User talk:Lifebaka/Archive 4

Hello!

Please add new comments in new sections. I will respond to messages here unless you ask otherwise. Or, if you're notifying me of a problem, I'll probably just fix it and leave it at that. I can also be contacted by email.

Deletion review for Jonathan Bayliss

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jonathan Bayliss. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I'd like to dispute the deletion of the page for Jonathan Bayliss, a Massachusetts author who is a mainstay of the Gloucester artistic community.

I am not related to Bayliss or associated with him in any way. However, I have a website dedicated to his fiction (http://www.jonathanbayliss.com/) and regard Bayliss as a notable author. His work is of great literary, political, and philosophical value. In 1999, the Boston Globe called Bayliss 'one of the great self-published authors of our time.' Poet Charles Olson praised Bayliss's work decades ago, as do authors such as Peter Anastas today. He was the recipient of a Massachusetts Arts Council grant, and author Russell Banks was on the board that awarded it to Bayliss. Booklist's Stuart Miller has a high opinion of Bayliss's fiction, comparing it to that of Melville and Whitman. His books are still in print and readily available.

I urge you to reconsider the deletion of this article.

Thank you,

Steve Farrell Sfarrell (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I can safely take this to be disputing the PROD. Undeleting. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Borrowing a user box

I borrowed one of the user box from your page to use in my talk page, Thanks--Puttyschool (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's my favorite one. Glad you like it. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Cheers. --Puttyschool (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Honest edit reverted

Hello. I don't know if you remember me from the telescope article or not, but I figured I'd ask you for some help. The reason you were involved earlier was because I had an edit-war involving the addition of Ibn Al-Haytham, but this new problem isn't about that. I reconsidered my 1st position on making a good paragraph on Al-Haytham and simple made an edit to improve the grammar of the article in question purely out of goodwill. If you look at the aticle, you'll see that another user disregarded my whole edit—without reason! I'm trying to show good faith so that Wikipedia is fun for all of us... Why don't they understand? Can you help? InternetHero (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you brought up this issue on the talk page? Kuro ♪ 08:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Indirectly, yes. There is an ongoing arguement involving adding Al-Haytham to the article. As I said before, I reconsidered adding a lofty paragraph about him so I merely added to the quality of the article. I thought you're allowed to contribute to Wikipedia without having other editors reverting the edit without reason, justification, etc. I'm afraid it's going to happen to the history of telescopes article as well. THAT one took like 2 hours... Thanks for yout time. InternetHero (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, as I'm not very familiar with this controversy, you'll have to wait for Lifebaka to sign on to get an extensive answer. Sorry I couldn't be more help. Kuro ♪ 08:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I have to go to work now (I'm a janitor for now). I just don't want to worry about stuff like that. I used to really enjoy Wikipedia. It made me feel like I was contributing in a literary sense, much like a modern-day scholar... I know you guys will help with my purely grammatical problem... LOL. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Dunno' why he completely reverted it. But it's pointless to edit war over. Most of what you did was good, but a few things were a bit screwy to read; a better solution would've been just editing it again. I do suggest you take it up with the editor in question, however, instead of coming to me. I'm happy to help anyway, but it could look like a backalley way of getting things done. What looks like the proper way of handling this is to just try it again—not necessarily with the same changes, but just doing the work again. Or, if you'd rather, I can go do it (and likely will when I get the time). And huzzah for janitors, I guess. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. I changed it back to my edit but I also added your inputs. I didn't think of using the dash that way for the History section. Is there a differnce if I use the 'insert' button for the dashes? InternetHero (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, as far as the coding goes, but I know the code. I'll go take another look at it later to make sure nothing's horribly off, but I doubt I'll have to do much. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't want you to edit the 1st paragraph in hopes that the idea of reverting it would have more meaning. I thought I covered all of the errors. If the paragraph changes, thats fine—all I wanted to do was to provide the full history. I didn't even know about the Robert guy, and I will add him as well since he did a lot. InternetHero (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Frazier Quarry Page

The page that you looked over on my behalf that was concerning The Frazier Quarry was speedily deleted as spam material. I had made no changes to it since you looked it over and I do not know how to proceed. What would you advise since you do not believe that it is spam?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andy.W.Ellis/Frazier_Quarry

Thanks, Andy.W.Ellis (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got a more conservative idea of what is and isn't spam than a lot of people, so you'll have to take that idea with a small grain of salt. As far as the page itself goes, inline citations are always good. If you don't know how to format them, just put hyperlinks or text in ^superscript next to the text you're citing and ping me; I can do the trivial formatting parts. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Hello. Everything seems to go alright at the three telescope pages. I started asking questin and providing links to their edits/conflict. Anyway, for this page, are there any templates I could use to gauge the percentages of completion??? Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but that doesn't mean there isn't one out there. It might be possible to write a script or something to do it, but I wouldn't have much of an idea where to begin coding it—I don't know any programming besides some basic Java2. It might just be easier to do it by hand. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Policy

I might not be knowledgeable of Wiki policies, however, I really don't understand the differences between the indefinitely blocked user's contributions and banned user's contributions after they're blocked and banned. Your comment sounds like it would be okay to keep the former case in Wikipedia even though the user is not allowed to edit here. Besides, that IS a personal/racist attack based on the blocked user's false assumption (my nationality and sexuality are not even close to the allegation).--Caspian blue (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm mostly of the opinion that allowing others to have their pet conspiracy theories and paranoias is fine by me. I'm not that interested in showing them wrong, because they'll only take my attempts as proof that I am in fact whatever it is they accuse me of being. The surest way to get them to go away is to ignore them. Don't feed the trolls and all that. Unless they're actively seeking to discredit me in "official" forums (SSP, ANI, ArbCom, etc.) I wouldn't be interested. But I also like to think I have a rather thick skin, so I'm not sure how widely my opinions on these matters can be extended. But anyway, I was just pointing out that WP:BAN didn't apply. WP:NPA certainly does, and I'm just not sure what action to take in regards to it. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Lucy has made each of false SSP, ANI, AN on me to justify his block evasions and trolling. Rather, he was blocked multiple times for such disruptions. (He was blocked more than 10 times including his IP socks by my report, so I have to understand his grudge?) I highly consider one's reputation. Lucy's repeated attempt and Carl Daniels' support for such acts are not tolerable in my opinions. I just simply want to take out the attack messages from the troll at User:Carl Daniels' talk page.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Saldan article

Hello, Lifebaka. I'm new to Wiki, and have been reading up on various articles and guidelines regarding contributions to Wikipedia. I have also rolled up my sleeve, and begun reviewing various articles in “WikiProject Magic”, as I have more than 30 years of experience in the world of professional magic and stage illusions. I've edited some articles there, and have begun adding a few.

Because I made a few blunders earlier on, it seems that one or two admins are now looking over my shoulder and going out of their way to undo my contributions here and there. The Saldan article was completely rewritten to comply with every concern that was raised by admins, which were: (1) neutral point of view, (2) too long, (3) concerns about COI. I have read all of the Wiki guidelines in these areas, and have drastically rewritten the text to comply with everything that I have read.

