User talk:Stifle/Archive 0409

Click here if you wish to leave me a message.

• Older archives
• Archive: April 2008 (1st) (2nd-8th) (9th-11th) (12th-18th) (19th-20th) (21st-22nd) (23rd-30th)
• Archive: May 2008 (1st-9th) (10th-13th) (14th-16th) (17th-20th) (21st-31st)
• Archive: June 2008
• Archive: July 2008 (1st-7th) (8th-11th) (12th-22nd) (23rd-31st)
• Archive: August 2008 (1st-17th)

• Please reply to me here if possible.
• If your message is about an AFD or other discussion that you want me to (re)contribute to, I will generally not reply other than by checking the page and adding a comment.
• If your message is just an FYI or similar, I'll reply here (only) to say "noted" or similar.
• Unless your message or your talk page advises otherwise, I will reply here and copy my reply to your talk page.
• Please don't leave your email address as I cannot reply to messages by email.

someone of your experience should know that a/ambassadors of major countries to the UN are notable b/that we do not delete for unreferenced and c/that making afd nomination without checking the most obvious sources is not productive. The combination of these three in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinichi Kitaoka is in my opinion disruptive. as an admin, you have the repsonsiblity to follow policies in an exemplary manner. DGG (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree with A or B. There are ~200 UN members, most/all of which have had multiple UN ambassadors/representatives. I don't think they are inherently notable, and if this were accepted, it's a short step to suggesting that anyone who has ever been an ambassador is notable. If all of those 200 countries have diplomatic relations with each other, that's already 19,900 current ambassadors, to say nothing of the many thousands more historic holders of the posts.

In light of the sources and references which people have brought up in Japanese, which is a language I cannot speak or read, I have withdrawn the nomination, but since there are other delete opinions, a speedy keep is not an option.

To my knowledge I have not failed to follow any policy in this nomination. As two other users agreed with me that the article should be deleted, my nomination was clearly not disruptive or as clear-cut as you may think it to be.

I ask you not to be so belligerent in your posts here and to AFDs and DRVs where we disagree. I respect your opinion on these matters, even when I don't share it, and I request that you equally respect mine. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Um....for each pair of countries that exchange ambassadors, there are TWO ambassadors involved, so multiply 19,900 by 2 and then you've got it right. (OK, this is not earth-shakingly important unless you're working on your math.) Michael Hardy (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have said "careless" rather than disruptive, and I shouldnt have implied you're violating policies, just not showing the good judgment an admin would be expected to show/ Incidentally, many of the added refs were in English, not Japanese. And, although 200*199=39,800, many of the smaller countries combine posts,so I suspect he true number is about 10,000 at a time. But we could go back in history and deal with 5 or 10 times that number, if w had people to write even the stub articles, and I hope that we will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Many ambassador posts, especially throughout history, are awarded as compensation for political or monetary favors. I hope that such a practics as creating stub posts for every ambassador of every country throughout history would not be followed, as we would end up with a literal ton of stub posts about people who aren't notable on their own right, other than once having bought a particular political position. Banaticus (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some ambassadors were not professional diplomats prior to their ambassadorships. So what? Some of those with no background in diplomacy did a good job. Some did a lousy job. All of the USA's current President's ambassadorial appointments were his cronies. The two ambassadors he sent to Canada, in my opinion, have done lousy jobs. But, I suggest, their actions merited coverage just as much as good ambassadors. Geo Swan (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The 19,000 ambassador figure is bogus. Yes, there are approximately 200 nations, but not all 200 nations have an embassy in every other country.

• I have relatives from Trinidad, so I looked it up. Eighteen nations have embassies in Trinidad. Trinidad has embassies in eleven countries.
• By my count the USA has only 130 embassies. I suggest we consider this the high water mark.
• Nigeria has 19 embassies.
• There are 7 foreign embassies in Sudan.

So, the total number of current ambassadors is probably more like 200 x 10.

DGG suggested Ambassadors should be considered inherently notable.

Please consider other groups our policies explicitly state are inherently notable.

