disruptive, on an overall basis. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my view that's setting an unworkably low bar for 'disruption', but at least it's an answer. Thanks. --CBD 12:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide some examples these edits that you consider to be disruptive? I just need to understand.--Pokipsy76 13:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are more than enough examples on the RFC page. Inserting poorly-sourced material, giving undue weight to minority points of view, and edit warring can constitute disruption. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you reply but I must do some objections:

1) I have almost never "inserted material" of any kind (assuming that this is enought for a block), the fact that you say this make me think that you have not read carefully the RfC and the talk page.

2) I hope having different opinion about the "due weight" of the subjects is not between the possible reasons for a block.

3) In what you call "edit war" I did nothing different from what MONGO, tom harrison and other editors did. Are you suggesting that they deserved a block too? It seems to me that here many people have a double standard.

--Pokipsy76 13:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Please see Wikipedia:Blocking policy for full information on what actions may lead to an editor being blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you feel that other editors should be blocked for disruption, please report it on the administrators' noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions but I already have read the policy, my only aim here was to undesrtand the way it was being interpreted and I am a bit disapponted to see this reticence.--Pokipsy76 14:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NFPF

Sorry, I have been trying to delete the site all day as i did not mean to have it published but do not know how. If I can figure it out I will. I will welcome any suggestion you have. Thanks. Vanessa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vanessabu (talk • contribs) 15:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

To request that a page you created be deleted, if nobody else has edited it you can add the text {{db-author}}. If someone else has edited it, you must follow the Wikipedia:Deletion process. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Slave Nation

sorry i guess I am still new to wikipedia. I just thought that the article was not important.

sorry

 Disputed

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DiSpUtEd OnE (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 July 2006.

No need to be sorry. It's just that there are several different ways to get articles deleted from Wikipedia. Speedy deletion is only used for uncontroversial and agreed reasons. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion process. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thank you

Thank you!

Thank you, Stifle, for your support in my RfA. I appreciate your trust and support, and I will do my best to further help this great encyclopædia and community of ours. If there is anything that you feel I can do to help, please let me know. -- Avi 01:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need help..

Dear Stifle, well, since you are a Wikipedian administrator, I thought i'd ask you some stuff i'm not really sure about.

Is there something wrong with this image I uploaded? It was on the page of actress Shriya Saran. I'm not really sure you see but User Yamla has constant problems with the fair-use rationale's that I've provided. Could you please just um, look at the information i've provided at the picture's page and correct me if I'm wrong?

Sorry if i'm troubling you, as you can see, I'm new to wikipedia. So i'm not really sure about everything I do here. I'd really appreciated it if you helped me with this. Thank You. 218.111.16.215 07:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC) (probably from User:Xena4441 having forgotten to log in.[reply]

Yamla is correct. Fair use is very strict. You can use a screenshot from a film in the article about the film, but NOT in the article about some actor from the film. Please read WP:FU for more information. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you for your vote in my RFA, which succeeded with a final tally of 66-0-4. If there's anything I can help you with now that I'm an admin, please let me know on my talk page. Again, thanks! Mango juice^talk 21:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hello, Stifle.

I have been having issues with User:Nokilli's deletion of warnings from his talk page. This user seems to have a very specific anti-circumcision bias, which compels him to constantly remove sourced information, written in a neutral tone, with borderline child pornagraphy styled prose. I will be spending some time over the next few days putting together the diffs in case needs escalation, but, as a neutral administrator, I am requesting if you could please take a look at his editing of his talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANokilli&diff=62074097&oldid=62061788
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANokilli&diff=62131619&oldid=62116114 (including comment)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANokilli&diff=62143116&oldid=62138391 (including obvious personal attack in last line)

And let me know what can be done. I am loathe to take further action, as I want to prevent any appearances of personal bias. This user has violated WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:POV, and WP:3RR on numerous occasions. Thank you -- Avi 12:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have left him a further severe warning on his talk page. I recommend using WP:ANI to report these issues in general as you may get a quicker response. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As a basically brand-new admin, I want to make sure that I am following protocol to the extreme, as not to give false impressions. I appreciate your time and advice. Thanks! -- Avi 14:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of war crimes allegations

re: Speedy deletion, thanks for the advice. I could have deleted it myself but I thought it better to let an admin who has experiance in this area look at it, rather than cause any disharmony over the use of admin powers. I have now added my opinion to the AfD entry you created. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My northway article is not nonsence

Dear stifle this is a polite notice but the article I have submited to wikipedia is not nonsence because the micronation REALLY exists. PLEASE!!! have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronations and you will see that this article is not at all nonsence but instead very serious. Here is the discription of a micronatio: "Micronations – sometimes also referred to as cybernations, fantasy countries, model countries, and new country projects – are entities that resemble independent nations or states, but which are unrecognized by them, and for the most part exist only on paper, on the Internet, or in the minds of their creators.

