Jump to content

User talk:Lifebaka

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lifebaka (talk | contribs) at 21:50, 4 October 2008 (→‎Mullanchery M Velaian: hmm... missed those). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello!
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.

William Rodriguez

Hi Lifebaka. You put full protection on this article on 28 August. Per WP:Suspected sock puppets/Wtcsurvivor I think the registered socks that have been at all active are all blocked. If you check Talk:William Rodriguez you'll probably notice the subject still editing his Talk page as an IP-hopper. You could probably lighten the full protection of the article to indefinite semi protection and things would work out OK. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me, I've put it on indefinite semi. As a general note, I'm fine if people fix these sorts of things without coming to me first, since I'm not always going to follow what's going on at the page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, noted. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IT is unfair for other users to be unable to balance the view of just 2 people that have already suggested negative point of view against Rodriguez on the talk page, (user Jazz2006 and Contrivance). Requesting full protection or full un-protection. Thanks.Celeronel (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Truly, you'll likely make headway faster at WP:RFPP than here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earl's List

I see from this article that you were an administration relating to the talks about deleting the "Earl's list" page. I am contributor at My Name is Earl Wiki, and I used that page to update some of the information there. I am not asking for a page restore, I was just wondering if it would be possible to have the contents of the page to use for reference in helping with the ongoing production of Earl Wiki. Any help you can offer in this respect would be very much appreciated. SignorSimon (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, done? SignorSimon (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed it to you. If you didn't get it, send me an email from the address you'd like it sent to at [lifebaka@gmail.com and I'll send over another copy. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

please would you speedy delete this talk page under G8. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is a redirect, so it doesn't actually fall under G8. Instead I redirected it to match the article. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I suspect it won't "stick" because it didn't do so last time - see Tikiwont's edit in the history. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know where he's comin' from on that one. Ideally we should actually keep the talk page up (to show the history of the article), but if no one complains I'll just leave it as it is. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request for you here. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 02:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Chamberlain DRV

Thank you for restoring the article to my sandbox, and yes it wasn't pretty. Anyway, I've reviewed the article and had I been aware that it was going to be speedied I would have asked for a regular AfD. Do I need to do anything in particular to shift this from a temporary restoration to a full fledged deletion review? AniMate 07:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it hasn't been closed, there's no need to open another one. It looks like you made it clear you don't think it made A7 over there, so things should turn out just fine. People have also helpfully begun discussion as well. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_21

Hi, sorry, but you are the only admin who has commented on the request for a reversal of the GUE speedy deletion.

As per your suggestion, one of the other Wikipedian divers has put together a stub in my namespace below my "list of reasons", so I am not sure if that changes your view on endorsing the deletion.

[Will monitor this page for replies]

--Legis (talk - contribs) 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Can you please review the article about Ayusha Shrestha thank you (NepaliBoy7 (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

It was deleted as a result of this AfD. So, exactly what sort of problem do you have with it? lifebaka++ 20:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajsaurus Narmadensis

Hey, regarding your edit to Rajsaurus Narmadensis, I agree with your deletion of that content, I just want to warn you, that user has been determinedly and repeatedly undoing people's edits and working on that article, removing deletion requests and move templates that people put up. So he might end up trying to restore the version from before we put the redirect up; if it keeps happening, we might be able to get the article deleted and then protected or something to keep him from restoring it. --Politizer (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could, yes, but probably we should talk to him first. That's often the step that's missing in these issues. Of course, if he ignores the "You have new messages!" bar at the top of every page, there's not much that can be done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lifebaka. Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#A persistent user is creating new articles with material from existing articles. would you please delete S.Rajsaurus Narmadensis since it's an extremely unlikely search term. Thank you --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.  Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Fábio Pereira da Silva

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fábio Pereira da Silva. 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. You were one of four admins who deleted this article. I got the request to UNSALT and have listed at DRV since I'm not comfortable enough with WP:ATHLETE to make the call and wanted community discussion since that's what resulted in its deletion. TravellingCari 21:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy matey!

