User talk:Lifebaka/Archive 6

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.

Thanks

For the copy-edit and support. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

68.173.95.177

Hi, since you have dealt previously with the disruption caused on White America by User_talk:68.173.95.177 (and, if I've understood things correctly, its registered alter ego), I would be grateful if you had another look at the situation, because after the user was unblocked and the article unprotected, the situation has turned back to its previous state of constant reverts and removals of maintenance template. Thanks --LjL (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* He doesn't listen. Handled, for now, at least. lifebaka++ 14:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied

Just wanted to make sure you saw my reply at WP:ANI#User:AndreaCarax.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Serious issue involving User:Carlossuarez46 and User:Highspeed, the ANI, etc.

You mentioned: "No one here is saying anything about that, or you, except to explain the situation. Please calm down. Cheers." This comment came from you after several interactions around Carlossuarez 46, wherein he did imply I was a sockpuppet, or some other god awful thing in the first ANI posting he made (NOT the one you commented on). At that time there had been debate between Carlos and I with a good bit of back and forth centering on the following argument: How does a knowledgeable local editor disprove a citation for a place (from Carlos' GNIS source) that never existed but has as US Geological citation nonetheless? In that earlier discussion, Carlos actually ORDERED me to "move on" and calls me a dick, to which I called him "rapacious" (which looks to be factual now more than ever). Later after my GNIS post on Highspeed's (whom I took on good faith to be a straight forward, stand up editor) talk page, Carlos places me in his FIRST ANI posting related to Highspeed, saying that he will leave it to others to decide if I am a "sockpuppet, vandal or some other sort of problem." I can tell you that I am still reeling and incredulous at that vast stretch. I am also incredulous that it is possible that this kind of person can be an administrator herein. He has caused a furor, which includes at least several California county templates. Now it is left to User:Luna Santin to FINALLY make an attempt to address his heavy handed, if not abusive, behavior (explicitly related to "draconian" use of admin privileges) directly.

Returning to my original GNIS comment at User:Highspeed, this editor reached out to me because of my comment about what looked like the same frustration (really shock) I was experiencing over extraordinarily prolific stub creation by Carlos using one or two sources that are all too often way off base, leading to new "community" articles that are duplicated, misspelled, etc). Carlos has systematically concocted and connected (whether by misconception or otherwise is now immaterial) me into a myth (or reality-still not about me) related to Highspeed and alleged vandalism, sockpupretry and so forth. This interaction has been the most stressful period in my entire history with Wikipedia. I do not appreciate the behavior and I have been shocked to see other editors such as Nytend go along with Carlos so easily. It is interesting that Nytend is the one to assist in this matter as he tends to agree with Carlos on much of the mess in California County templates related to mega stub article creation. I have purposely not added a bunch of examples or links here in part because you can see on the pages related to the players what has occurred. I just wanted you to have some background on my justifiable concern. I can tell you after this that I could not have imagined that I could actually experience fear in my experience here at Wikipedia. But it happened in this situation, which is why I mentioned the Goebbels type of propaganda in the ANI related to this issue. Of note, Carlos even, if suavely, attacked me for that. I can tell you that I am sick of the entire issue.

Returning to my interest to work toward an accurate encyclopedia, I realize that I need to do a lot of work to directly address the new problems that arose related to the "communities" created by Carlos and I will steadily work to improve my article development syntax, etc. In fact I have asked a person well connected to the GNIS place name debate to assist me. I will also note here that the person, User:Pfly, is not in conflict with any of the other editors or administrators involved in the ruckus in the first place. Thanks you, Norcalal (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much to say in response, except to note that it's probably in your best interest to drop this (and please understand that I do not mean this in any threatening sort of way). Even if you're correct in much of what you say (I haven't looked into it myself, and don't plan to, to avoid drahmahz), continuing with it is more likely to draw some of the other heavy handed and trigger-happy portions of the community than it is to resolve into anything useful, and dealing with them is a pain, at best. The wisest course of action is to make a note of it somewhere private (and off-wiki) for future reference, and then ignore it. Cheers, man, and I hope you can avoid further drahmahz in the future. lifebaka++ 06:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I doubt there is little chance of this not being seen or me being noticed as I must deal with the article stubs that relate to my area of expertise. But I have made it clear that I intend to return to editing and good article development and I expect to be left alone, with the exception of debate about issues tied to the encyclopedia's betterment and not to personalities along the way. Norcalal (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I justed wanted to express my appreciation for your action to unblock my talk page so that I could address the issues raised against me. I also am thankful for the thoughtful consideration extended by yourself and fellow admins Sandstein, Luna_Santin, Anthony.bradbury and jpgordon. Thanks! Highspeed (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

