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.

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)

As a separate note, I will not tolerate the casting of aspersions on other editors on my talk page. You can insult me all you like and I won't block you for it (though I can't guarantee that others won't), but insults directed at others are bad mojo. lifebaka++ 02:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

While I understand your point, I still think this was the wrong conclusion (there were other actions that could have been done besides delete) and have opened a DR for this (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 3#Old Man Murray) --MASEM (t) 02:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Save Old Man Murray" → If that doesn't describe Wikipedia's absolute monopoly over the rest of the Internet, nothing does. Wikipedia literally rules the world. –MuZemike 07:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Since we have RPS down as a reliable source, wouldn't their "Save OMM" piece count towards WP:N? That wasn't hard, was it. Shame they had to be whiny about it. Marasmusine (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Within Gaming, this kind of practice is somewhat commonplace: bloggers such as "Lum the Mad" and "Old Man Murray" are among the most respected commentators and journalists" Squire, K (2008) "Critical Education in an Interactive Age" in Mirror Images: Popular Culture and Education Peter Lang:New York [1]--Cooper⁴² 17:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Somebody should create an article on "Deletion of Old Man Murray." The event has warranted a lengthy article on rockpapershotgun, which made the slashdot frontpage, and one Blue's News, all of which are valid sources for gaming topics according to wikipedia's own list. As the event is notable and therefore deletion proof we could then make a section on Old Man Murray where we could gather all that unworthy stuff from Wired, PC Gamer and Gabe Whatshisname (what has he ever done for gaming?), as well as one on how the original article was nominated for deletion, twice, despite a clear COI. 188.174.70.221 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That article should and probably will end up merged to Old Man Murray after the DRV, which is a forgone conclusion at this point. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I was shocked to hear that the Old Man Murray Article was deleted... Absolutely ridiculous. There are certainly many Wikipedia articles that deserve deletion, I've even pointed out a few of them in the past, but Old Man Murray was one of the most influential technology writers during the coming of age of the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.231.231 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please also restore Portal of Evil, which is also in COI with the nominator of deletion. SchuminWeb appears to be compromising the integrity of Wikipedia and action must be taken to review his Administrative priviledges. Thank you! --67.184.48.221 (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm iffy on just restoring this one. The only third-party source on it was this Wired article, which seems to only mention Portal of Evil in passing (half of a sentence that's not really about it is pretty short). If anyone can provide other sources, I'll be happy to restore (and slap me if I'm being too judgmental about them), but otherwise I'm not inclined to. You are also, of course, welcome to ask another admin. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I saw of Portal of Evil, activity there seemed to waver between crudely insulting websites they find and calling each other "cock-sucking faggots." It wasn't so much a website as a sewage pool. HalfShadow 00:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

From what you saw of it when you [| made thousands of posts there? I'll be putting up a huge archive of the most creepy shit you posted there before you were run off the site in a day or two. Look out for it! 98.125.239.132 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Screenshot

I wanted to put a screenshot of the prezvision product. I ask permission from the company. Can you tell me how i can upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerickchua (talk • contribs) 00:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Because of quirks with Wikipedia's licensing, we can't just host file that aren't free. Even if you give Wikipedia permission to use them, posting them on Wikipedia would mean that others could also use them, which you haven't granted permission for, putting us in a little bit of a legal pickle. The two ways around this are to either release the image under some sort of copy-left license (such as a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license) or to claim fair use on the image under our non-free content policy. If you take the first, I suggest uploading to the Wikimedia Commons instead, as they don't mind licenses that include a non-commercial clause, while it would still cause a conflict here. If you can take the second and choose to, I recommend requesting assistance from an experienced user at WP:Editor assistance using the fair use tag properly, to avoid further problems. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Userfy article to subpage

Dear Mr. Hughes,

We have communicated via email and I wanted to follow-up on our discussion. In our last correspondence, you mentioned that you are willing to "userfy the article to a subpage", so that I can continue to work on the live copy, could I please have this done? Additionally, per your suggestion, I have reviewed the COI page and am willing to continue work on the "Totsy" page so that I am not in violation of Wikipedia rules.

Thank you in advance.