I love the whole concept of Wiki, and am eager to be a strong contributor in the “WikiProject Magic” area. I do find it frustrating at times, though, that some admins really go out of their way to give us newbys a hard time. It feels like harassment, especially when they do not provide any specifics, and I keep rewriting text to comply with their concerns (even if I feel the concerns raised are groundless). I feel that I have repeatedly demonstrated my desire to be a productive member of the Wiki community, and hopefully even become an admin one day. I think it is an amazing thing to participate in building Wikipedia and contributing knowledge and information that I have gleaned over three decades. I love the whole Wikipedia concept of being a community of people sharing ideas and knowledge. It is a very exciting thing to be a part of.

Some of the admins seem very harsh, and, at times, just plain cruel. They seem to have become jaded, and seize upon the smallest opportunities to throw their weight around and slam new people. I can clearly see why new contributors give up and move on.

As a test, I have added a few with less notability and references, and they were not flagged. This is why I feel that I am being singled out by these two admins. I admit I made blunders earlier on, but I was brand new and didn't understand the culture of Wiki. Now I have a better insight into how things work, and how to pursue writing good articles properly. Lifebaka, do you think you might spare a few minutes to review the Saldan article, and let me know if you feel that it is indeed now written in Neutral Point of View? Do you see any concerns for COI?

The guidelines for “WikiProject Magic” state that a biographical article should be notable within the field of magic. It also suggests that those that are magicians and have signed up with “WikiProject Magic” should be editing articles on the topic of magic, and under the umbrella of “WikiProject Magic”.

Again, I'm just looking to learn the ropes, and to adapt in whatever ways are needed to be a good contributor. Thank you for any insights and suggestions you are willing to share. MotivationalMagic (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made my suggestions at the talk page of the article, but it could still use some work. I won't go into detail here, as the discussion should be there anyways.

There are quite a few editors, and more than a few admins, that are very jaded about many aspects of the Wikipedia. I'm getting that way myself, and I haven't even been here long. I suggest you avoid them as much as possible, since they often aren't any fun to deal with. Likely these editors are near burnout, if they are as bad as you claim. Other than that, there's not much advice I can offer. If you have anything you want help with, or any time you want advice, I'm glad to help. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 13:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Lifebaka. Thank you so very much for your kindness in reviewing the article, and for your generousity in taking some time to point out specific parts to change and revise. Wow! Some of those "POV words" really jump off the page at me now after you pointed that out. It's kind of like one has to retrain the mind a little bit to create a greater awareness of words such as those in order to avoid tainting a neutral point of view reporting style. There definitely is a steep learning curve for new people who want to write articles and contribute to Wikipedia in a positive and uplifting manner that benefits the Wiki community. In my first few contributions, everything I submitted was getting slammed. Since then, I've posted some new articles, as well as edits to other articles, and am thrilled to see that nothing has been tagged. That gives a strong dose of encouragement that shows I'm at least learning the ropes and getting better at avoiding the various pitfalls along the way in writing articles. I can see what you mean about some editors and admins getting burned out. Probably a large number of people out there with less than honorable motivations for wanting articles online. Guess that makes them jaded a bit after dealing with it so often. Lifebaka, thanks again for your kindness and generousity. I am very grateful for your insights and assistance. Have a wonderful day!!! MotivationalMagic (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar. I only did what I did because I wanted the nun's story online -- it was a very moving testament of courage and I felt it needed to be told. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You went above and beyond, man. I'm telling you, it's great work. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of page protection for Confessions Tour

As posted on the Incident board:

All of my edits were clearly justified. Additionally, he is referencing sources from fan sites and message boards which is not viewed as credible by Wikipedia's standards. And there is no official setlist posted for Confessions on Madonna's website. As outlined in my edit summaries, a setlist (and/or running order) is not a DVD or CD tracklisting. You cannot use these as references b/c songs that were performed during the tour may have been omitted for various reasons (for the VHS/LD/DVD recording). Additionally, (as I explained in my edit summaries) there is no song registered/copyrighted/etc. entitled "Future Lovers/I Feel Love" or "Music Inferno". "Future Lovers" samples the bass line of "I Feel Love" and Madonna sung lines from the song during the tour (thus the reason why I changed it from "Future Lovers/I Feel Love" to "Future Lovers (contains excerpts from "I Feel Love)).

Also, Music is performed with the melodies of Music, Disco Inferno (infused together)along with music samples of "Where's the Party" and "Everybody" (as referenced and mentioned by Stuart Price in many interviews). Thus, the reason why I changed "Music Inferno" to "Music" (contains elements of "Where's the Party", "Everybody" and "Disco Inferno"). I believe another song is "Erotica". A special remixed version was made for the tour (the album version is not performed) and I clearly outlined that it was a remix based upon the original recorded demo of the song. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I honestly do not know what Jwad's deal is. As stated above, I justified all of edits with my edit summaries. He seems to take these things personally and I am not sure why. I noticed the work of another editor (whose name I cannot recall) trying to have cohesion with the Madonna tour articles and I was simply trying to continue his or hers work. I do feel that my edits were more organized and uniformed than what is currently on the page. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, yeah. Still was a slow edit war. Talk page of the article hasn't been touched since I protected, which isn't a good sign. I have no idea what's going on between the two of you, but whatever it is, work it out before requesting unprotection. Until you can both agree on a compromise, the page should stay protected. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not have "ownership" over the said article or any others. I only want them to be accurate. Dancefloor royalty's edits are not accurate, not official and if you actually go to the reference, you can see that my set list is actually from the official tourbook and not a DVD or CD tracklisting. I am only trying to give factual information on the page, Dancefloor royalty is giving an opinion as to the setlist, not the referenced accurate one. The main point to Wikipedia is to give referenced and factual information not your opinion. Please go to [1] it may be a fansite but this reference is the official tourbook with the official setlist included. Both songs "Future Lovers/I Feel Love" and "Music Inferno" were released as official promo CD singles by Warner Bros. Records. Here are some other references: "Music Inferno" - The official ASCAP listing: [2] As for "Erotica" it is not the "Unreleased Demo Version" as listed by Dancefloor, it is a brand new remix with additional lyrics from the demo. If Dancefloor had heard the demo she would know that this version is nothing like it. I hope this clears up this matter! Also please look at the other Madonna tour pages as Dancefloor has been putting opinionated setlists on those pages with no references as well. JWAD (talk)

My talk page isn't the place to engage in content disputes. But at least you also put it on the article's talk page. If Dancefloor royalty doesn't respond in a few days ping me and I'll unprotect; you'll have a silent consensus. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A shiny for you