KZEY AfD

User:Aliveatoms has created an AfD on station KZEY, in a pointed attempt to irritate a situation with User:RadioFan. Apparently RadioFan nom'd a page made by Aliveatoms for deletion. Aliveatoms actions are the subject of an ANI post. Would it be possible (if not, that's cool) to speedy keep the AfD on KZEY? I have warned Aliveatoms about making pointed AfDs already, just don't feel confortable closing the AfD at this point, as I am pretty deeply involed in the situation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you'd posted this a few minutes after I went to bed. I would've been happy to deal with it, had I been active at the time. I'm glad it's been sorted regardless, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I seemed to catch people just after they signed off last night :) No worries though, it got taken care of. Thanks for looking into it though. Have a Good Day...NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Question from ANI

Cross-posted to here, to make sure you saw my reply. I don't even necessarily agree with the consensus view, but those of us reverting the IP were simply restoring the consensus version. In fact, at the talkpage, I argued FOR inclusion of the material, but when consensus is established, it needs to be respected, which is why I reverted the IP, though I'm actually a bit sympathetic to his viewpoint. Unitanode 03:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Banska Bystrica edit war

I apologise, I have already 'filed' for admin assistance.wlad (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Park Ridge mayoral election, 2009

The article Park Ridge mayoral election, 2009 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

a small municipal election is surely below the notability level for Wikipedia

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Review please

You deleted PeopleForce, Inc. per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PeopleForce, Inc.. The article has been recreated under the name PeopleForce and duplicated at Knowledge Management Ventures, Inc.. Can you review the deleted article to see if the recreated article duplicates the spammy material at the original (and therefore qualifies for deletion under WP:CSD#G4)? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't quite as bad as before, though just barely. You can always tag it and see what happens. Worst case scenario you end up having to take it back to AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Community NYC

A notice appeared on the top of the article I created stating: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." I don't understand the problem with the article for it can not be less bias and is strictly informative. Please help me because I am new at this, confused and extremely frustrated. I have read all the links about cleanup and neutral point of view and I still can not see a problem. This article is very important please help. Thank you, NYCCommunity (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's because of the username. Since your username and the article's title are so similar, it's natural to assume that you might be related to the organization somehow. There isn't really a problem with the article as it is, though, you'll just need to be careful. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

|wording= or |rationale=

I am trying to tidy up a loose end (and reduce my watchlist). On July 8, 2009 you kindly offered to make changes to {{db-g6}} and {{db-t3}}. Discussion seems to have ended, so perhaps it is time for this to happen. |rationale= needs to be added to each (in addition to the existing parameter), and the two Usage statements changed to favour |rationale=. If comments are allowed in templates then I would suggest you request that the old parameters be deleted at some date in the future (six months hence?). Many thanks, HairyWombat (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. HairyWombat (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for that! Cheers, Amalthea 17:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Readding declined speedy tags

It was just a simple disagreement really on that I didn't think Eatern Virginia Hockey League with the spelling of "Eastern" as "Eatern" was a redirect spelling people would be using. Maybe if you accidentially leave out the "s" in Eastern, but that would be it. Nothing against you, not trying to start anything, just disagreed on the removal of the speedy template. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd figured as much, just wanted to check. 'S all good. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 19:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for restoring the article. Joe Chill (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It'll need a lot of work to be ready for the mainspace, though. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Afd-mergeto template.