Yhoshino (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Yuri

Done. It's in your userspace at User:Yhoshino/Totsy for you to continue working on. I've added a {{userspace draft}} tag to it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What to do after "work in progress" page is done

Sorry to bother you again, but now that you have set-up the subpage I am wondering how the article will become live again. Will it have to go through an inspection process again? Will I need to notify someone after I am done editing? Also, in your email to me, you mentioned that you did not delete the "Totsy" page because of the tone, but because it gave people "zero reason why they should care about Totsy." Although these pages are in your jurisdiction, I believe that this reason is somewhat arbitrary and therefore am having trouble proceeding with my article. Initially, I was trying to portray the importance of Totsy, but feared that it may seem self-promotional. You directed be towards the COI page and am unsure how I can accomplish explaining the importance of Totsy without violating any of the terms listed in the COI page. I am not saying that this isn't possible, I know it is as Wikipedia handles this on a daily basis, but I would love some guidance from someone who edits, reads, and is exposed to Wikipedia pages frequently. After looking over the article again, and looking over several other Wikipedis pages, I am hoping to understand why the "Totsy" page keeps being questioned.

Thank you in advance

50.74.3.242 (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Yuri

50.74.3.242 (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Dandi March 2.png

Hello. I noticed that you declined the speedy deletion of this image claiming that it is properly licensed. The source page does however not tell anything about a CC-by-SA license nor can I see any obvious connection between the Picasa account and User:Townblight. So I still doubt that this file was rightfully uploaded, unless Picasa is generally licensed by Creative Commons. We'd need an OTRS confirmation to accept this image otherwise it is in fact a copyvio. De728631 (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No, under the heading "Photo Reuse", on the sidebar, it says that it is licensed under CC-BY 3.0. Since the source is clearly linked from the image page, there isn't any real worry about copyright violation; and certainly not clear enough for a speedy. List it at WP:PUF if you are still concerned, as I might be wrong, but I stand my decline of the speedy. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, the link to the reuse license at Picasa is so totally not obvious that I managed to overlook it until you pointed me to the sidebar. So let's keep the file of course. De728631 (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Abcmonster

One month was all he got? BurtAlert (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that a longer block is likely to be any more useful, unless it's indef. I'll be doing my best to keep an eye on him once the block is over. He'll figure out that personal attacks are not okay, or he won't. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

why was battle odf the stars and cricket challenge deleted

both these events where current and raised money for charitys the queensland floods and paradise kids charity. i think these charities where valid and the people who received the money seem to think so, can you explain in case i did something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollanb (talk • contribs) 00:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

With the Battle of the Stars page, the issue was that it did not tell a reader why the event was in any way significant. It merely stated who came up with the event and what the idea for the event is.

The Cricket Challenge page seems to have the same issue, but was deleted as spam. You would need to ask the deleting admin exactly why he did that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Alvin and the Chipmunks 3 teaser

Please do tell what would be the proper file tag to place on the page. Please respond on my talk page. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 03:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was very improper for you to just delete the file instead of putting the proper tag on the file. Please stop with the carnivorous behavior. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 03:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please undelete it for me please. Thanks and cheers. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 19:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm still getting the hang of CSD. I feel like I've got a fairly decent grasp of what should and shouldn't be here, but the rationale has always been something that confused me. While I'm not a huge fan of automated tools, I've taken a liking to Twinkle, particularly when it comes to CSD because the rationales are right there for me. I knew that article didn't belong, but didn't see a specific rationale available... should have used PROD, as you commented, I suppose!  :) Strikerforce (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia/categories

Why do you think Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia/categories is good for historical reasons? Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any pressing need for deletion, especially not speedy, and it's probably bad mojo to hide the history away where only admins can see it. Barring a good reason for deletion (and I note that "unused" is not a good reason for deletion in the wikipedia space, we have {{historical}} for a reason), it should stay; barring an excellent, compelling, and immaculately constructed reason for immediate deletion, it should not be speedy deleted. Take it to MfD if you wish, but speedy deletion isn't going to happen there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Account rename

Hello Lifebaka,

I was wondering how you could rename an account. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks and cheers. Gabriele449 22:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Pitcher

Hi, I like to re-open "The Pitcher" which was deleted. The Pitcher won a Hard Dance Award for Best Album 2011.

http://www.trackitdown.net/news/show/104272.html

I think that would make this article of importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatstudio (talk • contribs) 18:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks as though the Hard Dance Awards are based on user votes, so I'm afraid it doesn't qualify The Pitcher as notable under WP:MUSIC. Even if I undeleted the page for you based on that award, it would only end up taken to AfD and deleted again. lifebaka++ 18:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Im New Can You Make the 6th generation page for me Please i can give you all the info you need