• Members of national legislatures -- That would be 534 in the USA -- a similar number for other industrialized nations. Really small nations have really small legislatures. We are talking about a set here, the set of members of national legislatures, which is something like an order of magnitude larger than the set of ambassadors.
• Policy explicitly states that judges are inherently notable. This is another set orders of magnitude larger than the set of ambassadors.
• If I am not mistaken, members of national level sports teams are considered notable. This has to be a set several orders of magnitude larger than the set of ambassadors. Heck, NFL, the NHL, Basketball, two baseball leagues, soccer, lacrosse. Each of these leagues is going to be an order of magnitude larger than the USA's 130 ambassadors.
• Ambassadors are important. That our current policies don't explicitly state ambassadors merit coverage, when judges and members of national legislatures do sounds like an oversight, not a policy decision.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with your point; it seems to me like a Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument. Furthermore, this isn't really a good place to discuss this. Shall we take it over to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)? Stifle (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

just passing by, but I would never say all judges are notable. I would say that all judges of US state appellate courts (and corresponding levels elsewhere) are notable, for their decisions get reported--I would say, and consensus is quite strong, that all the 600 or so US district Court judges are also notable, for though not at the same level or precedent, they invariably deal with important cases. Lower state and city courts are another matter entirely. DGG (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I caught you at a bad time Stifle. I wonder if you or another Admin can delete these two duplicate Wikipedia images? I moved them both to WikiCommons and they have the exact same title there. I had speedied them more about 7 hours ago but I'm surprised they are still around. They are Image:MerenptahOfferingtoPtah.JPG and Image:Stela of Tuthmosis I.jpg With kind Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The speedy deletion queue is backlogged and I'm sure some admin will delete them before very long. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on your comment here? The guy has an entry in a specialist encyclopedia, as well as Contemporary Authors. What more are you looking for? Zagalejo^^^ 18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Howdy. FYI, normally {{oldprodfull}} doesn't get substituted.--Rockfang (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Howdy again. Just curious why you don't use a table of contents on this page?--Rockfang (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I found it got in the way. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I haven't figured out how to do a straight reply, but I'll ask anyway - is there a speedy delete code for reposts of speedily deleted pages? I didn't see one that applied specifically to that. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a speedy delete code for reposts of speedily deleted pages — if they still meet the original cause for deletion they should be tagged again under the same code; if they don't, then they don't qualify for speedy deletion.

P.S. "You're replying to a comment I left you" is the second item on the selection list. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

When I click on "You're replying to a comment I left you", I see this:

"Thanks for coming back to reply. I rely on the yellow message box to inform me that I have new messages, and don't rely on watching others' talk pages as a rule. If you are following up to a conversation, please return to my talk page and add your message there in the section previously used."

That implies that I need to return to the talk page, which of course points me back to that page. Am I missing something? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Immediately after that you'll see "Otherwise, add a new section. If appropriate and if you prefer, you can use {{talkback|your user name}}.". Stifle (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Could please let me know why you deleted my article (title Intelligent AVATAR). The article is about AI solution without any company name etc. I found many examples as keywords SitePal - which is fully advertise. Please let me know WHY?

best regards: ai24081983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.19.129.170 (talk) 14:29, 20 August 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?

I notice that you referred to an article as belonging to you. Please be aware that nobody owns any articles on Wikipedia.

Intelligent AVATAR was deleted under criterion G11 of our criteria for speedy deletion because it appeared to be advertizing a product or service. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so this is not permitted content for an article.

You can feel free to recreate the article, but please make sure you write from a neutral point of view, and include citations from reliable sources so that your article is verifiable. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied reminder, thanks. --虞海 (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not complaining so much about the fact that I received a warning. But you did not distribute warnings to all involved parties. You seem to have missed Joowwww and Jhattara. Readin (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jhattara wasn't recently edit warring; I missed out Joowwww, although he did make a request on WP:RFPP so is likely to be aware of edit warring rules. You are welcome to issue them and anyone else warnings yourself using {{uw-3rr}}. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Before you add protection, please consider the edits being made. It should be clear to a neutral party that one side is pushing a POV while the other is attempting to achieve some neutrality between the POVs. There is a huge disagreement about whether Taiwan is a part of China. See Template:Political Status of Taiwan. There are lots of arguments to be made on both sides. While I have a strong opinion about which arguments are better and which ones are full of horse hockey, I won't bore you with the details. To put is succinctly, one side wants the countries to be listed with "China(People's Republic of China (mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau), Republic of China(Taiwan))". The other side doesn't want to include "Republic of China (Taiwan)" under China because everyone knows "China" is the PRC and also Taiwan is not a part of "China" despite the confusing official name which is a colonial legacy. Instead, since common names rather than official names are primarily used in the template, "Taiwan" should be listed separately along with all the other countries.