Micronations also differ from secession and self-determination movements in that they are largely viewed as being eccentric and ephemeral in nature, and are often created and maintained by a single person or family group.

Some micronations have managed to extend some of their operations into the physical world by issuing coins, flags, postage stamps, passports, medals and other items. Such trappings of "real" sovereign states are created as a way of seeking to legitimize the micronations that produce them."

you quoted:

"Nonsense Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to KDM of Northway. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)"

I hope you will now understand what my article is about. Yours sincerely Kentykentkenton

Hi there. I know fully well what a micronation is and I am personally completely opposed to having articles on them in Wikipedia, as they are eccetric and ephemeral in nature, and often created and maintained by a single person.

However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand. The material I deleted was the text "The KDM of Northway is a micronation based in Great Britain. Its monarch is King Andrew. It is a wild, wooded country with little natural resources. It is a absolute monarchy and has no Government.hdendedwn", repeated around 30 times. This material qualifies for speedy deletion according to criterion #1.

If you would like to add the article KDM of Northway back, you are welcome to, but you must include reliable sources so that the article is verifiable. Alternatively, consider writing about KDM of Northway on your own website, because Wikipedia is not a free host. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear stifle

I now know why you didn't like my article. So now I don't mind that it has been deleted. However I 'am very good at history and geography so I can write articles on them instead. I hope you agree.

yours thankfully kentykentkenton

Re: Tagging orphaned fair use images

Is it really necessary to inform the uploader? The tag says "may" so I thought it wasn't needed and many of the uploaders haven't edited in quite a while anyway. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is a good idea and saves a lot of heartache. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I'm using AWB for the bot I currently don't really see any way to get that done automatically, and since I'm only tagging older images that generally haven't been used in a while — most of them have been replaced with better or free images — I think it should be okay this way... --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: this image

Hi Stifle, I was wondering about the removal of this image you made today. I was under the impression that you had deleted it for some reason, possibly copyvio. However on further investigation, I found that the image is still with us. Could you fill me in please? Thanks. Ste4k 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the image originally as it was tagged as a {{web-screenshot}}, which it clearly wasn't. Now it is correctly tagged as a film still, although it may be deleted again as it does not fall under fair use. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Speedy deletion

Hi Stifle. "non-notable webgroup" sounds like criterion A7 to me. It also qualifies under A1, and when the tag was added, arguably A3. Could you delete aFreeWorld please? JPD (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an article about a website. Articles about websites are specifically not included in A7. There is context, so not A1 either. I recommend {{subst:prod}}. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've AFD'd it, because of the ramblings on the talk page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFreeWorld The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original content described a non-notable group (A1), lacked context (A1) and any serious content (A3). Clearly, it has changed since then, so it can no longer be speedied. JPD (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report

Hi, Stifle. Regarding your comment on my 3rr report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:AdilBaguirov_reported_by_User:TigranTheGreat_.28Result:_Protected.29), you said #1 and #4 were not reverts. #1 ([3]) reverts to this: [4]. #4 ([5]) reverts to this: [6]. The paragraph being reverted to is the one that says Nagorno-Karabakh is de jure a region of Azerbaijan. Regardless of protection, the 3rr rule is still violated by user Adil.--TigranTheGreat 21:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your admin actions

Hi, do you think I deserve your apology for accusing me of incivility and of disrupting the Wikipedia [7] ? If you do I'd appreciate it, otherwise I'd like to know what in my behaviour was uncivil. Thanks. --Lysy^talk 21:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't always agree today with what I did yesterday. In this case, I withdraw that you were incivil and disruptive, but I do maintain that you were revert warring, as was Donnog. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Just for the record: I was not aware of [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Quick_jumping_to_blocks this thread] when I asked your apology yesterday. I think it's all settled now and I keep no hard feelings about the incident, which I consider to be a minor one. I stand that I was revert-warring and that I did not deserve the block and I believe we agree on both points here. --Lysy^talk 22:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hi Stifle, I was hoping you can place the article, the Armenian Genocide to be protected because of a recent war reverting. Several users have committed the 3RR rule 2 times over a very minor issue and I was hoping you can assess the situation and carry out whatever needs to be done as you see fit. Thank you.--MarshallBagramyan 21:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into this. In future, however, you should place such requests on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, as if the admin, like me, that you contact is away, it means the request goes longer without being fulfilled. Stifle (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"ADVERTIZING"