You added this template to Apogee (techfest)‎ recently and it was subsequently removed by an IP user. I wasn't sure if this was something I should revert as vandalism, so I thought I would let you know. By the way, templates, including the original afd notification, added to this page are promptly removed by anonymous users.) --Sophitessa (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, removal of those templates can be considered vandalism. I've reverted it and left the IP a note regarding that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Robin Hood (2006 TV series)

I don't much apprectiate the situation here being branded a "lame edit war". I totally agree it is a minor issue that has been blown way out of proportion, but that's why I took it to where I hoped it could be swiftly dealt with. All my edits were altruistic and done with no haste, not at all "confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing". If there was a better way to handle the problem, I would prefer to be informed of it rather than basically be told "stop or get blocked". U-Mos (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

With an issue this minor, I figure draconian punishment is the best deterrent. As for a better way to handle the problem: Just drop it, it's a small deal and nothing bad will happen regardless which version ends up being used. And edit waring over minor things is pretty much the definition of how things get into WP:LAME in the first place, so... Apologies if you didn't understand what I was referencing. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ad template

There isn't another web browser installed on this computer, but I agree that the problem could well be connected with the current web browser. Mind you its not really a problem for me, I only see these ads occassionally when visiting certain user pages, I was just concerned that it was affecting Wikipedia, which doesn't seem to be the case. Thanks very much for your help in checking this out. Melburnian (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm always happy to help out where I can. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 03:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nova Scotia - more...

Hi. While 'pediasurfing I came across a mention of the Louisdale, Nova Scotia article, and thought I'd run with the suggestion to take it in hand & give it an overhaul. Still, I'll learn. ;) You'd recently deleted copyvio revisions/content from the article.

Aiming to cleanup the article I looked at the text, and where its wikilinks went. It quickly became clear there's more of the same pov-spamming problems still out there. There seem to be 2 themes: the 'real history' conspiracy along with somehow connected swathes of rambling about ships.

One wikilink was to "Grandique Ferry". Apart from mirrors, their geocities/piczo/other sites, and mirror-like sites, there doesn't seem to be any real online reference to Grandique Ferry. The gov.ns.ca site shows it on a map as a tiny locality (as opposed to being designated a 'community' former or otherwise).

I followed the Grandique Ferry link and deleted one of their realhistory spamlinks. One section was barely intelligible; I couldn't work it out to fix so section-cleanup tagged it. Another section came across as a pov-push of "The Truth", which I neutrality-tagged to be checked out. Having since looked around more, I now believe the content's one big cut and paste job. I've not yet placed a copyvio template. A past revision of the Louisdale article (diff) has the same content. The Lennox Passage, Nova Scotia has a duplicate of the Grandique Ferry Shipwrecks section. It looks like a big mess of multiple socking accounts, spreading barely intelligible text about it across stacks of Nova Scotian articles: West Arichat, Nova Scotia being another example. I think similar admin cleanup might be needed. Thanks, Lifebaka. Whitehorse1 03:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd need to know where the copyvio's from so that I can confirm it, and if there's a copyvio in the pages I'd highly suggest removing the content as a first step. I'm a bit tired right now, but happy to help in the morning. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for replying. Copyvios are something I template on sight, when I come across them. The reason I brought this here, is there is more involved than mere simple copyvio.

As you know, from the July 21, 2009 AN/I post, there is a history of spamming, copyright violations, AfD/CSD deletions, and or-pov-soapboxing with the Louisdale, Nova Scotia article. As GRBerry points out here, the Louisdale problems date back to early 2006.

The Louisdale, Nova Scotia WhatLinksHere and wikilinks from that article show it's spilled over across many Nova Scotia articles.

Scope

• There are, or appear to be, frequently changing URLs that are on the same topic run by the same people. This is one thing that make it difficult to track, especially where the material has been in the article a while. Of those URLs (louisdaleunexplainmysteries.piczo.com; louisdaleisgrandiqueferry.piczo.com; maggiemayqueen.piczo.com, etc.), at least two are COIBot black-listed. The user in one of those reports who added the link (along with the conspiracy/'truehistory' blocks of text) is blocked.

