Jump to content

User talk:Stifle/Archive 0409

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Stifle

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stifle (talk | contribs) at 01:10, 7 August 2006 (reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk

If you'd like to add a comment, feel free. Just click the + button next to "Edit this page" above (may vary if you're using a custom skin). But please type ~~~~ at the end to add your name and the date and time.

Protection and unprotection

If you have the capability to unprotect something, I trust you to determine whether a page I protected should be unprotected or not. No need to ask.

RFA messages

  • If you've been promoted, congratulations, now go and patrol Special:Newpages or something. No need to leave me a message here, I participate in many RFAs so it would probably only clog the place up.
  • If your nomination failed, or I opposed you, then I hope you've taken on board what you've learned. If you want clarification or advice from me, please feel free to leave a message, but otherwise there is no need.
  • That is to say, please do not leave me RFA messages, unless you need a response. Thank you.

Email

I would much prefer you leave me a message here rather than emailing me. If you are blocked, then obviously you can't. If I blocked you, then email me (see the toolbox), but if some other admin blocked you, email that admin instead. (See Special:Log/block for more.) If the block was for violating the three-revert rule, and you are going to claim you were reverting vandalism, then first read what vandalism is not and an admin's view of the 3RR.

Linking

If your message is about an article, an AFD, or the like, please link to it. To do this, copy the main heading at the top of the page (like User talk:Stifle for this page) and paste it between [[ and ]].

Replies

  • 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 talk page says to reply to you here, I will reply here (only).
  • Otherwise, I will put my reply both here and on your talk page.

Archiving

I archive this page semi-regularly, mainly when it gets over 32KB or we get a new month. The exception is posts which I consider personal attacks or incivil or the like, which may get selectively archived faster.


Image:Gammage1.jpg

I notice you tagged this image for speedy deletion, as redundant. However, you said that it had been replaced by Image:Gammage1.jpg, which is the same image. As an image can obviously not be redundant to itself, I have removed the speedy tag. Stifle (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I messed that up. I meant to say that Image:Gammage1.jpg is identical to Image:Gammge.jpg, but I apparently confused myself with the browser tabs I had open and ended up copying the wrong filename. I was wondering why the ISD message didn't make a link to the other image. Thanks for letting me know; it's been fixed now. —Bkell (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

pl would you help with my userboxes

they are not lining up.pl help.Yousaf465

Okay, here you go. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dirty Socks

If you want proof that I am not indeed a Sockpuppet of Carbine, then you should get in touch with someone that has known us from the begining. See User:Tijuana Brass, I am not a sock, but then Tijuana may say I'm something worse. User:Dfrg.msc File:DFRG. MSC.jpg 08:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Tijuana Brass says that there is a high probability you are a sock of Carbine. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I quote:

Two, mate. Two. Take it to User:Tijuana Brass. User:Dfrg.msc File:DFRG. MSC.jpg 07:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

I thought I'd ask you this question because you seem to be the king of fair use.

Is it reasonable to remove images from articles where the fair use claim is invalid (such as magazine covers illustrating the cover subject) as soon as I find them, or should I tag the image with {{fairusedisputed}} and then wait a while for some response. I had been removing such images and then tagging the image as an orphan, but one of the uploaders criticised me because I was the cause of the image being orphaned. What do you suggest? I am reasonably confident in my assessments of fair use. Kevin 09:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's more or less obvious that the image doesn't qualify as fair use, like the regular examples of magazine covers being used in the article about the subject or Google Earth images being used in any article other than Google Earth, then it's reasonable to remove them yourself and go ahead marking the image as orphaned if necessary. If it's not as clear-cut, then perhaps tag it as {{fairusedisputed}} for a week, and if there is no response, go ahead to remove it (perhaps noting in your edit summary that a dispute was unopposed for a week). You can also use {{fairusereview}}, as the weakest in the line of "this might not be fair use" assertions. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought, so I'll forge ahead. Kevin 11:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vatican coa2.png