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I was just digging through WP:AFD/O to close my ration of stale AfDs with keeps/deletes/merges/relists. The first 8 that I clicked on had already been closed by you. I'm so glad you're an admin and are willing to work in this area! You've always had the clue for it, now you've got the tools! Hip hip! :-) Keeper ǀ 76 18:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Man, that stuff'd be better if there wasn't always a day or four of backlogs. I did about 25 or so before getting tired. I'll be back on it in an hour or so. First I must do statistics! lifebaka++ 18:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Be of good cheer! There have been several times the "backlog" has been in the hundreds, spread out over 7-8 days of unclosed AFDs. But also, there have been days when I've clicked on WP:AFDO only to find that there are exactly zero "overdue" AFDs. I didn't know what to do with myself! I enjoy closing AfDs, been doing it for months (mostly successfully :-), I'm glad you enjoy it as well - please don't burn out on it yet! I've found that my talkpage lights up if I do any more than 15-20 per day, either with DRV notices or "what the H were you thinking?" notices. 15-20 keeps the stress levels down. I also only close articles in areas of interest that are of no interest to me at all, keeps the emotions out. I also only close 1-2 per month that could be construed as "controversial" based on the amount of "heat" in the AFD itself, again, to try to slow down the talkpage flaming. If you ever need a second set of eyes on any particular close, hit me up on my talk! Keeper ǀ 76 18:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Pft, I ain't gonna' burnout anytime soon. Just get tired after doing too many in a row. Anyways, I'll go try to finish the 30th now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you use the "afd close script"? If not, I'll find a link for you. It's fabulous (goes in your monobook). When you hit "edit this page" on an AFD, it gives you three more tabs to the right of the move/protect/watch tabs on the top of your browser. Tabs are "watch", "close", "relist" and clicking "close" puts the {{ab}} and {{tl:at}} templates on there and fills in your edit summary with whatever you're closing it as. Genius really, and a real timesaver. Let me know if you want a link, I'll dig it up! Keeper ǀ 76 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how much I'll use it (had Twinkle a while back, never really used the extra tabs much), but it can't hurt to at least try. A link'd be great. Thanks. lifebaka++ 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's so simple to use for those "quick closes". Go here (the instructions are here), and copy/paste the text into monobook, purge your cache, and then go hit "edit this page" on whatever AFD you are closing next. You'll see the new tabs pop up. Click "close" and an alert box will pop up asking you "what is the close decision?" or somesuch. Type delete or keep, hit enter, hit save. Debate is closed. Genius programming, way over my head. Keeper ǀ 76 20:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Doesn't appear to work in my browser here, I'll try again when I get home. I wisked a copy away to User:Lifebaka/closeafd.js so it can be imported (using importScript('User:Lifebaka/closeafd.js');) for easier use, too. On thinking, it appears it was written to work on the Cobalt Blue skin instead of Monobook, so that might have something to do with it. Anyways, thanks for it, and I'll see if I can get it to work for me. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw your diffs in your monobook - asking 2 dumb questions, feel free to slap me around if I insult your intelligence here...the extra buttons only show up after you hit "edit this page" on an open AFD. I'm assuming you tried that? And, what browser do you use? It works for me in IE, and Firefox is insanely better than IE. Also, if you want you can copy directly from my monobook, it's the only script I use for anything (I hate scripts/automated tools, generally speaking) Maybe I gave you a deprecated link! Also, I use the Monobook skin, so that shouldn't be the issue. Hrm. Keeper ǀ 76 20:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

*smacks forehead* Of course they don't appear until you start to edit it! How unintuitive. Well, they work. Now I suppose I'll have to go test them out next time I want to relist or close a simple AfD. Might learn Javascript later so I can edit the script, too. Thanks for that, I wouldn't have noticed until the next time I actually tried to close one that it works. lifebaka++ 20:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookies, tasty :-). And don't feel bad, the only reason I even dared to venture that something so "simple" could be the problem is because it is exactly the same problem I had when I added the script. So smack my forehead too. You know you want to close just one more, don't you? Do it...Keeper ǀ 76 20:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That is pretty spiffy. I can think of some things I wanna' change (allow adding comments after the result; update link to log page when relisting), so I'll go try to teach myself Javascript over the next few weeks. Also, it was only one cookie, but it could have been either chocolate chip or thin mint depending on which you wanted. I ain't made of cookies, ya' know. lifebaka++ 20:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You can of course still add something beyond the simple "delete" that you put in the popup box. Just edit the window before you hit save to add what you want to add (A pet peeve of mine is when a 100kb debate is closed with "The result is ______", without an explanation. For the easy ones, yeah, no prob, but simply adding "4 words" at the top followed by four tildes generally invites a DRV. But even with the script, you still have the option of expanding your comments. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 20:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

political society

hi. i am writing in regard to deletion of political society article. could you please explain why do you think that keep arguments were weak? and do you consider delete arguments strong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.114.248.108 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the arguments were invalid and did not support themselves with sources, examples, or logic. The delete arguments were stronger; though most of them did lack support the same way, they follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Hope that helps. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

but there were apprioprate citations within article. so there is no reason to claim there were no support for keep arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discourseur (talk • contribs) 20:40, August 6, 2008

You were repeatedly asked to provide sources, and never clearly did. This generally gives your argument less weight, as you don't seem to be able to back it up. A good portion of the keep arguments also seemed to be somewhat tangential to the actual article, discussing a person (Tocqueville) whom the article was not about. One in particular, by User:Seventy3, appears to be a variation on WP:ILIKEIT. If you have strong objections, feel free to take it to DRV. lifebaka++ 20:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

what you mean by 'never clearly did'? there were resources and citations provided - how they were unclear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.114.248.108 (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, telling other users to go to the library and read some articles isn't really clear. Especially when which articles they're meant to read isn't obvious to someone not already in on whatever the dispute is (which would be every admin who would've closed it). Also, I suggest you keep yourself signed in; it doesn't bother me, but some people are really touchy about sockpuppetry. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry, but i do not ask you about disscusion, but about content of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.112.175.35 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as that goes, online sources are always more accessible. I at least probably don't have access to the sources cited. Besides, I don't see what that has to do with the closure. lifebaka++ 21:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

there were online sources given - book On Democracy in America. you may read it on numerous sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.112.48.238 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, wikilinking a book isn't quite the same as providing a URL. Besides, we're pretty far off from discussing the close right now. If you don't have any other problems with it, I'm happy to answer questions, but continuing this line isn't getting anywhere. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

see, isn't this fun??? :-) Don't close too many in one day, can you imagine 10 of these at once? Mindboggling. Keeper ǀ 76 21:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh god! The horror! lifebaka++ 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

state of society

hi. i am writing in regard to deletion of state of society article. could you please explain why do you think that keep arguments were weak? --77.115.17.106 (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

*sign* See the above. The discussions were nearly identical. lifebaka++ 23:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Relisting AFDs

Whoops, forgot to remove them from the old log pages. It's been a while since I've worked with AFDs...   jj137 (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. It was just kinda' throwin' off the counts at WP:AFD/O. Cheers! lifebaka++ 23:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Plutonium27's RFA Review