Is that the British spelling or something? Λυδ α cιτγ 03:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's what the OED specifies as the standard spelling, and the most commonly used in the USA. For the record, I'm not British. Stifle (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? That's definitely a mistake in the OED, since "advertizing" gets only 3.7 million Google hits, compared with 1.87 billion for "advertising". Λυδ α cιτγ 03:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure. No, it is not a mistake. It is simply what has become common usage. Words like "presently" (in meaning) and "minuscule" (in spelling) have also been corrupted from their OED spelling. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I meant that it seems the OED was mistaken in saying that "advertizing" is the most commonly used variant in America. Is this a recent edition of the OED? Λυδ α cιτγ 05:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolgirl Pin

Hi there: OK, point taken. But I note that a proposal for deletion message is still affixed to the article, and as it's a rubbish article that's fine by me. Apologies for not choosing correct procedural format.--Anthony.bradbury 23:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apolgize, I'm happy that you've learned something today :) Stifle (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I commit an inaccuracy I always apologise. Some time in the next few months I hope to be nominated for admin, and then I want everyone to know that I can recognise and learn from my mistakes. Though hopefully I shall stop making them.--Anthony.bradbury 23:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On an article such as this, if I feel that deletion is appropriate, should I then hang on to it a {{dated prod}} flag?--Anthony.bradbury 00:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, use {{subst:prod|reason}}. Stifle (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_cinema#Naming_conventions

The move of Dhanush ([8]) is very unnecessary, and IMO, much worse than Joseph Vijay because practically nobody knows him by this name. I have also added a comment in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_cinema#Naming_conventions because I am not very active at the moment and may not be around to reply quickly. Tintin (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only abiding by the Wikipedia policy at WP:NC. If you think the policy is wrong, then feel free to campaign to get it changed or, indeed, propose an amendment to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indian actors). Stifle (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Ruling

Hi, it may be extremely stupid of me to do this, but I think the ruling for or against me in my supposed 3RR Violation should be fair, as to not cause any controversy later.

UCRGrad filed a 3RR Violation against me here [9], which was dismissed by you on the grounds that my first revert was the same edit as the previous version reverted to. However, I believe that UCRGrad mistakenly linked the same thing twice, and actually meant to link this [10] as the previous version reveted to. This would make the first revert against me valid.

However, my comments on the 3RR Violation page still stand. I still believe that my second revert wasn't actually a revert, as I changed the material in the article from "...as a special report revealed that in 2000, the entire University of California failed in its duty to compile detailed crime statistics..." to "...as a special report revealed that in 2000, UCR, as well as the rest of the University of California, failed in its duty to compile detailed crime statistics..." in order to try to reach a compromise with UCRGrad. Just for reference, his preferred version is "...as a special report revealed that in 2000, UCR failed in its duty to compile detailed crime statistics...".

If my second edit does indeed reflect a revert, then feel free to change your ruling on the case and impose a ban on me on the UCRiverside article. I am, however, hoping that my honesty in the matter does count for something. --WHS 10:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the 3RR is not for punishment, so I don't really see much use in blocking you. I'll leave it at a warning. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to oversee this matter. --WHS 10:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Ambassadors

Please undelete Lion Ambassadors; it had the {{hangon}} tag and had an open AFD. Thanks. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insult me by protecting the article. I'm an admin too, and suggesting that I'm acting in bad faith is extremely frustrating. All I want is a simple explanation of what is notable when it comes to clubs. Instead, every time I try to open any sort of discussion on the topic I get "delete, delete, delete". What does one have to do to get any sort of hearing around here? --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you feel insulted. However:

The {{hangon}} tag specifically says "Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if it is considered that the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon."
Being on AFD does not render an article immune to speedy deletion if it qualifies. See any day's AFD archive.
The article Lion Ambassadors, when I deleted it, did not contain any information whatsoever on how the club is notable. Even a claim of notability would have made the article immune from being speedily deleted.
From the list of pages protected against recreation, "In cases where pages of inappropriate or unencyclopedic content are continuously re-created after several deletions, it becomes prudent to protect these pages in a deleted form." Please note that there is nothing about acting in bad faith. I have not and do not allege any such conduct.

