User talk:Lifebaka

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.

Peeter Süda

Does Wikipedia have a tag for A7, rather than just deleting? A tag would have led to content being added such as quote "In 1924, the Peeter Süda Memorial Foundation, the predecessor of the Estonian Theatre and Music Museum was set up. The collection of Peeter Süda (Estonian word 'süda' means 'heart' in English) is the “heart” of today’s Estonian Theatre and Music Museum." unquote Cheers.

Hi, sorry you may have missed this? Is there such a tag? Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See {{db-a7}}. It was tagged. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well I was away for a day. :) I'll redo the page In ictu oculi (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Please keep Ubermind, Inc. wiki page

Unfortunately I referenced an article that did not fit the guidelines. As I was reading the wiki guidelines and guide to editing pages our page was deleted.

It looked like the article had been deleted prior to me leaving the page, therefore I did not have a place to insert the "hold on" tag. I am the marketing coordinator for Ubermind, Inc. and would simply like to edit the page with the most current company information. I apologize for the original edit that caused the page to be deleted. Please repost it so I can edit it (correctly).

If there are any other issues, please let me know so I can address them.

Thanks!

-Kevin K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinjkirkpatrick (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll want to take a look at our policy regarding conflicts of interest before you continue to pursue this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just sent you an email regarding the issue. Please respond via email. Thanks

-Kevin K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinjkirkpatrick (talk • contribs) 18:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What is your problem.

The NASCAR Shark is completely authentic. This just means that you have never seen him and you have never been to the Bayou or the Everglades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setnicky30 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Uranos (software) deletion

Hi, I dont understand why you delete this page.... Can you explain that?

Thnak you (or not) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzuki (talk • contribs) 12:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it fits WP:CSD#A7. In less opaque terms, it does not tell the reader why they should care about its existence. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is open source software, the same idea like open knowledge like in wikipedia, dont care about that??? But maybe I dont understand you... If you can explain me how to do it correctly, maybe I understand it...?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzuki (talk • contribs) 13:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Being open source is not an assertion of importance, I'm afraid.

As to how to do it properly, you should start by finding instances where reliable, third-party sources have written about Uranos, in order to prove its notability, then use these sources to verify the content. Without doing this, the article is likely to continue to be deleted. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah... ok. So "Free" Enceyclopedia means "Restricted" to the known universe.... Nothing new - if no one other is writing about it. Damn... Stop distributing knowledge? What about pages like: freshmeat or ohloh? Ar this reliable, third-party sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzuki (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Directory listings, while potentially reliable and third-party, don't do much to establish notability, I'm afraid. Notability requires non-trivial mentions, such as newspaper articles or scholarly journal articles which are entirely about the subject.

Additionally, you'll generally find that asserting that Wikipedia is anything other than what it claims to be, a freely edited encyclopedia, is not going to endear you to those you are speaking to here. At best, someone like me will let you know about this fact; at worst, you will anger people and find yourself ignored. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. Have a nice weekend! 06:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzuki (talk • contribs)

AfD of Azad Dam

Hi, Lifebaka. You closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azad Dam as 'no consensus'. However, if you look the discussion, you could see that consensus was built during the process and was supported by all except the creator of these stubs. I would really like to know what was the argument for 'no consensus' as consensus does not mean unanimity. Beagel (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The consensus, if anything, was leaning towards redirecting the articles to some common list. However, I was not willing to close as redirect or merge without a more focused discussion on what the best target would be. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Frenetic_(programming_language) was created to make a point.

Hi there,

Can't we just delete the Frenetic_(programming_language) article? It was created specifically to make a POINT because of a reddit discussion, not because of any inherent notability. --Slashme (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I assumed. However, I don't see any compelling reason that we can't use PROD/AfD to delete it. It won't hurt anything to let it sit around for a week or two. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem! --Slashme (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Spice Times

I want to know why you deleted the Spice Times page. I always see the publication in my local restaurant and it is distributed across the UK and thought it deserved a page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlliedF (talk • contribs) 15:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? and the entry in the deletion log for an explanation. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Is there anyway to get the text back or is it gone forever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlliedF (talk • contribs) 13:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kob-dhehaad District

I've nominated Kob-dhehaad District for deletion. Since you proposed deletion via the PROD or Speedy Deletion processes, or declined the same, I'm giving you this notice as a courtesy, if you're interested in discussing the matter either way. The debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kob-dhehaad District. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Valery Nikolayevsky

Mr. Lifebaka, would you please restore the Wikipedia-Page Valery Nikolayevsky? Don't put shame on your name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.169.11 (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps G=0

I feel you are being cheeky! Re Template:Location map Australia Victoria Shire of Macedon, which I called G6 and you called G7. :) —Felix the Cassowary 18:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Iyo Nada

If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.

