User talk:Lifebaka/Archive 3

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.

I am Back - Help Needed!

Hello Lifebaka. The "Gabriel Murphy" article has been nominated for deletion by someone that I believe has a personal vandetta against this article. Here is the link to the AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriel_Murphy_%283rd_nomination%29#Gabriel_Murphy. The user does not even point out that the article was reversed on a DR just 2 days ago. If you can chime in on this conversation I would appreciate it. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Much

Just wanted to say thank you so much for your help/advice/feedback with the "Gabriel Murphy" article. You have inspired me to get more involved with Wikipedia; to learn about Wikipedia and help others where I can. Best Wishes! LakeBoater (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too, you helped a lot with your comment concerning the "Protection"-rule of MTG. Thank you!--84.63.219.175 (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

My RfA

I hope the other kids at school play with me...

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.) Thanks for your detailed supporting statement! I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

deleting talk pages of redirects

I would like to know, which consensus there is that prevents talk pages of redirects that have no disscussions to be deleted. --Gman124 ^talk 17:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides that G8 doesn't say that they can be, there's a discussion here that at least shows there's no consensus for it. And it's always an easier solution to redirect them along with the article. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't the talk pages whose corresponding article does not exist, fall under speedy delete? So why keep them? I agree that we need to keep if there is a substantial disscussion, but why not delete the talk pages that only had project templates. --Gman124 ^talk 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Conceivably there could be incoming links, or particularly savvy newbies could try to navigate directly to it, and it'd help for them to end up where discussion should happen instead of at a non-existent talk page. Besides, redirects are cheap on server load and, when it comes down to it, having the page there or redirected isn't hurting anybody. There isn't any good reason to delete them, so we don't. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could agree. --Gman124 ^talk 17:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Userfying content of David Horne

Hello Lifebaka, Thanks for your feedback on the David Horne deletion review. I'm writing to you out of the three users that replied, as you clearly indicated that you could personally userfy the content for me (I guess that means or includes recovering it). I would like to have it as a starting point. Or should I address my request to someone from Category:Wikipedia_administrators_who_will_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles? Thanks,--Atavi (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Atavi (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I wondered what the process is for retrying the page. Do I just create it again and see if it is deleted or is there a process whereby what I have written in my user space can be reviewed and I can have some feedback? Thanks in advance--Atavi (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to go to the trouble you can have another DRV for it. But, usually, if both you and some other editors agree that it can go back in mainspace, you just move it back (using the move tab at the top of the page). First, however, you oughta' add some inline citations. If you need any help with it, feel free to ask. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First off, thanks for your answer. Second, sorry for the long post. Now, I'm afraid I only have new questions. Won't a new deletion review only judge the deleted material (and not what I've written in my user space)? How do I go about finding editors who will take a look at what I've written in my user space?

I do know how to use inline citations, but I usually use them for something controversial, where someone might come up and say "Where did you get that fact?". For example, say Iran-Contra affair. When I write a short biographical article about a musician, I find there's little that needs to be directly traced to a source, provided that there are actually sources in the article somewhere. For example, an exception would be when I wrote that Goffredo Petrassi "is considered one of the most influential Italian composers of the twentieth century", which is a judgement, so you know. Anyway, I'm rambling...

Back to the subject matter, I think David Horne is notable both as a composer and a performer. Any one of those would do, right? I also think that his notability is established in what I've currently written and I could argue about it if needed.

In the end the question is again, how do I find out that other people agree with me that the article establishes notability? Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? suggests discussing on how to develop the article in Wikipedia:Drawing board. That's not exactly what I'm looking for though. The article is pretty much developed right now. I'll try it all the same.

I hope I've not tired you too much. If you have an answer to any of my questions, I'm all ears. Cheers,--Atavi (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I perfectly agree with you that the guy appears notable, but you need to source the hell out of that thing. WP:BLP allows for the removal of any unsourced and possibly contentious matterial from this sort of article, and there are people around who will remove pretty much everything that isn't sourced; and it's a blockable offence to readd that information without sourcing it (assuming you do it multiple times...). Citations are all it really needs, and the external links look promising for that. Drop me a line if you need help with any of it, but I'll warn you ahead of time that I suck at writing content. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for all your help. I'll try to improve the article with some inline citations. I'll get back to you if I need any help. Cheers,--Atavi (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