Boy, that is a tricky one. He did respond to the first two questions, but - checking here - he didn't seem to submit it to the Responses list. Normally, if there are responses, I'm counting them anyway, but since these are borderlining on personal attacks (and certainly incivil), I'm not sure. Short of just tacking a 1 under "Current Process is Bad", I'm not sure what else to take from those comments. Let me think on it a bit. Thanks for the heads up. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinkin' it might be useful to ask him if he wants it to be counted. Could be he never finished it and never planned to, or something similar. Let me know if you think that's a good idea and I'll go ping him about it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No objections there; It looks like Gazimoff pinged everyone who had a response but hadn't submitted it (which is what I intended the category for in the first place, go me), so it's possible he just let it go without further comment. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Pinged. Now I guess we wait. lifebaka++ 14:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to have done so but I forgot all about it and now I doubt I'll get it together in any time to finish it and make it worth anyone's while - am certain the process can go on without me just fine :) Sorry if I've wasted your time. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, no worries. It was just kinda' difficult to work with. I'll go make the necessary changes. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 15:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Delrev of The Ort Institute

While i am not sure if its actually worth wasting your time on something this minor, thanks for signalling me that the log shows a G11 deletion of the article. My own talk page identified it as a G4, so i just went ahead on the basis of that. If you had not given me a nudge about that it would have probally been there much longer, and would have made no sense at all :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Figured that needed to be fixed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

MTG talk archiving

I've tried to educate myself a little on Talk page archiving conventions, and it seems like we can pick and choose sections to move into an archive if we're using the cut/paste method. It seems like it's probably time to do a little housekeeping over there. Some sections I'm pretty sure can be archived without offending anyone. I don't know about some of the longer more heated debates, even if their over a year old. I'm happy to do the moving, if you think it would be appropriate.

what I'm pretty sure can be moved

03 New Infobox

04 Jimbo & The Effects...

05 Shortcut

07 Heads up on copyright...

08 MTGCard template

10 Creature articles

12 SFD/R notification

15 Magic The Wiki

16 User Talk Member Box Template

18 Fair use template

25 Pro Tour Qualifier

36 Expansion set logo images

39 Magic The Gathering deck types

40 Mindslaver Note

41 An outside proposal

44 Jimbo's card to be deleted

45 New infobox round two!

I'll also note that I came across some talk of merging set articles into block articles. That sounds pretty smart to me, and apparently even AMIB thought it had merit, which is usually a good sign. It wouldn't be a ho-hum task, but it seems like it'd do wonders for our project statistics. Thoughts (both about it as a concept and an actually executable task)? JamesLucas (" " / +) 22

13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll just set up User:MiszaBot II archiving. Probably for things over 1 month old. Things are really easy that way. We'll have to sort it out on the talk page, but silent consensus rules the day over there. You got a Gleemax account, by any chance? We could use quite a few more active members.

That'd be a pretty dang major change. I'm all for doing it (well, I'm actually pretty neutral either way), but boy would it be a lot of work. We'd also have to be very fast about creating redirects for new sets when they come out, since people tend to be pretty quick about creating the set articles themselves. I think we'd want to actively solicit opinions on that one, though. I've got this funny feeling people would yell at us if we started merging articles together all willy-nilly. Besides, some of the set articles are pretty good. Alpha, Beta, Coldsnap, Future Sight, Lorwyn, and Time Spiral are all C-class, and likely can be improved to B fairly easily. Just pointing out some possible objections, though. Bring it up on the talk page if you want. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I don't want to tackle anything like block mergers until my masters degree is in the bag at the end of this calendar year. Maybe I'll push for it in January if we haven't seen any shift towards better-rated articles.

I'm not on Gleemax. Would there be a point to signing up? I thought it was in its final days, but I've never really figured out what Gleemax is anyway. JamesLucas (" " / +) 02:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rats. magicthegathering.com ported their forums over there, and I forgot my login... I was hoping to get some people from there to come join the project, but I'll figure it out eventually. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe the time to go recruiting will be right after they kill Gleemax. Presumably there'll be a spike in activity and interest if the new forum is done halfway decently. JamesLucas (" " / +) 19:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

default to keep

You decided on the Mehdi Shahbazi article to keep it. Where is it written that it is default to keep?

I helped on an article about a boy kidnapped, raped, and murdered 35 years ago. It generated much fear and much press those days. Even today, there are stories in the news about the crime. The rapist/kidnapper/murderer was eventually found. He has been up for parole and is probably the only C class murderer in Illinois that has always been unanimously turned down. One year, over 54,000 people wrote written protests or petitions to oppose parole, which is surprising in a city with only about 75,000 adults.

Some people opposed this article because they said it "was just not notable". Others think only recent murders who are reported on the internet qualify (even though this crime is notable in that few 35 year old murders get news stories, including written ones, in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008.

There was a good chunk of support votes so that some people felt there was reason for a "no consensus, default to keep" result. However, an administrator just deleted it.

Presumptive (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you take that earlier article to Wikipedia:Deletion review? If an article is ever unjustifiably deleted, you should first ask the admin and if you don't get a valid response, you can take it to be reviewed. Deletion is supposed to be a last restort for articles that have no realistic chance of any redeeming value even as redirect. Thus, if there's sufficient support for the article, the default is to keep it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember where it's written, but no consensus closes always default to no action, and in the case of AfDs that's keeping the article. Also, the article is not deleted and has never been deleted, so I'm unsure what the problem is here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There was another article, the Murder of Joseph Didier. I described the article above. There was no consensus to delete or keep. I think it should have been default to keep. The administrator deleted it. Deletion review didn't help because those that favored deletion went over to that board and called for delete. It should have been a discussion on whether "no consensus defaults to delete" or not but it didn't. How do we fix this and undelete the article?Presumptive (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Having been deleted at AfD, and the deletion endorsed at DRV, there's likely nothing that can be done. If you can find sources that establish notability, you should rewrite an article, but likely it's more prudent to first write a userspace version (at User:Presumptive/Sandbox or User:Presumptive/Murder of Joseph Didier) and take that version to DRV before recreation. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Others have said that notability IS already established (such as coverage every year for such an old murder and multiple sources). Others use the "just not notable" argument. Opinion? Presumptive (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Prove 'em wrong, probably by citing exact sources. That's about the best advice I can give. Don't go around disrupting things to do so, however, as being disruptive is a blockable offence almost all the time. Writing a decent article on it like I suggested above would help a lot towards that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you say that re-writing the article for the next few months and re-creating it in 3-4 months, with at least 15 citations from at least 3 different reliable news sources (like newspapers and TV) is acceptable? I want your opinion because it's a potential uninvolved and unbiased opinion. With that sort of goal, I can decide for myself whether it meets that higher standard of notability (many articles are judged notable but fail that higher standard). Presumptive (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. The limits and requirements are kinda' arbitrary, but if they help you go for it. I do suggest having people take a look at the draft when you're done, just to be sure, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Magic: The Gathering Barnstar
		I, Meisfunny, hereby award this barnstar to Lifebaka for their excellent work on Magic: The Gathering-related articles on behalf of WikiProject Magic: The Gathering. Great job fixing up templates, doing mass contributing, and just trying to keep the project alive.