• (Insert): Sites summary: 4 Piczo variations, one active, below; 2 Geocities variants (geocities.com/louisdale, geocities.com/PicketFence/1286/history.htm; one's an alias); 3 (approx) non-RS 'history' sites. –Whitehorse1 18:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If necessary, the URLs can be added to the MediaWiki blacklist. If they are, attempting to place them into text will simply result in the edit not going through. lifebaka++ 04:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That may be a sensible step. Semiprot'ing all the articles is unsuitable, proportionately, because of the nature of the topics along with the issue's long-running nature. Likewise, XLinkBot reverts piczo/geocities, but normally only accounts <7days old and if the link's outside a reference. Given that, en-MediaWiki blacklist covers its scope I think. –Whitehorse1 18:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• A whole bunch of other usernames/IPs and activity, including mention of the related geocities website, was listed by GRBerry on his talkpage here; he made the recent AN/I post you acted on. Some usernames like Grandiqueferry are blocked. Others, like Maggie555, are not. The problem there is that in many cases those two usernames started the Nova Scotian articles, so there's often no clean version with any real content to revert to. The places may be genuine small areas, but from the start were created pushing the "thetruth"-pov, generally with cut&pastes from websites. There have been at least five user accounts, many IPs.

• (Insert): From what I saw, the activity involved 6 usernames, plus 7 IPs (those on the other page plus 142.167.(242.185; 255.19; 232.93), 142.227.96.253 & 142.68.238.89). All are Nova Scotian IPs (Sydney, in Cape Breton; Halifax; Kentville), except for one from Shelburne, Ontario, and one from Moncton, New Brunswick. A past admonishing from another user to one of the accounts did mention encouragement on the piczo site to join in, so I'd expect some variation on the locations. –Whitehorse1 18:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Maggie555 hasn't edited in over a year, so I doubt a block there would do much. lifebaka++ 04:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

*nod* Seems we're on the same page. It seems unlikely that account'll resume; those inserting the material seem to've moved onto IPs, going by GRBerry's post. Presumably the recent IP was from the same general geolocation as previous ones. I'm no big fan of blocklogs as messageboards anyhow. The long term abuse is controlled, and seems low volume. I don't know if there's a single place or organized system merited to indicate the problem plus methods of those involved. If measures to-date adequately tackle it, more is just overkill. –Whitehorse1 18:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Article examples

• Grandique Ferry article text examples (on: realhistorylouisdale.piczo.com; realhistorylouisdale.piczo.com/?g=1 titled: "The Secret Exposed". All in caps, with exclamation mark):
  • Sealed tenders addressed to the Postmaster General, were received at Ottawa on Friday November 2, 1888, for the conveyance of Her Majesty's Mails.
  • Louisdale's (Grandique Ferry) population was added with all the route 320 places in the 1800s.
  • According to Nova Scotia government records there were several shipwrecks near Grandique Ferry. The Richmond burned and sank
  • The seat of the diocese was transferred to Antigonish around 1886 and it happened under Bishop
  • According to mission records Grandique Ferry had population of 76 in 1821.
  • River Bourgeois was an established community since the late 1700s. In the summer of 1827

The website contains a copy of the article, apparently fairly recent, which is only a copyvio on their end. The 2nd through the end of the examples above only appear (verbatim) in that copy. Let me know if I missed something with that. lifebaka++ 04:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• West Arichat, Nova Scotia article examples:
  • Slightly earlier revision contains an external link, which is an earlier incarnation of the same website as copy&pasted from.
  • The article employs subtle insinuation, repeating that Grandique changed its name & all-but-saying it was really ...
  • External link http://web.syr.edu/~elgalvin/gen/de/Civil6.pdf titled: List of marriages performed at West Arichat church, 1900-1909 (dead link) is another they like to add. Same added (though linkbot-removed) to the Grandique Ferry article by Manly888, whose only other edit was this one announcing the new Piczo URL must be used with request someone add it.