I see you removed my deletion tags on this image and replaced with NCT. Will the wiki image be deleted? Gimmetrow 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It won't be automatically deleted as the images are not identical. See criteria for speedy deletion (images). You can, however, list it on WP:IFD. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Rachel York picture permission

Thanks, I sent an email to the person who sent me the image, hopefully they will get back to you ASAP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flipfellax1 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 02 August 2006 (UTC).

userboxes

these are now overlying each other.Yousaf465 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems fine for me. Try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) if you can't get it working. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Mariangelruiz.jpg

I think I solved the problem with the image. Please let me know if there's anything else to do. Thanks!--Crunkier21 13:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideally you should provide the exact URL to the image on its original site, but this seems to be OK. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Alameda Aero Club

This article is worthy of retaining due to the history behind the flying club. It is significant to the San Francisco Bay Area. I'm very disappointed that no discussion took place despite my posting of an objection. The person that proposed the speedy deletion does nothing but post deletion notices. Perhaps he/she would like to contribute to the Wiki in some significant way before they start removing from it? ChadScott 15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message.
Speedy deletion is just that - a deletion of types of pages that there is wide consensus to delete. The most common reason for an article to be deleted like this is called "A7" - an article about a person, group of people, or club that does not assert the notability or importance of the subject. Hundreds of these articles are deleted every day (see the deletion log), and having a discussion on all of them would clog up processes so badly that no work could be done at all.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such not everything is included, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I am sorry that you are disappointed about the deletion of your article.
There are a few ways you can proceed from here:
  1. You can re-add the article, including evidence of how the club meets the guideline for inclusion of clubs on Wikipedia (citations from reliable sources are the way to go).
  2. I can undelete the article and transfer it to your userspace for you to work on and move back into place when you're ready.
  3. We can move on, leave the article deleted, and try writing about something else.
Please let me know which you'd like.
On a side point, there are some WikiGnomes who don't have time to add content to the encyclopedia but do very valuable jobs making sure that content that should not be here is removed. Please bear in mind that they are an important part of the Wikipedia.
Thanks again for your message and I'm sorry that this has run so long. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and put it into my userspace and I'll continue to work on it and try to make it "notable" enough. However, contrary to your statement, there was absolutely no consensus reached on the deletion of this article. One user proposed its deletion, I objected, and you deleted. I count three people involved in that transaction. That's hardly a consensus. Certainly there must be thousands of articles deleted many or most of them without objection. This one, however, had an objection that was completely ignored. That's what irritates me the most. ChadScott 18:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I was not entirely clear - it is an official policy that articles about clubs which do not assert notability or importance should be deleted. Unfortunately, one person objecting to deletion does not exempt an article from the policy. Thanks for understanding.
The page has been moved to User:ChadScott/Alameda Aero Club so that you can work on it. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for moving the page. On the same policy page you reference, it clearly states, "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." This seems to indicate an objection (dispute) does provide cause for discussion. Such arbitrary criterion as "notable" seems to lend itself to some benefit of the doubt. ChadScott 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The criterion is not "not notable", but "having no assertion of notability". Can you tell me why the club is notable in accordance with WP:ORG? Stifle (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Super Aguri Picture

I see you deleted it. Is this because of licensing? Because the SA photographer, Matsumoto, lets people use it openly, as long as no profit is made. Just want to know why, not arguing or anything. Just want to know what i did wrong since I'm quite new to wiki. Inn3rchild 18:03 , 2 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.102.70 (talk • contribs) 17:03, August 2, 2006 (UTC)

I can handle this better if you link to the exact image title you are referring to, in the form [[:Image:Image_name.jpg]].
Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy for rules under which images are accepted. Note that in particular, images must be in the public domain, under a free license, or valid for fair use to be used on Wikipedia. Images that are usable for non-commercial or educational purposes only, along with images that we have permission to use on Wikipedia only, are unfortunately not permitted. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictures and Licensing