Hear, hear! JamesLucas (" " / +) 19:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:NCOGroup-jy

As the blocking admin, I am bringing this to your attention. Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for the heads up. :D lifebaka++ 17:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for helping me get unblocked. :) Unknown the Hedgehog 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to trim it. Unknown the Hedgehog 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Figured that was it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 10:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

MTG Navbox: a beginning

Well, I couldn't sit still for very long, and I'm starting a more comprehensive navbox for our project. There're are a lot of content/organizational decisions that I'll take a crack at one of these days, but for now, I'm trying to iron out some technical kinks, and I'm hoping you could help me with two:

• The main box should stay open. I don't think it ever needs to collapse since it's at the bottom of the page. I'm trying to control this using the state attribute, as referenced here. As far as I can tell, the state attribute is having no effect at all.
• I really want to be able to make image navigation links. Our pentagon should go places! [3] is not quite helpful, since the redirect method obviously isn't working (click this to witness a redirect page that doesn't redirect), and I can't get the template from Method 3 to work, since I can never remember how to cross-reference other Wikimedia projects.

Can you point me in the right direct and/or tinker with the code? JamesLucas (" " / +) 23:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the first one. |state= was defined twice, so it was using the second one, which was set to "collapsed". It works just fine now. I'll look into the second tomorrow, but it looks OK if you put the imagemap before the link, though they're then on two separate lines. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For the second one, try putting the imagemap in either |image= or |imageleft= (or both, it centers everything nicely that way). The trouble you're running into is that the imagemap won't let text be next to it; text will end up either above or below it. Same with meta:Template:navimg. And I'm pretty sure the only way to make cross-wiki template calling work is to create a version of the template on the local wiki. We've already got a {{navimg}} to boot. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's some good food for thought. Thanks, as always. JamesLucas (" " / +) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Internet-stalker"

Hi. I'm realy sorry to bug you with this but I don't know what to do. Anyway, is there a policy on other users following other users in from their contributions?? Is there a way to block the history of my contributions from certain people. I'm asking because I'm concerned over this. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I was shown the policy by another person. InternetHero (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do you mind just saying something about me here. The users (one is a World of Warcraft player) and the others seemed to have put a lot of effort into this "rfc/U", but they completely take it out of context. Anyway, just read at least half of this page and you'll see why I had to get some admins/canvass. I tried following that flow-chart thing for Dispute Resolution, but I lost my patience in accordance to the clause in respect to seeking an admin. Anyway, this is what I mean. "Forgets" to emphasize that I sought help from 2 admins and didn't lose any courteousy. I you can, just try and give your opinion on me. InternetHero (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit guidelines

Hi Lifebaka!

You were the first who answered on my request regarding restoring of "Bootb" article. And since it was restored (thanks for that!) I'd like to ask you for some help if you have time for that. You wrote in your comment that "A better solution would have been to trim the spam parts and leave the rest". Could you please advise me what exactly should be changed in order to improve the article and remove tags from it? I'm new to Wikipedia and would like to learn more from guru people here :)

Tx! Reflecta (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "How it works" section, as it was the biggest problem I saw. Other than that, overly long lists (like langauges offered) and name dropping (like the "popular web resources for designers") should be watched out for; it gives the impression of listing either the good or bad parts of something, which usually means advertising. Qualitative assessments of things should also be watched out for, especially in the lede section, and rather than simply telling the reader something you should prove it (for instance, don't state "BLAH Co. is a leading producer of BLAH", state that "BLAH Co. is a company which produces BLAH" and later on in the text include some sourced text saying it's leading).

I also moved the page to BootB, since that's the capitalization that appears correct. Cheers. lifebaka++ 10:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for information and especially for moving to BootB (with capital letters), I couldn't find how to make this by myself :) Just one more question regarding all these tags above the page (cleanup, advert and COI) - what should be done to remove them? As I understand they can't be just deleted, there is a special procedure?

Tx again! Reflecta (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you keep working on the page you should be able to fix the issues, and then the tags can be removed. But since they're there to notify people of issues, they shouldn't be removed until the issues have been fixed. Other than that, no special procedure at all. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your help! Reflecta (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for God's Playground: Volume I - Chapter Synopsis

An editor has asked for a deletion review of God's Playground: Volume I - Chapter Synopsis. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. greg park avenue (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to know why this article was speed deleted given that there was NOT A GENERAL CONSENSUS that the article be deleted. Please give us i.e. the editors who wanted to keep it an explanation. ALSO PLEASE E-MAIL ME THE CONTENT AS I HAVE SPENT HOURS ON THIS ARTICLE. E-mail: ikinsman@hotmail.com. Put God's Playground as subject. Ivankinsman (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Emailed it. Ech, shoulda' read what you wanted the subject to be... Oughta' get through fine though. Replying to rest at the DRV. lifebaka++ 19:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

YOU WERE RIGHT

Thank you for your intervention in the Eucharist article. You had no reason to be sorry, you were right the first time, according to Prodego:

The WP:3RR does not require the same editor to be reverted, only the same content. . . . Prodego ^talk 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My footnote amplification was deleted four times by Looie/Lima. That is a clear 3R violation by Prodego's definition. Also Lima has unilaterally redirected History of the Eucharist from Origin of the Eucharist, and tried to make a distinction between the two.

I'm grateful for any time you have spent on this up to now, and thank you in advance for any future attention. Eschoir (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe his reading of it is wrong.

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, [snip] on a single page within a 24-hour period. (emphasis mine)

That's directly from WP:3RR. So they didn't violate the letter, but it was edit waring nonetheless (including you). So, don't do it again and we're all good here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Eschoir (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Statistics!

Much appreciated - and thank you for your help, as well. Now the fun part - figuring out how to get pretty graphs out of this mess. Again, thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can do some extra-fun Excel work, if you want/need me to. I've got an idea or two on things I'd like to try. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sonic showers

Hello! Please also note the first item listed at [4]. Popular Mechanics is a mainstream magazine and I would think a published result in a top ten list is notable. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly getting somewhere. But that particular one doesn't actually reference the idea of using pressure waves in the air (i.e. sound) to do it (I don't think, could just be misreading the science-speak). I'm still on the fence here, but more towards your side of the fence. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the article then could/should be constructed in a manner that notes that the concept is used differently. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it was just me missing it. "Instead, we should take a lesson from doctors who sterilize surgical instruments through techniques such as ... and ultrasonic vibrations." (emphasis mine, snipped) Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI/Gretab

Good on you for providing the voice of reason to the ANI incident, it's unfortunate some others appear to think the behaviour there is a good way to deal with a suspected sock puppet. And sorry for the Alison talk page spill-over, I think it's mostly my fault. I had gone to her page to ask her to help but noticed you'd already asked. I thought I'd mention it in my post to ANI hoping it would convince people to let things be until Alison responded. Unfortunately I think it just resulted in the spill-over of the issue to her talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> I think this is why I never got into the noticeboards become becoming an admin. Alison likely won't mind too much, thought it's generally a bad thing that all the discussion isn't at the board itself (or other official channels). Thanks for the backup. Cheers, and happy editing. lifebaka++ 21:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys! tsk :) Of course I don't mind! It's hardly your fault. And thanks to you both for adding valuable perspective to the whole matter, and for calling for calm and sense. Thanks again! - Alison ^❤ 01:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Y

y deletion Superman Ultimate Collector's Edition The Complete Superman Collection Alien Quadrilogy List of DVD film franchise collections Omen pentology box set The Exorcist - The Complete Anthology from cooksi (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There was an AfD for them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Christopher Reeve Superman Collection. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Weddzilla.com