MTG infobox

Hello friend, I wanted to let you know that I made a lot of progress on my new MTG infobox, viewable in my sandbox. Let me know what you think. I think the Tnavbar isn't working right, but that's got me stumped. It's not essential, but it seems like good Wiki-maintenance. Other than that, it's at a point where I'm pretty comfortable putting it up for public debate. Can you tell me how to go about doing that? There's some more info on my sandbox page that will hopefully allow you understand some of my methods and thinking. Cheers! JamesLucas (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tnavbar is good now.JamesLucas (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's some great work you've done on that. Sorry it took me so long to respond, but I've had a busy weekend thus far. Anyway, I only have a few issues with the way you're doing things, and most of them are just naming the parameters. I've got another example of what fixes I think need doing at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/MTG infobox2, and a test at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox#Test showing what it'd look like with the current specified parameters for Time Spiral. Besides renaming parameters to match the current {{Infobox mtgset}} (so we won't have to go fix all of them) I removed the |Set position= parameter and added in some {{#ifeq: parsers to take care of it (for the same reason, so we won't have to go fix the template usage everywhere it's currently being used) and made the |Block size= parameter default to 3 (so we'll only have to change Lorwyn, Morningtide, Shadowmoor, and Eventide). I'm also thinking it'd be nice to spell out those numbers (one instead of 1, etc.) just to make things look nicer, but that's a pretty trivial change. On the template I've got up I changed the way the |Expansion Sybol= parameter works to the way it currently does on {{Infobox mtgset}} to prevent us having to go fix it, but I like the way you had it working better overall, especially with the suggested addition of images to the block navigation at the bottom. Let me know what you think of my changes, and go ahead if you want to incorporate any changes I made into {{Infobox mtgset2008}}. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As much as I hate our current Naming Parameters, I guess I don't hate them enough to go fix all (500?) of them, so I adjusted capitalization accordingly. Good call. I also found that you were right about the Block Size parameter being a waste, so that is gone. But I think keeping the Set Position parameter is going to be worth the hassle. Integrating the images for the block index at the bottom would otherwise require their own fields, and it didn't seem as neat and clean. Additionally, I'm concerned that if we try to use #ifeq to collate the Expansion Name with a First/Second/Third Set, it will cause glitches when editors don't align the exact italics and bold settings for the various fields (not to mention the older sets with simple names like "Tempest," which require (Magic: The Gathering) appended to their Wikipedia pages. With that many variables, people with botch things up, and we can only try to cushion the blow where we can. And I do like saying "First" instead of "1 of." Nice idea. And I love the arrows at the top! I wanted them to begin with, but I couldn't find them in the Insert: list. I guess I didn't look very well, because I see them now. Also, I integrated an #if condition to kill the whole Block index section for sets that don't have blocks. Maybe someday we can work out something for pseudo-blocks like Portal and Un-, but that'll require too much work for the community to swallow at once. So: Where do I/we go from here (assuming that we're close to agreeing on the fine points of the template ourselves)? Do we need to offer this up for public debate? Or is this a time to be bold, as they say here? I've never worked on anything like this before, but I'm assuming you'll have some admin wisdom to share. Cheers, JamesLucas (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm... Could always code in an #if for the |Set position= parameter so that the ones that don't have it can default to the #ifeq code. It should work all the time, given how I've seen {{Infobox mtgset}} used, but I'll go check all the set articles after we move it over to make sure nothing broke. I've updated the way I'd do it at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/MTG infobox2, and reproduced below:

{{#if:{{{Set position|}}}|{{{Set position}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{Expansion Name}}}|{{{First Set|}}}|First|{{#ifeq:{{{Expansion Name}}}|{{{Second Set|}}}|Second|Third}}}}}}

This should make it work for all the current usages and allow customization if the parameter is used. It's also a bit easier to just have people put in "First", "Second", or "Third" on their own rather than having the template put it in for them.

I don't think the other issues you thought of with the code I put in to remove the |Set position= parameter would come into play. The reason we need the |Expansion Name= parameter is exactly because of that, some sets are at "<Set> (Magic: The Gathering)" instead of "<Set>", but they wouldn't link to the set lower down instead of putting in '''''<Set>'''''.

I'll go drop a message on WT:MTG, but it's kinda' dead these days. What I'd personally favor is a history merge between the two, so that the suggested changes end up on top (not quite the same thing that essay's about, but I think the idea applies here). When we wanna' move it I'll go ahead and do that.

I'm also gonna' let you in on a little secret (which, like everything else on Wikipedia, is only a secret because people don't care to read it): Being an admin doesn't give me any special say in any debates or lend weight to my opinions. It just gives me some extra buttons. But anyway, I feel progress is being made, mostly by you. Great work. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I like your thinking. I've incorporated the new line.