Hello Stifle,

--Loremaster 19:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, just having permission to use an image on Wikipedia is not sufficient for using it. The image needs to either be usable under a free license or meet our fair use policy, which is stricter than the law.
You need to contact the copyright holders of the images (and note that this is generally the person who took the photographs, not the people depicted) and request that the images be released under an appropriate free license or into the public domain.
For the old image, was it first published in the US before 1923? If so, it is in the public domain, tag it as {{PD-US}}. Otherwise, again we would need it to be released under a free license. Fair use is highly unlikely to apply here as the material is taken from another encyclopedia.
Wikipedia's goal is to become a free encyclopedia, where free is taken in the sense of "free speech" as opposed to "free of charge". Using images that other people cannot use runs counter to that, which is why it is restricted. I hope you understand. Stifle (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Just as an update, Image:Nick Bostrom.jpg is a valid fair use image, as are Image:Natasha Vita-More.jpg and Image:Max More.jpg. Using Image:Nick-Bostrom.png in Transhumanism is not describing the "person in question", so fails fair use. Image:Aldous Huxley.jpg needs a fair use rationale, i.e. a justification of invoking fair use for that image. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible WP:Tagger Vandal

After looking at the Dark Galaxy page, and searching through many other pages in this category, a new user User:Peephole seems to be "tagging" all pages in this category for deletion. His user page is vague and it seems to be tagging pages without regard to real policy, which is a form of vandalism. Can you investigate this by checking the pages he is tagging? Thanks. Charley 20:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look and I don't think that there is a systematic pattern of vandalistic nominations, just a genuine desire to remove content that should not be in the encyclopedia. Might be worth dropping him a line though; he could be considered a deletionist. Stifle (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I do recall running into Peephole in the past, regarding the Earth: 2025 article that I was working on. While he does aim to help clean Wikipedia, he certainly doesn't just vote "delete" for everything. He mainly focuses on keeping Wikipedia from being flooded with spam for every browser-based game. --Wafulz 03:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA and your vote

 Hi Stifle,
Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I'm planning on working up to 1500 article edits before my next application for adminship—hopefully I'll have your support next time! You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page.


Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

Editor's Barnstar

A Barnstar!
The Editor's Barnstar
I award Stifle this barnstar for his efforts in strictly deleting thousands of pieces of unworthy content from Wikipedia.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Carroll image

Hi, I'm relatively new this whole wikipedia editing thing, but it looks like you removed the picture of Jim Carroll that I recently put up.

You noted "rm unlicensed image", however the page where I got this image expressly states that "This photo may be reprinted as long as the photographer is credited." Which I plainly did. And on another page says "You may reprint any of these photos provided that you credit the photographers."

If I'm missing something, please let me know. I'll be putting up the photo again in the meantime, I hope it works out.

edit - I realize now that I may not have included all the relevant copyright information when uploading the image, I'll try to be more detailed this time around. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zerohourminuszero (talk • contribs) 22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC).

Okay, the tag you are looking for is {{attribution}}. You just type that into the description box when you upload the image, and do not choose a license from the license selector.
The reason the previous images were deleted is that you indicated we have permission to use the images on Wikipedia only, which we don't support. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR report

Query for you here, Stifle. [1] SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

holgaflash image

Hello I most certainly verify that i made this image in its entirety, do i have to press any buttons anywhere to verify this fact? //Jacob —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The-totem (talk • contribs) 23:11, 03 August 2006 (UTC).

No, that is fine. Please sign your posts on talk pages by adding ~~~~ at the end.
However, you said that you are the creator of both Image:DSC_1371.jpg and Image:Mindre moveonup piece.jpg, which is impossible. Please choose one, and then add the correct copyright tag to the other. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

more on the images...