The compromise position is to do both. To list Taiwan in both ways. As the template is primarily for navigation and not for establishing an authoritative list of independent nations, this should not be a problem. People looking for the Taiwan link would be able to find it regardless of they expect to find it as part of China or as a separate entity.

Other compromises were suggested as well, if you want to follow the whole discussion of the talk page you'll see them. All were rejected with continual reverts. Readin (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not adding protection. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask the closing admin to take a second look because his closing comment was basically "I'm closing this, if you don't like it take it to DRV." That indicates to me that he's unwilling to discuss it and that pestering him on his talk page would be seen as disruptive. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My latest comments at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion were in part inspired by your wrong-headed comment on a different thread on that page. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Stifle, just wish to inform you that due to my serious conflict with User:AzureFury, I have removed my text from the above-mentioned entry (for details please consult the corresponding talk page). As I have indicated on the above-mentioned page, I will take legal action against Wikipedia should AzareFury undertake to make use of any part of my original text on Wikipedia without my written explicit permission. For your information, in the meantime (i.e. already in the course of the last week) the editor of a professional film magazine in Canada has commissioned me to write an extensive article on the film Unruled Paper (this on the basis of my Wikipedia article); the commission explicitly asks me to write an article at least twice more extensive than my Wikipedia article and I have already written a considerable part of the commissioned article (the editor explicitly wrote to me that he liked all aspects of my Wikipedia article but wanted me to elaborate more on the details - as I write this message, I have a pile of historical details on my desk which connect some details of the film to at least two historical figures from the 9th century AD). Without any reservation, I consider the action of User:AzureFury an outright racist attack on me and my Iranian culture: Iranians must be so debased in the eyes of this person that their artistic products can be written by a total ignoramus. For completeness, by his own admission, this person has not seen the film, does not know the artists playing in it, has not consulted a single original text, etc. Of course, you may disagree with my judgement, but that is your best right; I have lived long enough to see a racist when I see one. Kind regards, --BF 01:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

Sorry, but revocation of GFDL is not permitted, and when you submitted each edit, you would see "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it".

Please also note that legal threats may lead to an indefinite block. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Stifle, if you believe that I have to be blocked, please do not hesitate and block me permanently right away. I abhor threats and blackmails (you must know that by now), specially when it is suggestive of Wikipedia doing me a favour by letting me waste my precious time on its pages. To raise another sour point, you never apologised for having explicitly said that I must have copy-pasted my text of Unruled Paper (it is out there for all to see), not realising how insulting such assertions are (at worst you accused me of the theft of someone else's intellectual property, and at worst gave expression to your inner belief that I were not capable of writing that text, which absolutely smacks of racism --- I am being frank with you, as such accusations being issued by exactly you were shocking to me). I am sorry, but this seems to be a reality of editing on Wikipedia: constantly being insulted and harassed by all and sundry. Further, my threat for legal action was meant to stop User:AzureFury from taking that piece hostage to his demented whim; what other option was/is at my disposal? He has wasted my time for an entire week, and please look at what his real contributions have been on that talk page. To name one example, he has conflated Iranians with Usama Bin Laden, going on subsequently to say that when "we" (i.e. Americans) ram planes into your (i.e. Iranian's) buildings, then so and so. At least in the UK use of such language in public is consider as criminal offence; it is deemed as glorifying violence. Have I to tolerate all these? I urge you to block me permanently right away and leave your threats for those who love to be treated like herds of animals. I am absolutely fed up by the way Wikipedia is treating its dedicated editors. --BF 17:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my actions offended you.

Your situation exceeds what I can do personally as an admin. I would suggest you see the dispute resolution process. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Stifle, thank you for your kind message. --BF 19:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

I've unblocked him. I can't agree this was a good one. Lord knows I'm usually liberal enough with the block button but that was too harsh for one comment. Paul is a valued contributor and a reasonable fellow. A simple "c'mon, that's a bit much, please retract" would almost certainly have been enough. Particularly since the editor Paul B made his comment towards has been making some pretty bad attacks himself, and has got away with it. Moreschi (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This user edit warred, violating the 3RR rule, and your solution was to protect his version (which he edit warred) and not rebuke this user? Exactly what kind of logic is that? Arzel (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. It is one possible method of de-escalating an edit war, just like a 3RR block. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

While that may be true, this user has been disruptive on the RS noticeboard, in this article, and from his talk page other articles as well. You have given him no reason to change his behaviour, and at the very least have legitimized his method for getting what he wants. Arzel (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what the dispute resolution procedure is for. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Stifle. I completely support your handling of this case, but the technical aspect of counting the reverts interests me. Last night I was trying to count the reverts on the AzureFury case myself, and got totally baffled. But listen to this language from WP:3RR:

A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content..