If the reaction you get whenever you open a discussion is "delete, delete, delete", then it is very likely that the content you wish to include is, in fact, not deserving of an encyclopedia article. The best place to try to establish a guideline on notability of clubs is by creating a discussion at Wikipedia:Notability (clubs) or a similar page, and linking it at Template:Notabilityguide and/or Template:Cent so that it appears for discussion.

I hope that this helps, and once again I am sorry that you feel insulted. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I know that hangon/AFD aren't "protection" against anything; I've been here almost two years and have speedied plenty of things. I was just hoping that someone would take the time to hold off on the deletion trigger and give me some sort of reasoning. I have no problem with the article being deleted (I wasn't author of the original article), but no one was kind enough to point out to me relevant WP policy (WP:ORG) until after my two complaints above. Instead, all I got were useless comments like "I think I've seen it all" and "{{db-club}}". The PSU wikiproject has been testing the waters of notability and we haven't had any problems so far, so I was a bit surprised that we somehow jumped from not even any AFDs straight to speedy deletion, without any explanation. As for protection, protecting something implies that it needs to be protected from someone (vandal, POV warrior, etc.), and it's insulting to me to be grouped with the category of people who maliciously disrupt wikipedia. But I don't spend much time on WP:AFD, and I don't think we've interacted before, so you wouldn't have any reason to know anything about me. Sorry about that. Now that it's apparent that there is existing policy on this issue and broad consensus, I agree that protection should stand, because the article stands a good chance of being recreated by others in the future. Sorry for the bother, and keep up the good work. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 13:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BreakfastTitles.jpg

Hi. With the image above, I had listed that as a speedy deletion candidate, since I had uploaded a replacement for it: IMage:BBC Breakfast.png. Therefore the image you have notified me about can be deleted as such. Thanks for letting me know though. :) Wikiwoohoo 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The problem is that this does not work because to qualify for speedy deletion, the replacement image must be in the same format. However, since the image is orphaned fair use, it will be deleted in five days. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Thank you for letting me know about the image. Wikiwoohoo 20:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the licence of Image:PAgovernorates.gif

Ozark_Games

Hi. I noticed earlier that you took the speedy deletion tag (added by another user) off Ozark_Games. Since the article is clearly a vanity page created by the owners of a "company" with no products and little more than a non-functioning website, I put a prod tag on it.

The original creator of the page removed my prod tag, but also removed the entire content of the article. The deletion guidelines are a bit unclear on a situation like this; I wouldn't call this action a dispute of the proposed deletion, but I'm not sure if the best course would be to renominate for speedy deletion, re-add the prod tag, or put it up for AfD. Geoffrey Spear 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct action is to renominate for speedy deletion using {{db-blanked}}. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie's Revenge

Have you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maggie's Revenge? I didn't see an official "This is closed" boxing and all at the page. Also, are redirects your advice for most of the songs at List of Phish songs? Do you think I should nominate List of Phish songs for deletion as well? Thanks! -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't close the discussion, as I don't know if I should cut it off early despite that I redirected the page. I would also recommend merging the other songs into List of Phish songs, but probably not deleting that page. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SLOTH Coincidence

You may wish to check out Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be lazy for some background info on the page creator's interactions with AfD, which I was involved with. Oddly enough, I came across this entirely by coincidence, as I was wondering what populated the Miscellany for deletion category and this was right up there. Small wiki, I suppose. — Mike (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small wiki indeed. I suppose I'm confused as to why Mike feels the need to inform the nominator of the debate about the debate. What's goin' on lads? -MrFizyx 20:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thematrixeatsyou/HighFive (programming)

I placed a speedy-delete tag on this page (in another user's userspace) because I was responsible for its undeletion in the first place; it was on Content Review (from WP:DRV), and undeleted into its main contributor's userspace on my request. The content has now been saved elsewhere (both by me and by a user with the same username on another wiki), so I placed a speedy-delete tag on it. I just thought I'd explain the situation because speedying another user's subpage is quite unusual. --ais523 11:02, 11 July 2006 (U T C)

A Game of Thrones Collectible Card Game

Please read my comments on the discussion page about your recent edit to the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethr (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your message. Don't forget to sign your posts by adding ~~~~ to the end.

I've replied at Talk:A Game of Thrones Collectible Card Game. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]