Hi Again. Why is it impossible that i made both pictures? i don't understand. Surely, i have made many pictures in my time, i chose not to limit myself to only one image in my entire life.... right? So then the copyright should be ok, or..? The-totem 17:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Simple. You say that you are the person on the right in Image:DSC 1371.jpg, and that it was taken by a bystander. This does not compute with what you have previously stated. Stifle (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha! thanks for that clarification. The picture was indeed taken by a bystander, but later given to me with verbal OK for putting it here. Which type of licence do this mean i should put on it, then? Sorry about the trouble. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The-totem (talk • contribs) .

You need the permission of that person to release the image under a free license, or you need to provide a justifiable reason that the image qualifies for fair use. You will also need to provide the source of the image, otherwise it is liable to be deleted. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


All right, emmm... I got the image on email from the person who took it(don't remember the name), i asked if i could ise it online on wikipedia, and she said it was OK. What do you propose i do? English is'nt my first language anyways, it's kinda hard reading through the whole of Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags for what to do... The-totem 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Having permission to use it on Wikipedia only is not sufficient. It needs to be released under a free license. I recommend bringing this to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions as they are more specialized and can deal with you more quickly. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Aldridge

Hello Stifle,

You deleted my page on Patricia Aldridge for the reason "A6 speedy deletion - article created only to disparage its subject."

That page was written with Aldridge's help and approval, and there was nothing disparaging about it. In fact, I was careful to be neutral in order to avoid putting too positive a spin on the bio. My goal was to create a fair and balanced account of Aldridge's interesting life. Furthermore, the content was verifiable and careful references were given (they required further documentation, but the article was clearly labeled a stub).

It was a lot of work, and it was intended to be a careful, accurate and respectful record (although not yet complete) of a qwirky Toronto character. If you think it was created to disparage the subject, then you need to open up your mind to alternative lifetyles.

Apparently, your straight, theist sensibility has interpreted a truthful record of historical events as disparaging. You are wrong, and you should not have deleted this important work about a part of Toronto's queer history.

If you want to confirm this, write to Aldridge herself at info@wildside.org.

Please undelete this article.

The Original Author —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.63.56.147 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC).

First Same-Sex Couple in Canadian History

I just got off the phone with Aldridge herself, who is outraged that you would delete information about the first same-sex couple in Canadian history.

This is a matter of historical record.

The Original Author —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.63.56.147 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for your message. In future, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end.
I do not take kindly to threats, outrages, and the like. Please refrain from them, per WP:CIVIL.
If you feel I have erred in judgment in deleting an article, you may make a listing on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stifle (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart RFC

I would certainly certify that. It's overdue. Nandesuka 23:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What does the process entail?--Beaker342 00:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You would just need to read and sign that you agree that you have tried and failed to resolve the dispute. I will let you know when it is ready. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Supreme Cmdr is now ready. Please review, and sign if you agree. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi, can you tell me: How do I get an overview of another users contributions?--Medico80 11:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Type Special:Contributions/Username into the searchbox, replacing Username with the name of the user. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

LTTE

Hi Stifle , I am glad you have protected the LTTE page. However the following sentence states that Janes defence weekly, Amnesty International , HRW, Canada, US , EU, India and the UN have accused the LTTE of certain wrongs because they need satisfaction from child-sex tourism

pro-government countries that need satisfaction from child-sex tourism have accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing[5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000[6], narco-terrorism[7], organised crime[8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates[9], civilian massacres and bombings (resulting in cumulative death toll of thousands of civilians) and assassination of elected politicians.