AzureFury's reverts were sometimes not pure reverts but were also making reference improvements. But the policy language seems to state that he gets no credit for his reference improvements, so long as any part of his revert was undoing the work of another editor. This sounds more strict than what I thought it was. Do you have an opinion? (This is only for future reference, of course). EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would always take into account if a revert also improved the article somewhere else. But you're right — under the policy as written, that's not required. Stifle (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. That would make it easier to verify in the future that something is a technical 3RR, though I guess the action taken might depend on the nature of the edits, how cooperative they were (or not). EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm all over your talk page now. I may have gotten a little bit aggressive but my opponents were not debating honestly, purposefully miscounting votes, omitting supporting statements, claiming consensus where none existed, etc. Do you think I was "disruptive" in my responses on the three pages involved in the John McCain dispute? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything especially out of order there. I would recommend you refer the matter to dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If page protection is to prevent repeated abuse why do you have all those pages in your user talk wizard fully protected? A brief look through the history shows that none of those pages have ever been vandalized even once, it would appear they are fully protected to stop good faith editors from inconveniencing you. Can you honestly say that if I create a talk page wizard that you will fully protect it for me so editors will not leave good faith messages where I don't want them? I doubt that is what the community had in mind when they gave you the tools. I know they are your pages but there is no need for a full protection they have never been vandalized. I'm not trying to be rude so please don't take this the wrong way. I just find it a little inappropriate that's all. Landon1980 (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by.

They are protected because previously people have been leaving messages on the page, where I won't find them, rather than reading and following the simple instructions which will redirect messages here. I rely on the "you have new messages" banner to see when someone's trying to get in touch with me, so if someone just blindly assumes that after clicking once they should leave a message at that page, I won't see that there's a message there. The banners at the top which said "please do not leave messages here" did not work, so I needed something more effective.

The message wizard is a way of helping people to find answers to questions for themselves, or redirecting questions that anyone (or any admin) could answer to an alternate venue. This means that users don't have to wait for me to come online to get a reply. It's not a way of filtering messages into different categories on different pages.

I hope that explains my logic. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I like that idea. Here in a day or two I'm going to create a similar wizard that will answer a series of questions so editors will not have to wait for a reply. I'll let you know when I'm finished so you can fully protect the pages for me. Landon1980 (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I will just be making two subpages with answers to questions about template warnings, my thoughts on RFA thank spam, edits of mine others have a problem with, etc. If they are on the page already it his obvious they have read what I want them to, I could always add the pages to my watchlist I guess, but full protection will be very helpful in stopping others from editing the pages. I'll try and have them finished some time tomorrow, I'll let you know when I finish so you can protect them for me. Cheers. Landon1980 (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem doing that, but bear in mind that you will have to settle on what content you want on the pages as you will not be able to edit them yourself whilst they are protected. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I did. I used the twinkle tool to request page protection. It must have been passed over as articles above it were protected first. -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Also if you take a closer look at the times of the requests, you will see that it was overlooked. -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the confusion. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem! -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm responding to this user's unblock request. Apparently the story is that after the 3RR warning, the user kind of self-reverted. It wasn't exactly a revert; they had been restoring an image, and instead of removing the image in the self-revert, they just hid the image with <!-- --> tags. I think this changes things a bit. If you're okay with an unblock, could you unblock? Mangojuice^talk 13:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stifle, you left a message on my talk page re: the license for Image:India House today.jpg. The owner of the image has already given Creative commons license permission to use the image, which has been forwarded to the wikimedia section dealing with image license. I recieved a further correspondence from wikimedia asking that the image provider clarify that she is releasing it under CC3 license (from what I gathered from the message). This I have forwarded to the provider today (I have been hard pressed for time), but haven't heard from her yet. However, as you will aprreciate, given that she has already agreed to a cc license, I dont see why she would disagree to this clarification. I ask that you give me a couple of working days, so I have enough time to hear from her. If it is not there by next tuesday, you can delete it.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 20:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with that. As stated on the image page, the time limit is until September 3rd for the permission to be verified. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stifle, I noticed your name in an archived discussion about this issue and was wondering if you may be able to assist. I contributed (in a fairly basic manner) to an article named Legends of Motorsport (band) upon a request from a lazy journalist who noted that there was only scarce details about the band (in which I play) in the existing article. Now it seems the article has been deleted due to, from what I can discern through all the gobbledygook that serious users of this resource employ, a lack of notiablity, which seems to denote an absence of public profile, ie not having been broadcast et al. I can assure you this is not the case - while the band is steadfastly 'underground' in terms of mass appeal we have graced the Australian radio waves many times and appeared at large events like the Big Day Out and Meredith Music Festival, so I fail to see why this deletion has gone ahead (granted the article was, as I have noted, lacking in many of the hallmarks of a truly great encyclopedia entry). Can you perhaps assist in furthering my understanding and perhaps indicating whether or not the page can be reinstated? I do not believe I have a talk page of my own with which to recieve a response (I may have had a username at some point...it is now lost in the mists of time), but I can always be contacted via the contacts page on our website www.legendsofmotorsport.com.au - my nom de band is 2stroke. Many thanks.