Hi. Just a quick query about procedure since you've just handled this article ... I'd speedied the article as advertising, the author put a hangon, saying it wasn't spam, then a single purpose account user removed the speedy tag. I then undid the tag removal to restore the speedy - is that actually good procedure ? Can I remove what appear to be SPA changes in these cases, or should I just take the article to AfD ? CultureDrone (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking you're not supposed to if someone else removes the tag, unless it appears that the removal was done in bad faith or to circumvent the CSD process. That removal is the account's only contribution, so in this case it looks fine to me. Besides, the tag was correct. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI

You may be interested in this discussion on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, saw it. It's how it got the MfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your close

Hi. Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chair throwing: Just wondering if you meant that all of the keep !votes should be viewed with--well not to mince words--contempt, other than that of Colonel Warden's. Cauz that's how the close sounds. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

YeahNo, no way. I meant that he's the only one arguing for keep who provided sources to back his argument up. So, without support the keep side kinda' crumbled. The "per Colonel Warden" arguments (like yours) aren't very convincing either, since he just did a Google books search. Weighing them, the delete arguments were heftier. 'Course, if new sources have been found since I'll be happy to review them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ech, you changed it while I was writtin' and it didn't give me an ec. I thought you'd said something different. lifebaka++ 15:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I had an exchange in the AFD with User:M that I consider significant. What did you think of that? --Firefly322 (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a list of famous tantrums (or something like it), if it can be properly sourced. I'd also be happy to restore the history of chair throwing so it can be merged there, when such a list exists. But, without that list currently in place, I believe M was still arguing for deletion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The way I see the AFD is a process of concerned editors. A participant has value when it engages other editors. It seems that your close didn't value editors who were obviously sincere and showed it by their participation and careful reading of the other editors. It sounds like you are actually tallying votes based solely on whether they provided a source (of which there were plenty already provided). Is that a correct assessment? --Firefly322 (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, no. But an argument of "It's notable" is less valid without providing sources proving it or by pointing at such sources already in the article.

The way I've been judging consensus in my closings has been to take the relative support of each position and weigh it against the strength of the arguments backing each position. I'm pretty sure that's how consensus is supposed to work. For instance, I recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonty Haywood as no consensus when a tally would have obviously supported deletion because the keep arguments were strong. In this case, I didn't see any good reason given in the discussion to merge the article, and the keep arguments did not outweigh the delete arguments. Please let me know if I'm not making any sense in all that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Then let's look more closely at the Chair throwing article. The article itself had three or more sources. So in my mind the article should not have even come to AFD, given that many, many articles on wikipedia have zero sources. Then Colonel Warden in the AFD made the question of sources a moot point by showing that potentially hundreds of sources exist. Then the AFD began to focus on the focus of the article. Several sincere editors thought that it would be more appropriate as a list. At this point the AFD petered out--not much more activity from any editors. And to me seemed like it would be a clear no consensus close . --Firefly322 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. I didn't read a consensus in the AfD that the sources provided in the article provide notability for the concept as a whole, which is why the list was suggested. A list of chair throwing incidents (or similar at other titles) would have the same problems as chair throwing already did, which was the argument brought up in the discussion against it. As I said above, I'd support a merge to a list of famous tantrums or the like (name could use some work, though).

I'm not feeling like you're going to persuade me to switch my decision here, so if you wish to continue to dispute the close I recommend WP:DRV. You don't have to notify me if you do, I swing by often enough as is. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dobong Public Library

Thanks. I will now proceed to merge to a combined article as I proposed in the nomination; it'll take a day or two before I get round to it (visitors coming). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. You oughta' make a note about it on Talk:Dobong Public Library, though, so people don't think it's not happening. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Done; and I have created List of public libraries of Seoul with an {{underconstruction}} tag. JohnCD (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Awakening

Is there a way put a Talkback-like box on the talk pages of everyone on the MTG list when something significant comes up in the Project (new navbox, AfD, etc?) And if it's possible, do you think it would be useful or too aggressive? JamesLucas (" " / +) 13:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for bold, but not necessarily aggressive. That'd be a bit much to force on people. But of course it's possible to do it. A lot of WikiProjects put out newsletters; I think we're a bit small for that, though. So, what I'd suggest is creating some subpage of the project, building it like {{cent}} (with different color and image choices, of course), and updating it whenever there's something new going on at the project. I'll be happy to help you with it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

History restoration

Hi lifebaka, quick question on this that didn't need to be at ANI. How did you find it? How did you figure out what I did? I'm just curious because I still have no idea. Thanks again TravellingCari 15:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea what you did. I checked the history of National Parks of New York Harbor and it looked odd that there was content which seemed to disappear (page size in bytes), so I figured that was the lost content. It's odd that the move is in the history three times, I'm guessing whatever caused that also caused the content to be missing. You could try WP:VPT for what happened. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would, but I think answers I'd get there would make my head explode so I'll pass :) Thanks again and TGIF TravellingCari 15:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything to add? (-_-)

Hi,

We're discussing what to add in the telescope article. I figured maybe you want to add something. Cheers! :-) InternetHero (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Confessions Tour article status?

Hello, it seems discussion has ceased on the matter concerning Madonna's Confessions Tour. The original editors have not responded in over a week and it seems no resolution has been made. KM*hearts*MC (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox VG

Hi Lifebaka,

I would like to add a parameter to the {{Infobox VG}} allowing to state the language(s) of a video game. I've already written it in the sandbox and you can see the result in the test cases page. So, this is the edit I would like to do on the template. Thanks in advance. 16@r (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of You're Gonna Go Far, Kid

A tag has been placed on You're Gonna Go Far, Kid, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Newdelrev issue?

The last couple of deletion reviews listed have had malfunctioning links because of a prepended Article: in the title. I suspect that something is wrong (or less than optimal) in the template but am not savvy enough with wikicode to trust myself to figure it out without breaking it. Could you please have a look. Thanks! Eluchil404 (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeeze, fixed that. Took it out for |ns=article. Let me know if there are any other problems. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Trouble you didn't ask for. . .

Just dropping by with a head's up that I've done this, per this. I do hope I haven't presumed overmuch. Thanks for your level head in that debate. Cheers, Chick Bowen 16:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Coolio. I might actually be able to work something up on that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have nowhere else to turn

Hello,

I have nowhere else to turn. Could you help me here? I think I am being bullied... Its ok, I'll be fine. I don't know what else to do, though. InternetHero (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

Lifebaka/Archive 4, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

Public Libraries of Seoul

Following this AfD, I have compiled the List of public libraries of Seoul and put an explanatory note on its talk page. Five of the libraries have more than the basic information in their articles, which should be kept, and they show as blue-links in the table. The question now is what to do with the other stub articles. My original idea, proposed in the AfD, was that they should go, and that the best way was to PROD them. That would lose their edit histories, but those show only creation by Heroeswithmetaphors (talk · contribs), who I have credited on the talk page of the new article. The alternative would be to turn them all into redirects to this table. I am mildly against that, as my original intention was to avoid a multiplicity of (to my mind) unnecessary articles, and I find it hard to imagine a user of the English WP doing a search for "Youngdeungpo Municipal Library"; but I can hear voices crying, redirects are cheap, why lose information. What do you think? JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's isn't any good reason to delete them instead of just redirecting from what I can see, so I'd go with redirects. Redirects are pretty cheap on server load and file space, so there's almost never a reason not to have one (and RfD deals with those). Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect it is. All done. Thanks for your help. JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Royce Mathew is Back

Hello!