--Kikos (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

-> WP:RFD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:R to template

Hello. You are the second administrator who has deleted Template:R to template after it was nominated for speedy deletion as a recreation of a page deleted after a discussion. This page is not a recreation – it is a different template created under the same name as a deleted template. Please check before deleting. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What the template is, in fact, doing was also considered at the TfD, and was one of the major reasons why the original template was deleted. I suggest you talk to people before continuing to recreate it, to avoid seeming unnecessarily disruptive. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No, cross-namespace redirects had nothing to do with the TFD. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Been mulling over this for a while, which is why I haven't responded.

I'm not convinced that what you're doing is strictly necessary, but you are correct that this wasn't covered exactly at the TfD. I apologize for deleting the template twice. I am willing to undelete it for you, but I think that you'd just be best off recreating it yourself, which doesn't require that I be online.

However, to avoid further confusion as to the purpose of the template, and to make its use more obvious in its title, I suggest that you recreate it at a different title. Something like Template:Cross-namespace R to template (or similar). This should help you not run afoul of others making the same mistake I have.

Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I won't recreate it till the matter is resolved with the user who continually nominated it for deletion. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

re: Goran Zorić

You have my apologies. I completely forgot that I had previously tagged that article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Closed AFDs

Try this script...

importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/hideClosedAFD.js');

Makes it easy to not only hide closed AFDs on a log but also makes it easy find AFDs that were not properly closed and fix them. (When closed AFDs are "hidden", only the article header will appear on the log if the close was not formatted right). I find this quite handy when playing "mathbot". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh my. That is quite useful. Thanks. lifebaka++ 20:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

CloudSafe Tag

Well, so there its is now: "no consesus" on User:Roberto_valerio/CloudSafe after your deletion. Could you please re-open at Wikipedia:Deletion_review as stated in Wikipedia:No_consensus ? Or what would you suggest now? Best, Roberto valerio (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you might want to start by improving your draft. The DRV was fairly clear in rejecting your draft in particular. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please have a quick look: Admins Hobit, Stifle and DGG were in favour undelete/allow recreation at the end. I talked to them all. So I really want to know, what "improvements" you need to join them. Best, Roberto valerio (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you reread what DGG and Stifle wrote. They wanted improvements, and rejected your draft. Hobit didn't mention your draft in particular, either, so it's somewhat disingenuous to say that he accepted it.

You'll want to cite sources using inline citations to show clearly where information is verified, and make sure that they cover CloudSafe substantially enough to demonstrate its notability. You'll also want to avoid using weasel words and other flowery language, as these make users think that purpose of the page is to advertise. And you'll want to take a look at some other articles to try to emulate their formatting, but this won't prevent recreation by itself. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Εγκληματολογική Πληροφορική

Hi there

I was starting a page on Εγκληματολογική Πληροφορική and you deleted it. May I ask why please?

Regards

Vassilios Manoussos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmanoussos (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it had no content not already present at Computer forensics, and redirecting it there would have resulting in a nigh-impossible redirect. This is the English language Wikipedia. Articles here must be written in English, and we usually do not keep foreign language titles around as redirects. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

snow closure at DRV

Why the haste?  The issue is not settled.  There is opinion, but there is no refutation using the force of reason.  It is true that without anyone else giving a "second" to continue discussion, I am hesitant to respond.  But the page at WP:DELREV has not been working correctly all day today, who knows what responses will yet arrive.  There is a basic problem in that none of the responses reference guidelines.  More, no one has espoused that the closing statement was done properly.

I can only guess that some responses have referenced WP:Deletion process.  If so, this position needs to be presented properly, including the misunderstanding based in the ambiguity created here.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You're lawyering. This is obvious. If you want to fix some ambiguity, fix it, but not at DRV. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

spacing error

please help, i dont know how to fix spacing error on this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_Bir_Maona --Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

FYI the death knight a page you deleted was just re-created. I tagged it for CSD. Bped1985 (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Salted it for a week to prevent recreation of the copyvio. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well thats good to hear. I thought I was going to keep see that page pop up. Makes things at RCP a little easier. Thanks! Bped1985 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Rail Gun

Hi. Kindly reconsider deleting Rail Gun. We already have Rail gun with 47 links and Railgun with 230 links. Rail Gun has 5 links, user and talk pages.

Rail Gun (upper case G) seems superfluous since Rail gun (lower case g) already exists. A user would have to deliberately type the upper case G to select that redirect.

Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Take it to RfD. The page has been around since 2004 and is an entirely possible search term, both of which make it ineligible for R3. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:User Jimmy2Shoes

The user Wikipedian explorer, who is the creator of the above template, as seen from his sulutil, is a sock of JimmyTwoShoes fan, who was blocked in December of 2010. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Then I suggest an SPI case. Convincing me, in particular, won't do much besides seeing the template gone. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Old Man Murray

Hi, would you please expand more on how the sources related to the Old Man Murray deletion were trivial? Sources included Edge, Kotaku, Serious Sam, Quake 3, and PC Gamer. Try to not use the term meatpuppet if you can, thanks! Worm4Real (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Because none of them dealt with Old Man Murray itself, but instead only mentioned it in passing or used a metric from it. These sorts of references are not substantial enough to meet the general notability guideline. What would be required is someone writing about Old Man Murray in at least some length. I saw no indication that any such source exists. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I would think due to the specific nature of an article about a website [Popular Culture] rules would apply. Since these are the best references any website of this kind would get, mainly references that show a undeniable impact on gaming. How more notable could a gaming website hope to get?