A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.51.140 (talk) 05:22, 29 August 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?

The page Legends of Motorsport (band) was deleted by User:Moondyne as it was proposed for deletion and uncontested. I take it that you are contesting the decision, and am as such restoring the page. However, it may be subsequently deleted if you do not make sure that it meets the requirements at WP:NMG, providing citations from reliable sources to verify what you write. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've posted this image twice. I own the photograph and have twice now completed the proper licenses, and GFDL and posted them on the page. Most recently I also responded immediately when the photo was challenged, and posted my response both on the PUI and my talk page - where both sat, unanswered for almost three weeks - only to now have the image summarily removed with no response, no discussion, and no explanation.

Your page says you're tired of the drama and I concur. I would appreciate your assistance in fixing this. Once and for all. So there can and will be no more drama. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 07:20, 29 August 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?

The question is not whether you have released the image or not, but whether you are entitled to release it. This is resolved by showing us where on your own website the image is, and placing a notice on that site saying it is released under the GFDL, or by sending an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with that information. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've respond both here using your "message wizard", and on my own talk page. I'll happily respond anywhere that will get this resolved sooner rather than later. Frankly, you lost me with your question of whether or not I am "entitled" to release something I own? The question itself seemed ponderous. But I assume you meant "owned" by Wikipedia standards, so I'll answer in that vein. I wasn't aware that I needed to email a release, but I'll happily do so if that's what it takes. As for having the image posted on my own website with a GFDL attached, the point is moot as I don't currently have a website. As I had already posted a GFDL release with both the License and Summary accompanying the photo on its Wiki page, as instructed in the directions, I assumed that was all that was required.

But if there is a standard or specific Wiki release form that needs to be sent to the email address above, if you could direct me to it, or at least very clearly state the info the email should contain, I would certainly appreciate it.X4n6 (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I found this page WP:YOURPHOTO followed the instructions and submitted the photo through this process. Hopefully that's correct. So what should I expect to happen next and in what timeframe? Thanks.X4n6 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The email will enter our OTRS system and be dealt with in due course. It usually only takes a day or two, but I do not have access to the system and can neither track it nor provide any further assistance. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I award this to Stifle, for his tireless deletion of images that shouldn't be here. J Milburn (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it makes a pleasant change from the usual string of "why did you delete my image!!!!?!" messages I tend to get when I go on a PUI cleanout. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your warning of proposed deletion of Sylvia's Meadow, because you said that it was a 'un-notable field'.

On the contrary, it is a SSSI, and a very rare example of an un-ploughed field. For this reason, it is home to threatened orchid and other wild plant species, making it a very relevant site in terms of the UK's biodiversity.

I have added this information to the article, and placed a note on the article's talk page.

Thanks,

Tinminer (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has now been nominated for a discussion as to whether it should be deleted. Please follow the link on the article to contribute to the discussion. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough of that. The theory is mentioned by Augustine and Spinoza, and is important. And please don't delete the other references to the characters cited by Varro. They are referenced in the quotation. The fact that they are mentioned by Augustine and no one else is in itself interesting. Peter Damian (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has now been nominated for a discussion as to whether it should be deleted. Please follow the link on the article if you wish to contribute to the discussion. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you have the courtesy to wait (see the 'under construction' notice) until I have completed the article, and have provided references. Thank you. Peter Damian (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)