Recently the "Royce Mathew" situation was dismissed, and I would've been fine for that, were it not for the fact that he is personally attacking me and other users again. A list of all things is documented here: [5].

This is a formal complaint to the administrators, and I am sure that he will once again attack me on my page once more. Thank you very much for your time! BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 20:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you unblock an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.237.79 (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Drvlinks

Hi, this seems not to have worked quite right--see WP:DRV#Wikipedia:Esperanza--not sure why not. Chick Bowen 00:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

'cuz I didn't update the actual link code... After a few edits, it should work fully now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

D-stroy

hope all is perfect, i added a page about D-Stroy and it was deleted by you. Your name came up as the deletor (if that's a word) however, please I didnt know what was wrong and i feel artist should have a place on wiki- . if something had to change i would do so in an instant. I want to have a good standing in the wiki-community. Thanks a load.

Anthony Flags —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrobots (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the page as an expired proposed deletion. Just give the word and it'll be back up. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it'll be fantastic if it could come back up on the site. I would greatly appreciate it. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrobots (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Templates

You posted here about my problems creating deletion reviews properly and said you were having minor problems getting the template correct. This got me thinking that I've often wondered how templates etc. work and so I was wondering if there's any documentation that lists how things like #if etc. work, a sort of programming guide I suppose. I am a computer scientist (now specialising in Bioinformatics) so I'd hope to be able to understand it. You never know I may get round to having a look at your problems with the template that started it all. Cheers. Dpmuk (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I figured out the problem I was having. I forgot to capitalize something, so it wasn't ignoring it properly. But anyways, the information you're looking for is at Help:Magic words and m:Help:ParserFunctions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the links. While looking at the DRV page today I noticed the link for the cached copy was not working correctly as it was inserting "Article". I update Template:drvlinks to correct this and although I'm 99% sure what I did was correct (it seems to be working) it would be good if you could give my change the once over just to make sure I didn't miss anything. Have also updated the usage a bit to relfect that you can use Article and also to make it clearer that ns is not case senstitive on the first character only (it would be reasonably easy to update it to make it case insensitive everywhere but I'm not sure there's much point). Dpmuk (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't make changes to Template:Newdelrev myself as it's protected but I think a change to the usage statement, like the one I mad to drvlinks, should also be made here. (Only just noticed this, hence the new comment). Dpmuk (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got duplicate code at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/newdelrev (currently highly worked on, but I'm getting nowhere) , feel free to play with it there. As far as messing up when |ns= isn't specified or when |ns=article, the issue is that while

{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|True|False}}

Will yield "False",

{{subst:#if:{{{ns|}}}|True|False}}

Yields "True" (you should test this to make sure I'm not just losing my mind). So, I'm unsure how to change to the code to make the title display properly. The code I was attempting to use was

{{#if:{{<includeonly>subst</includeonly>#switch:{{ucfirst:{{{ns|}}}}}|Article={{ns:0}}|#default={{{ns|}}}}}|
====[[:{{<includeonly>subst</includeonly>ucfirst:{{{ns}}}}}:{{<includeonly>subst</includeonly>ucfirst:{{{pg}}}}}]]====
|
====[[:{{<includeonly>subst</includeonly>ucfirst:{{{pg}}}}}]]====
}}

Which would be horrid and ugly, but at least works (now, I must've dropped some brackets somewhere before). The code

====[[{{{ns|}}}:{{{pg}}}]]====

Works except for categories and images (but we've luckily already got a special one for images which works better, so it's a moot point there). Likewise,

====[[:{{{ns|}}}:{{{pg}}}]]====

Works, but would render article titles as 12. Sorry for filling this up with code, but I wanted to list what I've tried to see if you've got any ideas. In the meantime it's not too difficult to remove the :{{{ns}}} from the section headings, and reverting to a previous version removes the |ns= functionality. For the usage, feel free to create Template:Newdelrev/Doc, and use a {{editprotected}} template on Template talk:Newdelrev to have it put on (which will probably be faster than just asking me). Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

SUPERPOWER the Movie

You closed the DRV on this (don't know if you restored the content), as it had been licensed under the GFDL. Looking at the site in question it actually says: "Permission is granted for reuse of the content of this Home Page under the GFDL to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed without expressed permission from the site manager (see Superpower Contact Information), and a notion to this site must be made as the source."

That is not an acceptable license, it is adding additional terms not in keeping with the GFDL, specifically it only allows verbatim copies, and no modifications - pretty useless for Wikipedia's purposes. Secondly it contains an advertising clause i.e. must reference the source.

--82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Using a modified version of the GFDL still works, I believe. It allows copying for any purposes (unless they've changed it more than I can see), and the GFDL already requires attribution to the authors of the material anyways. Still, if you believe it to be a copyvio, please use the appropriate channels for sorting it out. I suggesting asking over at WT:COPYVIO first, however, before taking any more drastic steps. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it's been redeleted due to another issue, I am however quite disappointed by your response seems it seem to show a pretty big gap between wikipedia's goals, the licensing requirement of wikipedia and what the GFDL actually says.

Right under the edit box I'm typing in now is the text "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL", not GFDL with whatever modification you like, it's GFDL or nothing, you can of course multiply license your work, but it has to be available under the unbmodified terms of the GFDL to be usable on wikipedia.

For the sake of argument let's assume I'm wrong on that and indeed the text actually means, GFDL which you can modify in anyway you like (even removing the basic concept of the GFDL, free distribution, modfication etc.), then we come to the other text under the edit box: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. " how can that be in compatible with the license from the source site of "but changing it is not allowed without expressed permission from the site manager", (Also considering WP:OWN), it's completely incompatible with the purpose of wikipedia the free encyclopedia.

GFDL attribution for wikipedia primarily stems from section 4 of the GFDL regarding modifications, point b - "List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.". Wikipedia retains article history which acts to preserve attibution above and beyond that requirement, hwoever again as a free encylopedia, reusers of the material have no such obligation, adding the additional clause of requiring the originator to always be attributed is beyond the requirements of the GFDL. (This is actually a really complex issue how do you decide the five for instance, what constitues being a principal author, in the case of material from wikipedia does the five apply to an individual article or the collective work of all the encyclopedia entries etc., wikipedia retaining the edit history of each and every article avoids worrying about such issues.)