Saw your name at the log page. Welcome aboard!  :) I see we have a common interest in Magic: the Addiction.  ;) Which booster set did you first get involved with? Anyway, looking forward to working with you... --Elonka 01:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started playing back in Invasion block, and got really into it during Time Spiral, but I fizzled due to lack of funds and rising interest here. So I know enough of the jargon from the Spike-ish time to actually have some idea what I'm doin' there. :P
That aside, I'm glad I'm working with someone who has more experience in this area. I like to think I've got a pretty good sense of what is and isn't disruptive/a personal attack/etc., but I'll be the first to admit I don't know all the background involving the Pseudoscience case, though the sanctions themselves are relatively straightforward. I hope to have some time to read through a lot of it this weekend, but I'm also working on copyediting Magic: The Gathering before 0.7 on the 2nd. If you need anything, feel free to email me or contact me here. I'm also happy to give additional contact information by email. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you can email me at elonka@aol.com, and I'm also on several of the IM clients (AIM, GTalk, etc.). Regarding MtG, I actually got involved with it early on, and have many Alpha cards in my collection. I collected obsessively through Arabian Nights, Antiquities, Legends, and then started fading around the "Ice Age" time period, but I still play when I can. We had some wonderful big multiplayer "Emperor" games going on in my office. My favorite deck is a little red/green one, which I made when I got into an argument with someone about whether they had to have rare or high-mana cards in order to have a chance at winning. So I made a deck composed entirely of 1 and 2-mana common red/green cards, to prove my point.  :)
In terms of the Chiropractic article, feel free to ask for advice, but I'm more inclined to sit back and watch you at work.  ;) The main reason I got interested was because I saw that the editing atmosphere had gotten toxic for quite awhile there, and there was no real admin presence. So I was willing to strap on my armor and wade in, but if someone else wants to do it, I'm fine on putting my feet up and munching popcorn. :) Oh, I do recommend adding a few pages to your watchlist. Like on the log page, check the list of "editors notified of restrictions", and add their talkpages to your watchlist. There's been a fair amount of overflow of the dispute to those pages, so it may help give you a more rounded view of what's going on. Best, --Elonka 01:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme one mana cards, in green and (mostly) red: Shock, Lava Spike, Uktabi Drake, Spark Elemental, Rift Bolt (if suspended)... A deck of just stuff like that could win so fast it's crazy. And they're all common, in at least one printing.
Yeah, I'll go watchlist 'em. 's a good idea. Now I'll really need to go clean out my watchlist. I'll let you know if I really need any help, but it oughta' be pretty obvious by that point. I oughta' be able to handle it, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far it looks like it's you, me, and MBisanz. Here's a thread on my talkpage you might want to watch too: User talk:Elonka#Notification. --Elonka 16:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M:TG

Kudos on your recent clean up efforts at Magic The Gathering. GundamsЯus (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make sense?

Thank you for your comment about VPP. Is what I am saying is this... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oversight

The U.S. Congress has a http://oversight.house.gov/ Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is sort of an auditor, not a censorship board.

Does this make sense or is my suggestion completely non-sensical? 903M (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me, I'm just suggesting taking it to a wider audience. I personally am used to the current jargon, having been immersed in it for long enough, but I do see how it can be confusing to newer editors, so I'd fully support such a proposal. Of course, one of the nice things about Wikipedia is that most of the jargon is recorded somewhere, so people with good searching skills (i.e. people who can find WP:OVERSIGHT) can figure it out. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV note for AfD

Hi Lifebaka. The DRV discussion here seems to approve the creation of a template to tag closed AfD pages with a note that the AfD is/was the subject of a DRV. The tagging would be an optional/recommended practice. Would you create a DRV template for this? Also, or alternatively, would you modify Template:Afd2 so that, in addition to the box listing "AfDs for this article:" that it also lists "DRVs for this article:" (which should only appear if there are any DRVs. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 13:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like {{delrev}} could easily be adapted to go onto AfDs (probably I can write up some conditional code for it that'll make just it work). Modifying {{afd2}} doesn't seem possible, unfortunately, because the way that list is generated is through some manipulation of Special:Prefixindex, and DRV doesn't log on subpages the way AfD and MfD do. I'll draw up some code later today for the first solution, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got it at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/Delrev. Of course, the exact wordings of things are open to be changed, but the code itself works. Let me know if you've got any questions. lifebaka++ 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred R. Klenner. I think the DRV discussion had something like that in mind. I used in the Ombox box on that page. If DRV has a symbol that represents DRV, we should use that in the Ombox. If not, I'll see if I can have one created. Also, I created Category:Pages at deletion review to be used with this new template. -- Suntag ☼ 15:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this, then? There isn't any special symbol for DRV, but having one drawn up shouldn't be terribly difficult. I also believe I'll go add the category to {{delrev}}. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, {{delrev}} already uses a cat, so I just made the new one a parent of it. lifebaka++ 16:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I think we can go live with it (move it into template space) and fix any bugs there. -- Suntag ☼ 05:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be any, I'd hope. The code was relatively simple. It only takes one parameter, |date= (which I oughta' make more required that it is currently, actually...). Biggest bug I can think of is if people don't specify the date, then the date on it'll change using the current code. I'll make some adjustments after I get some sleep. lifebaka++ 07:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions

In the Steps to list a new deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions, Newdelrev, NewdelrevImg, and DRVNote each are dynamically linked. However, when you look at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review, they are not dynamically linked. I tried purging, but that didn't work. Any change you can fix this? -- Suntag ☼ 15:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Needed to remove some <noinclude> tags from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers' Council on Social Justice

I wanted to note that your attempt to find a workable solution was recognized and appreciated. The issue with the administrators' comments was the clear lack of accountability to errors in reasoning that led to an incorrect result. Hiding behind the "process" is the sad and disgusting state that those in power do to commit all types of injustices. We need decision-makers who admit when they're wrong and take corrective action. What's even more disheartening in a forum like this is that if a politician is wrong, there can be public accountability but administrators on Wikipedia have the luxury of hiding behind screen names and internet identities. The deletion issue began on 9/21/08 after 4 pm and the article was deleted on 9/26/08 at midnight. That's less than four business days. So it didn't even give adequate notice for a response since everyone doesn't check Wikipedia daily. Then with inadequate notice firmly in hand and incorrect assumptions based on poor research the administrators united and deleted the O.k., no worries because mistakes do happen but instead of looking at the issue and correcting an error, they hid behind an alleged "process". You're probably a problem solver by nature and a reasonable person. That's the sad part because when the reasonable people give their assent to ego, errors and lack of accountability, the entire premise of fairness fails. Lawyerscouncil (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as we'd like to sometimes, us admins can't change the community's consensus on topics. That's exactly why we have no reasonable choice to but endorse the deletion in the DRV.
As far as the length of AfDs, they're already set to five days to try to avoid those sorts of problems. I'm sorry that it wasn't long enough, but usually suggestions that the time be lengthened fall flat (the place to suggest this is WT:AFD, if you're interested in attempting anyways). Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#Dan Debicella

Hi, I dug up some stuff about the edit conflict on Dan Debicella, which you might want to check on AN/I. Equendil Talk 08:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ANI thread

Hello Lifebaka. Thanks for the help on that ANI thread. Although no one came on the talk page yet, I'm more at ease because I brought myself into starting a new proposal. You probably have more important things to think about. Well, same with me, but since I've got to face what I've just did yesterday, I couldn't live with myself without doing something about it. I even considered going on WP:AN3, but I realized that this would be wasting other people's time and would be going a little too far. So, here I am now. I hope all goes well.

Uh, chances are that you can recall an incident which I had with a bunch of socks (like User:Ausonia) almost exactly two months ago. While I acknowledge that I (ugh) went too far with the edit warring there as well, it doesn't matter as much at this point (luckily) as more socks were used abusively and were revealed.

You see, one month ago, I have found all of the IPs and reported enough of the users to get a lead on the rest of them (the bunch that I didn't know were spares which didn't even contribute—they were waiting to evade another block). I requested for a checkuser, and it turns out that my suspicions were correct on the checkuser case page. It was recently re-opened, so it looks like other IPs have turned up just a few days/weeks ago. I'm dealing with it now, and so I got some experience. You can look at it if you want; I don't think this is a position for you to comment over there just yet, but the transformation between two months ago and today is surprisingly huge. I wouldn't like to make things back to being screwed up, so please give me advice if you have any :P I need to avoid making silly mistakes any time soon.

Well, wish me luck. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is it just me, or are everybody's TOC templates/user edit buttons gone whenever they're logged in? It happened to me for weeks, perhaps even months now. Very strange; I half hope that it's a ridiculously large case of bugzilla cause it isn't very convenient as it is. ~ Troy (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to help you with either the issue at Egypt, but I regretfully am entirely a non-expert in the area and would likely be pretty slow in picking things up. Working towards a compromise is always good, though, and should turn out positively. Looking at your proposal, it seems like merges the two versions pretty well. The actual wordings could use some grammatical work, but that's trivial stuff by comparison.
I wouldn't even know where to begin helping out at a checkuser case, so while I'm happy to help with anything you need regarding it I probably will be fairly useless.
I've got no idea what the issue might be when you're offline, especially since you say TOCs aren't showing up. If you're just missing all the edit buttons, your IP address might be softblocked, which as long as it isn't disrupting you isn't that big a deal. You can try looking at Special:Mypage while you're logged out to see if this is the case (it'll certainly be in the block log). If I'm misunderstanding the issue, I've got absolutely no idea what it is. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the message. Actually, in regards to my TOC/edit buttons issue, I can view them offline, but I can't when I'm logged in. I guess I should go to village pump. Best, ~ Troy (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, actually! I've solved it by tinkering with "My Preferences" :D ...also, the CU case is being taken care of globally by a the steward I contacted; further information on what to do next is pending ...I was just worried that you had any impression like "troy was edit warring just like that incident from two months ago" (I knew you would understand, but I wanted to make sure by explaining that there were different things that went on). So, I guess that I've gotten closer to solving any further issues; thanks for understanding. Best wishes, ~ Troy (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...I have asked for a neutral, third opinion in regards to that content dispute. I hope everything works out, but please tell me if I'm doing something wrong or out of line here (it's always possible). Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Hospital