As it is not cited and plainly a libel, you may want to consider removing it. Ruchiraw 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, each of those claims is cited, except perhaps the last one, which I have removed. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Where are the citations which show the US and Canada and EU want satisfaction from child sex tourism as in pro-government countries that need satisfaction from child-sex tourismRuchiraw 23:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess that seems to be missing too. Gone. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Also Stifle , I have gone through each article in the citation for "relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency". There is no article which mentions that child sex tourism is a foreign currency earner for Sri Lankan government. it is illegal in Sri Lanka according to the following para from the source cited in the article. This is just a libel dreamt up by some vandal.
CHILDREN - The Government pushed for greater international cooperation to bring those guilty of pedophilia to justice. The penalties for pedophilia range from 5 to 20 years imprisonment and an unspecified fine. During the year, 39 cases of pedophilia were brought to court and were pending at year's end. Child prostitution was a problem in certain coastal resort areas. The Government estimated that there were more than 2,000 child prostitutes in the country, but private groups claimed that the number was as high as 6,000. Citizens committed much of the child sexual abuse in the form of child prostitution; however, some child prostitutes were boys who catered to foreign tourists. Some of these children were forced into prostitution. The Department of Probation and Child Care Services provided protection to child victims of abuse and sexual exploitation and worked with local NGOs that provided shelter. The Tourist Bureau conducted awareness-raising programs for at-risk children in resort regions prone to sex tourism.
Who is it libelling? Stifle (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stifle , A user called Elalan who has not previously edited LTTE article is adding unsupported libels against various countries. Ruchiraw 23:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you please provide a diff for these additions? Stifle (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
this is the diff for where unsupported statements added http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam&diff=67897747&oldid=67890785Ruchiraw 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Also the edit to
The Sri Lankan government (ranked 25th in the failed state index [2] and relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency [3] ) have accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing[5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000[6], narco-terrorism[7], organised crime[8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates[9], other attacks.
should read --- The Sri Lankan government, independent analysts and other countries ---- since the accusations are cited from Canada, UN, US, Amnesty, Janes defence weekly etc:-
Whom does the edit libel? Stifle (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
All Sri Lankans are libelled by the totally unsubstantiated suggestion that Sri Lanka relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency . The citation discusses child sex tourism but does not refer to it as a foreign currency generator , any more than child pornography is a revenue generator for western countries Ruchiraw 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer or legal expert, but I believe that to be actionable, a libel must identify either by name or by likeness a specific person. Therefore I don't see a need to further edit the page.
Your best way to proceed is to place {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the article and include details of the edits you would like made. Another admin will investigate and may or may not make the requested edits. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way edit to
The Sri Lankan government (ranked 25th in the failed state index [2] and relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency [3] ) have accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing[5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000[6], narco-terrorism[7], organised crime[8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates[9], other attacks.
is wrong because none of the citations are from the Sri Lankan government.
It should read as
The Sri Lankan government (ranked 25th in the failed state index [2] and relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency [3] ) ,other countries and analysts have accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing[5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000[6], narco-terrorism[7], organised crime[8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates[9], other attacks.Ruchiraw 01:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Please use the template {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the article to request changes. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart

"I am considering filing an RFC against User:Supreme_Cmdr due to conduct and persistently ignoring consensus. Would you certify the basis for the complaint if I filed such an RFC? Stifle (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)"

Sure, what do I need to do? - Chris 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm building Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Supreme Cmdr at the moment. You can add any relevant information there, and if you agree, just sign under "users certifying the basis for this dispute". Stifle (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ferick

You might want to take a closer look at the protection logs for Kosovo. Ferick claims that I protected the article to stop him from editing. In fact, I unprotected it on 24 June 2006 and again on 28 July 2006, following agreement among all the other editors on the talk page; on each occasion, Ferick started edit warring again within a matter of hours. In each case the protection was added at following a request for protection in the normal fashion. I did briefly semi-protect it on 4 August 2006 to block a spate of vandalism from a user abusing multiple anonymous proxy servers, but unprotected it a few hours later when the vandal had gone away. This did not, of course, affect Ferick's ability to edit the article. Please reconsider your statement on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ferick. -- ChrisO

Just noticed that the most recent entry states "protected" - not sure why that is, as the article is most definitely unprotected right now. Check the current protection status for yourself! -- ChrisO 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I've reworded my endorsement for clarity. The page is currently move-protected, for some reason, but not edit-protected. You move-protected it on August 4th, probably by accident. Stifle (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it - thanks. I'll fix that. -- ChrisO 00:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle/Archive_0409&oldid=68103396"