Not trying to say WP:OTHERSTUFF, however I think a lot of the wikipedia users in this discussion may have given you the false idea that these sources would ever exist for most websites. If notability is a measure of how many times a writer for Wired decided he loved the site then that's a pretty poor metric.

EDIT: As well I don't see specifically what in the notability article you're referring to. How are [| these [| two] articles not directly writen about Old Man Murray? They were featured multiple times in the discussion page as well.Worm4Real (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Also commenting that I think that was the wrong decision here. Too many RSes, that, while not solely or featuring OMM, with more being found during AFD, should have edged it to "keep" and at worst, it should have been redirected to Chet's article. This deletion is already being commented on on other VG websites, and I myself was unaware of it until I saw these articles. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll re-evaluate it later this evening (EST). I am not currently on a network that lets me view most of the sources, unfortunately. Expect four to five hours delay before my next response. lifebaka++ 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Rock, Paper, Shotgun is not happy about this either Entropy Stew (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Their site's title bar has even changed to make fun of wikipedia's notability policy Entropy Stew (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh golly, a site I've never heard of before today has their collective panties in a bunch, so I guess we'd better rethink the whole thing. Cripes... HalfShadow 00:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This, THIS RIGHT HERE, is the sort of snotty bratspeak from the editors that all of us "meatpuppets" had to wade through in the RFD. Read your own article about the site, then. This guy is the second editor with a huge CoI lending support for deletion in that RFD, btw. He was active at the Portal of Evil forums and was run off after a time, just like SchuminWeb. Entropy Stew (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's my dick that's huge, not my CoI. Thanks, though. HalfShadow 01:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

While obviously it couldn't have been taken into account in the AfD, I think the RPS blog post that Entropy Stew linked is a good enough source for the article. It's about OMM, rather than mentioning it 'tangentially' (although I have to say I agree with Worm4Real that it's unrealistic to demand dedicated coverage on this sort of topic, games journalism is pretty niche) and RPS is specifically listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources as a reliable source for gaming-related topics. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 00:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it funny that if an article is deleted, and a reliable source comments on its deletion, it can be brought back. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that they commented about it. It's that the commented, linked to notable references, did their own research, showed cases of Conflict of Interest, the whole gambit. The fact that a reputable source took notice is a good indication that this decision needed more review. Lego6245 (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty ironic, but it's the fact that they, a reliable source, make unambiguous statements like "The influence [OMM] had on games writing has influenced just about everything else anyone’s enjoyed since", rather than that they're commenting on the deletion. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 00:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for shedding light on how Wikipedia works. If you view shuminweb's actions you can see he has removed all mention of Chet and Erik from Marc Laidlaw's Page, yahtzee's page and others. Even though these people have cited the two as influences, it matters not. All that matters is the dream is alive, one person can change history. Thank you for showing how mature and objective wikipedia really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.4.144 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What can be done about SchuminWeb? Chet Falsizek himself has pointed out that Schumin, flush with victory, is going on an abusive edit spree. Entropy Stew (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've looked at it again, as requested, and come to the same conclusion. There simply do not exist sufficient non-trivial, reliable, and third-party sources about Old Man Murray at this time. There are sources out there that can be cherrypicked (which I use in a non-negative way) from to get a decent chuck of verifiable information, but nothing substantial to meet the GNG with. I realize this is going to piss a lot of people off, so let me explain some things.

When we use the words "notability" and "notable" on Wikipedia, we are not using it as defined by the English language. Wikipedia has some silly internally-used jargon, such as "notability," which we use because we know what it means. Anyone reading this can find our definition at the general notability guideline. We have a general notability guideline because, ideally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't cover everything. So we need some sort of relatively objective metric that tells us we can have an article about, say, Magic: The Gathering (or most other things that articles exist for), but not my Aunt Super-awesome Baka. We use the general notability guideline for it, but it's not perfect. So we also have subject guidelines to cover some of the gaps. Still, there are things that aren't even vaguely important but have articles, and things that are incredibly important but don't. Old Man Murray is probably closer to this latter category, along with some other video game review websites.

The issue appears to be that people don't write real reviews or articles about sites like Old Man Murray, even if they are well known, considered important, and often-referenced. A similar situation exists with indie music labels. No one writes about them, and there isn't anything in the subject guidelines that covers them. The best solution to this issue would be to write up a subject notability guideline which covers video game review websites, and I would welcome an attempt at writing one. I'm not sure it would gain consensus among the wider Wikipedia community, but I can guarantee that it's Old Man Murray's best shot. I also note that I don't see an extremely compelling reason to ignore the general notability guideline in this case, and an extremely compelling reason is about what it should take to ignore it.

Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 02:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)