I had cleaned up Women's Hospital just before you deleted it. Could you please restore it? -- Eastmain (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Looks better now. I also moved it to the full title, and fixed all the double redirects that created. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP comments

I don't care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.223.225 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not a healthy attitude. I mean, if people kept coming to your house and writing things like "EAT SHIT" or "DICKS" on your doors and stuff, you'd feel kinda' bad, right? So, you shouldn't do it to our house, which is the 'pedia. I hope that makes sense. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hm yes because i wrote "EAT SHIT" and "DICKS" on wikipedia. good point faggot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.223.225 (talk) 17:13, October 1, 2008 (UTC)

Not that the insult doesn't prove my point or anything. I was just pulling up some extremely common examples. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Halloween Decorations.jpg

I want my image undeleted. It complied wholly with fair use and I believe it was deleted in error. My deletion talk page can't exist without the image to talk about... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willjay (talk • contribs) 02:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous IfD for it here, and I see no reason why the same image no longer has the same failings spelled out there. Feel free to proceed to [{WP:DRV|deletion review]] if you still disagree. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review templates

What does Template:Drvl do and is it needed? Thanks -- Suntag ☼ 15:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also check out Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_30#Template:DRVU_note. -- Suntag ☼ 15:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that template does. At all. It's hardly used, though. Also, I agree with the TfD, I'm just too lazy to go make a statement at it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_26#Template:KeptDRV. Drvl appears to be for deletion sorting for DRVs, similar to Template:Afdl. I'll run Template:Drvl by WikiProject Deletion sorting and let them handle it. -- Suntag ☼ 16:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I did make a minor fix to {{delrevafd}}, but I it was just an error in the original coding. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I posted a request at Template talk:Delrevafd. -- Suntag ☼ 15:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Newdelrev

...is still totally broken. See Template talk:Newdelrev. Jpatokal (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said over and over, I don't know how to fix it. I'm open to suggestions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who broke it in the first place, so if you can't fix it, you need to revert it back to a functional version! Jpatokal (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could. The options are a version which doesn't work at all except with regular articles, and a version that doesn't work ideally with regular articles. Besides, as I've stated, the issue is only with the header, and can always be fixed after substitution without much trouble. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're all a team here. They always send the difficult cases to House. Isn't there a place to list templates such as this so that the best programmers can attempt to fix the problems (Help:Advanced templates? (I posted at Happy-melon's. -- Suntag ☼ 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. I was gonna' say I've asked for help before, and didn't get any, and then I started testin' some new stuff, and I think I actually made it work. {{Newdelrev|pg=12}} should work now, with |ns= left out. The header looks like:

12

So, yeah. It's fixed now. Awesome. lifebaka++ 18:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You verdy bad, verdy verdy bad! You verdy good, verdy verdy good! -- Suntag ☼ 14:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Ernst letter

I'd say it does support that statement, but the fact that both of the authors of the review being criticised are chiropractors and they say in their reply that they don't see the difference between SM performed by different people as significant makes me think too much is being made of this point in the discussions on the talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A newly uncovered DRV template

I've spent the day finding and categorizing deletion templates and came across Deletion under review. I'm not sure if it is being used, but I created the documentation for it and added it to Template:DRV see also documentation. -- Suntag ☼ 23:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason it couldn't be, but it appears to be deprecated. I'm not sure what to do with it, except maybe turn it into a redirect to {{delrev}}. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecated? OK, I just reread {{delrev}} and it seems to be usable for Deletion under review purposes. Your turning it into a redirect to {{delrev}} seems the answer. Please go ahead and redirect the template to delrev and deleted Template talk:Deletion under review. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive behaviour

I would like to make an official complaint about the user KM*hearts*MC (talk). The last message i received from this user is:

Why are you trying to fight legal documentation? It's pointless and rather tasteless. As I've stated before, YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG on many factors. Get over it! What's childish is the fact that is constantly insist on one-upping someone like a child on the playground. You need to grow up and step into reality. Giving off the facade that you're right and everyone else is wrong is completely and utterly depressing. In no way did my statement threaten you or harm you in any way. But, if you feel that I've "threatened" you, then yes I did and feel free to report me to whomever. You have my humble permission. As another editor has already informed you, if you call yourself an adult, I will treat you and speak to you as an adult. Since you want to act like a child, you will be treated as such. Once again, I've ended this spat (with which you did not start with me but rather User:Dancefloor_royalty here) and have included every possible title in the article. End of discussion, end of disagreement. But, I am sure you'll scream an holler (and do other things a 5yr old does when they don't get their way) till you get your way so go ahead. KM*hearts*MC (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like something official done about this user, it is not only me who has received these types of messages, please look through other users' talk pages from KM*hearts*MC (talk). This user has clearly admitted to threatening me in the above message, I would like their IP to be blocked from using Wikipedia. I started a discussion in the talk page of Blond Ambition World Tour and it has resulted in this. This dispute has been regarding the tours title, which I have also proven to be accurate. I would like something serious done, I draw your attention to Cyber-bullying. Please help JWAD (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:16, October 3, 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Warning him about civility. I highly suggest you just ignore anything in his comments you think is meant to insult or offend you, so that you don't escalate the dispute. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru

Re your message to QuackGuru: Thank you for participating in overseeing the Chiropractic article. I've posted a message to QuackGuru elaborating on one of your points and providing supporting diffs. I hope I haven't misrepresented what you meant.

Since the best outcome would be for QuackGuru to modify his behaviour to conform to any requirements, rather than to experience sanctions, I would appreciate it if, to further that goal, you would provide additional detail to QuackGuru explaining and elaborating on your second point: "and otherwise edit in a slightly disruptive manner." Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a little bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I can go drag up examples if necessary. However, I'm not worried about past diffs currently (unless they are requested), so much as anything that occurs now or later, after the warning. I'm happy for your help, as well. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I'm not asking you to get examples. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mullanchery M Velaian

Hi Lifebaka, please could you have another look at your closure of this AfD? I realise that on a vote-counting basis there were more people saying "delete", but none of them explained why they thought that the newspaper sources presented didn't establish notability. The delete !votes all seemed to be WP:JNN based on the misapprehension that sources are required to be available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any evidence that such newspaper sources actually exist, beyond the images on the article (most of which appear to be photographs instead of newspaper clippings). If you've got some, I'm happy to userfy the article for you so that you can add them and move the article back into mainspace. It could also use a whole lot of work, though, besides just that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I remember (although I'm at a disadvantage here because I can't see the article any more) editor Bose1234 identified the newspaper sources used. The identification may have been on the talk page or in the image files. Isn't that the case? There's no requirement to provide actual copies of sources in any form so it's irrelevant whether the images are photographs or clippings. Could you please userfy the article for me so I can check it out? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped the most recent version at User:Phil Bridger/Mullanchery M Velaian for you, and took off the tags and cats. The talk page was relatively uninformative, and half its content was already mentioned on the AfD itself (the other half being less useful). The images should still be up, since I didn't touch any of them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see that as I thought the article did have four newspaper references (in the section called "References"). These are the ones I was referring to above - none of the people calling for deletion in the AfD explained why these should not be considered enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I completely missed those when I looked over the article. Gonna' put the userfied version back into mainspace, restore the history, and reclose as no consensus. lifebaka++ 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JIDF

Thanx very much for that. I've never linked the crimes of Israel (whether real or imagined) to the "The Jews". I wonder why the JIDF should do so? It may be that they're antisemitic, it might be worth keeping an eye on them. PRtalk 21:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice of you to drop me that note. I'm not bothered about it. It was obvious from the start, some months back, that this blacklisting, and the use of proxies to cause problems for feedback to the JIDF, was in the air. Nothing can be done about it. One simply confides in the fact that Wikipedia is a strong, intelligent and democratic world, and is not flustered by this rather pitiful little effort as McCarthyesque witch-hunting. Best wishes.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no idea what's up with this mess, I just figured people might wanna' know. Like I said, let me know if you're having any troubles regarding this (or that you think is regarding this) and I'll take a look. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They wish to provoke, get a huge ANI or complaint underway, stir comment, create conflict, and fish out quotes selectively to create the impression wiki is antisemitic. That is why the only rational response is to be completely insouciant. Is there a wiki guide to the rodent's rectum reflex? If note, the present brouhaha requires it be written, and all be linked to it! Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, and it's probably not a good idea to do anything special because of it. If your impression of this group is right (and I have no idea whether or not it is), likely the best strategy is to ignore them. Not feeding the trolls seems like an applicable idea. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lifebaka&oldid=243041458"