I'm aware that being an admin is "no big deal," but I tend to assume (and hope) that admins know the way of things better than most of us casual editors. I'll have to read the history merge article when I have some time. Is there anything else I should be doing to keep momentum going? I feel like I'm going to be a little bewildered by the merge process, so I'm not sure if there's anything else left for me to do. JamesLucas (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I like the way it looks now. It looks like it will work. I've put a message on WT:MTG, and if no one opposes in a few days I'll go ahead and make the history merge. I'll try to make sure I do it when we're both on, just in case anything goes wrong, but right now I think all we're gonna' do is wait a little. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Great to hear. Just so you know, you're very welcome to email/IM me at my username at gmail.com to get my attention. My schedule's pretty flexible generally. I'm an architect, so I'm usually at a computer, even on beautiful days. [sigh] JamesLucas (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd highly recommend removing the nav images for next/previous set. They're misleading for clicking (they'll take you to the image page, not the set page) and aren't proper use of non-free images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, true. It'd be a pain to write the extra fair-use rationales, and I don't think it'd pass the non-free content criteria. But, on a technical note, I think we could use an <imagemap> to link it to the right place, but it would be a horrible pain to make it work right. Overall I think not worth the time and effort it'd take. I'll go remove the suggestion, but it doesn't change the functionality. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Nice to see ya' around, AMIB. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was guessing that A Man In Black might come rain on my parade for all the right reasons. I know there was a long debate about symbols on the set page, and I (sort of) understand the reason why they can't be there. It seems to me, however, that we could use symbols within blocks, on account of the pre-con decks. Time Spiral symbols are part of Planar Chaos products, for instance. Is my logic errant? I could use some help understanding the nuances of fair-use in this case. As for the click-confusion, it doesn't bother me more than most things on Wikipedia. One of the things you learn here is that images aren't links, for better or for worse. Anyway, I'm very glad to have some feedback! JamesLucas (Talk - Contribs 14:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, specifically I think this use would fail WP:NFCC#3 (both parts) and WP:NFCC#8. It's not exactly as minimal as possible, and it doesn't significantly help understanding on the articles for the other sets in the block. We could do it, and if no one complains just leave it that way, but I've got a feeling that someone would take issue with it after a while. I'm not exactly willing to put in the effort to do it without having a better reason to include them than "it looks good" (which it does, really, but it's just not a very good reason). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I would love to use expansion symbols more, since that's a major way that new players (of which I was one not long ago) get a handle on old cards, but I can certainly see how it's far from necessary since WotC posts up-to-date lists already. Thanks for taking care of the template edit. JamesLucas (" " - +) 00:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Think it's been long enough? If the Eventide prerelease hasn't woken people up, I'm not hopeful that we'll get much more feedback. This week is also good for me to spend a little time fixing the things that will break, such as image size and a couple of the tags that are improving. Best, JamesLucas (" " or +) 17:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got some real life stuff in a little less than an hour, so how about around 0:00 UTC tomorrow? That comes out to around 8:00 PM eastern, for reference, and I should be back not much later than that. Or I could do it now, but I won't be able to do much of the checking and fixing part for an hour or two. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I stupidly burned my hand taking bread out of the oven this afternoon, so I'm hunt-and-peck typing tonight; I expect I'll be good to go tomorrow at 20:00 EDT. Thanks, lifebaka. JamesLucas (" " or +) 00:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be on around then. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Aardvark (font)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Aardvark (font), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Myungbaksanseong

The WP:DRV is peacefully closed without action on the deleted one, but I still need the content to insert to US beef imports in South Korea and Lee Myung-bak articles. The article is deleted for its neologism, but the content is useful to expand those articles. please paste it to my talk page. Thanks --Caspian blue (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can't merge the content without undeleting, so I've undeleted Myungbaksanseong and redirected it to US beef imports in South Korea. You may merge at your leisure. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank, so the redirect page can remain after this restoration? --Caspian blue (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It should stay a redirect, yeah. Consensus says we don't want an article there. But the GFDL says we need the history if we keep the content, so a redirect is the only option. If anyone deletes the redirect, point out to them that you merged the content elsewhere, and you might wanna' make a note on the talk page of the redirect. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for the kind answer. :) --Caspian blue (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Customs House, South Shields

Hi, you just declined a speedy that I proposed and you're completely right, the link given seems to bedead. I based myself on this, perhaps I was too fast. However, the second link that this Google search turns up is live and also contains some text that can be found literally in this article. Not sure how to handle this and be happy to leave this matter to you if you are willing. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: there also seem to be some WP:COI issues here.

Whew, that was fun. I just removed the parts I identified as copyvios and tagged it for necessary cleanup. As is the article kinda' bites, but I don't think it qualifies for any of the speedy criteria anymore. If there's anything else you can do to the article, that'd be great; if not, you can just leave it now. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WT:AFD

Thanks! Protonk (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected

The thing is I have to test things as I write code. I can't test them 'cause I can't edit the page, so I don't know what exactly I will write. User:PeterSymonds semi protected the page for a few days (I would require about 2 this time I would say) to allow me to edit the page, and that worked really well. I was hoping for something similar this time. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha'. Done, then. Can't be moved, but I don't think you'd need to. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Waterman Movie deletion.

Please don't delete articles without discussion. Mrx9898 (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It was an expired PROD. The nature of that process is that it lacks discussion, since it is only supposed to be used for uncontroversial deletions. If no one objects to it, by which I mean removing the tag, five days after tagging an admin may delete it without further notification. If you do object, I'll be happy to restore it for you, since all you'd have to do is take it to deletion review to get the same effect. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting my page from unreasonable deletion and attack. I appreciate you looking into this matter. The users deleted conversations and the article over and over again no matter what I did to change the article or revise it as per their concerns. Thank you for being the reasonable person who will look into this. I look forward to your input and advice if I need to do something different. Blessings (SpiritBeing (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)