Sorry for the rant. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, the rant is fine. You've got a point there, it wasn't actually compatible. So my closing rationale was wrong. But still, there was no need for a DRV at that point as the deletion had been undone, so closing it was still the way to go. Now, I realize that sounds a bit reactionary, but it's still true. Pretty much DRVs are useless if the deleting admin undoes his own decision (regardless of what happens afterwards). I can go reword it if you'd like, but it's kinda' pointless to reopen it now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

En nombre del amor

Hi LifeBaka. Could I ask that you would restore this article? I'm not sure of the procedure, and I had a very bad experience on the Spanish Wikipedia regarding a prod, but I believe that the policy says I can come to you. If you wish me to prove the notability, I have done so (in Spanish) at es:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/En nombre del amor‎. The discussion was for delete, however, if it had been in English, it would easily have passed our notability guidelines (theirs are stricter). Thanks for your time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done, it's restored at En Nombre del Amor. The article definitely needs some work. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I was too lazy to work on it before. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Denniseugene et al.

There have been at least two other SPAs making similarly unhelfpul edits to Michael Peterson's page. One of them has the username User:DrinkSwear, which is a reference to one of his singles, so I think that account might be Peterson himself too. (For the record, I've met at least two other country singers who have commented on their own Wikipedia pages. Jeff Wood was at least more friendly about it, and even agreed to send me a new CD to thank me.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's got contribs from November '06, which is odd. I don't think he would have created a new account if he remembered an old one. Could've lost and since recovered the password, though.

This one isn't claming to be Peterson, though, so I'm not inclined to assume it is. Asking would help, but might not be the best idea to do publicly. Perhaps an email? lifebaka++ 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the support

However, I have decided to halt my interactions with NAC and XfD permanently. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 08:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeeze, that was kinda' harsh. Probably could've been dealt with better, on the other end. *sigh*

If you're interested, I think it's high time I started up my totally-informal coaching/discussion program, which should help out with people who want to be admins (or want to do admin-y things, or already are admins, or otherwise want to participate). I'll build the stuff in my userspace sometime this week, and look around for a first problem to discuss. Let me know if you're interested. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! I would be very interested. I must say, that my confidence has been shattered by this incident. I have never had my username (anywhere) called into question before (I was an systems admin for 17 years prior to med-school), and have never, ever been even close to a block threat. I was just trying to help. I have seriously considered exercising my right to leave over this event. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 22:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. We lose too many good contributors as is. Anyways, I'll let you know when I have it up. Finding something shouldn't be too hard, I'll just search back in the DRV or AfD archives a little ways (I've got some ideas, but I need to look over them). Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wont leave. I am asking Ryulong to undergo admin recall (if willing, RFC if not) as can be seen here (he's known for BITE); Thanks and I look forward to reading it all. :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 00:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ryulong is not open to recall, and no-one bar Fr33kman has tried to resolve the dispute with him, so it would be impossible for it to be certified. Of course, you could always tell him this yourself, as his coach :) Daniel (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how far an RFC for him would go. The community often gives a lot of leeway to editors with short fuses if they're useful to the project (see User:Giano II as an example; no, I'm not picking on Giano here, for anyone else watching) and most admins are usually useful to the project. Everyone gets angry sometimes, I suggest you just forget about it and move on (and probably remove the block threat from your userpage, they're kinda' annoying to have up). It won't be terribly difficult to avoid him, if you just do normal editing, since most admins don't do normal editing much (myself included there, I spend too much time at AfD and DRV...). Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'm taking a wikibreak for a while (which is a shame as I had open MEDCAB cases) I'll be back in touch, or you can email me. Thanks :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe

Per the comments in the DRV, I've gone ahead and relisted the AFD. Dreadstar † 23:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but you really didn't have to. You are of course free to make comments in the AfD or to reclose it later. Cheers! lifebaka++ 00:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Eugene Ingram

Please reverse the unsalting. I deliberately salted the page to prevent future BLP violations. I cited that I had acted under BLP. The action should only be reversed if there is a consensus to do so. The question of salting is not an issue for DRV and there clearly was no consensus to reverse this with most editors commenting after my deletion endorsing my actions (presumably including the salting). Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see the confusion, because Cirt is actually the one who protected the page. Mangojuice^talk 17:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought I had protected it. OK, that blows my argument out the water. I still feel the protection is a BLP requirement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you unprotected this. No one objected to the page being protected, and the debate wasn't about whether or not to salt. The page has been recreated multiple times, always in violation of WP:BLP. I don't see that you talked to Cirt about undoing his action. If you had made this request via WP:RFP it would have been denied, I'm quite sure. Mangojuice^talk 17:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've resalted it for now, but I'm pretty sure it's not necessary. Granted if the article got recreated it would've been. I'm just worried about the possibility that there's someone else out there of the same name who is notable and not a BLP issue magnet. Or, that maybe the guy's notable (evidence to the contrary I've yet to see) and we could have the article in a form that isn't a BLP issue. A short stub, including some normal biographical info as well as the controversy, should be okay, right? lifebaka++ 18:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your usual sensible approach. This bloke is only notable in regards to their Scientology activities and finding rounded sources will almost certainly be extraordinarily difficult. If you do recreate the page it will need some form of review or protection otherwise we will be back at DRV before we know where we are. I personally don't see any harm salting with a note that any future article needs to be written in userspace and brought to DRV for review first but then I'm an evil deletionist vandal. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll go look for some things later. No idea if it'll come to anything. The sound of a note works for me, as long as it's explicit (says "take these steps" or "talk to this person and they'll explain it"). And don't worry, you're not an evil deletionist vandal, you're just a regular one. :P lifebaka++ 18:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is actually the 4th reincarnation of the article. The original Eugene Martin Ingram was deleted, recreated and deleted, and Eugene Ingram was deleted twice after being recreated as an article. Given the severity of BLP issues here... if that doesn't merit page protection, I don't know what does. Mangojuice^talk 19:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that basically all BLP issues can be resolved without requiring deletion. It looks to be this way here to me, anyways. As I said above, a note somewhere would serve both our purposes pretty well. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: CSD Protections

I know. I discussed it on IRC before doing it (since MZMcBride has previously been the one pointing out the old consensus), and was shown to some WT:CSD archive. I really don't see how that discussion made any sense, though, and it wasn't really clear that any consensus had been made there. I'm going to just be bold and protect them all, and hope that we can get a change in "consensus" if anyone doesn't like it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - This is not a "per IRC" action; most everyone I spoke to had no particularly strong opinions on this. It's all my own doing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Might've helped to make a note at Template talk:Db-meta, though. That's where discussion should take place if people revert/object/etc. anyways. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Template_talk:Newdelrev#Documentation_template

Question for you at Template_talk:Newdelrev#Documentation_template. -- Suntag ☼ 21:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is today International Talk Like a Pirate Day?

Ahoy, me hearty! Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye, maytey, it may just be. lifebaka++ 18:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahoy, matey, I be appreciaten yer edit summ'ries as bein' in th' style of ITLaPD! Yarrr! A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I be tryin'. 'Tain't always easy, matey. Writin' be hard bu'iness. Down the hatch, matey. lifebaka++ 19:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A warm greetin' to yer, and pray, join me in hoistin' a tankard o' rum, me fine matey! Yer a right example of piratin' talk today! umrguy42 21:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)