I did a bit of cleanup here. I don't think there's a copyvio, but if there is at this point the best solution is to just delete the page; there isn't anything left worth salvaging. lifebaka++ 04:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's one there either. Agreed, there isn't much there. The 1st sentence is correct. The 2nd is almost certainly wrong; it's not mentioned in a well-cited thesis or a Cape Breton book by S. Hornsby, found online. The 3rd is vague enough to be taken a few ways, and I couldn't find any source; (just a) 'mission' was a term often used in the edits, to imply somewhere was too small to be of substance. The 4th sentence isn't verifiable by any reliable source I could find, and might be just referring to when remaining records begin. I couldn't find a record of the 5th sentence claim; there was an Immaculate Conception, in Truro, destroyed by fire in 1977, but that's a different place. The article's never mentioned it's sited on Isle Madame, as the region actually is. Taking out everything that couldn't be verified ... leaves the 1st sentence. –Whitehorse1 18:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Lennox Passage, Nova Scotia article text examples. All from the Piczo website as above:
  • According to Nova Scotia government records there were several shipwrecks near Grandique Ferry. The Richmond burned and sank
  • On October 27, 1890, The Kate was stranded near Bernards Island, Lennox Passage, north side. This would put it near Grandique Ferry.
  • The voyage was from Sydney, Nova Scotia and it was going to Charlottetown, PEI.
  • The Wild Briar sunk in 1891 at Grandique Ferry beach, Lennox Passage. The harbour was still called The Grandique Ferry in 1891.
  • Comment: The shipwreck section, which of course duplicates the Grandique one, is an odd use of primary sources. The sources are simple tables, and don't back up the claims in the text e.g. the boldface claim "Grandique Ferry Harbour" was a former placename. It's a coatrack section; the article was created by blocked user Grandiqueferry, and the only other significant contributor is user Maggie555.

I'd agree that the section isn't needed in either article, as it looks like WP:OR and at best is just giving the issue massively undue weight. I've removed both. lifebaka++ 04:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The sheer scale and multiple aspects to the problem make it hard to get on top of. There are deleted revisions involved, for example. Many. From what GRBerry has said, it has been going on for 3 1/2 years. The multiple accounts/anons leave the impression of socking or at the least meatpuppets. It's not possible to determine how many of those exist with a standard account. I've already spent a while on this now, but for the reasons just given there's a limit to what I can do. Please can you take a look? Thanks, Whitehorse1 19:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at the ones above and done some work (explained by comments inside your comment; I hate them, but they're easier to understand here). I've also watchlisted all three articles, just in case. I'll start looking through the contribs of some of these users in the morning. So far I haven't removed anything from the histories of the articles, but if necessary I will. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Went through the contribs of the two users you listed above, and every one listed at GRBerry's talk page. There're quite a few related articles they also edited, but most of them look better. I probably missed a thing or three on them, so another check would be appreciated. Here's a list:

• Blueberry Association of Nova Scotia
• Arichat, Nova Scotia
• Isle Madame, Nova Scotia
• Nova Scotia Route 320
• Fleur-de-lis Trail
• D'Escousse, Nova Scotia
• Lennox Passage, Nova Scotia

I've added all except the trail and route to my watchlist, have PRODed the BLueberry Association, and am thinking about PRODing some of the others, as well. From what I can see, this isn't as bad as it could be. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Duly checked; I've edited some of them over the last day or so, too. Lennox Passage, Grandique & Louisdale, seem to be the main targets. I agree with you there. Incidentally, going through this turned up "curiosities", which'll take a while to examine. Once I've done that, I'll be able to bring up any loose ends so we can take a look. Thank you for all your help, Lifebaka. –Whitehorse1 18:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi, Lifebaka. I saw the copyright issue with Grandique Ferry, Nova Scotia listed at WP:CV. Since it appears you've already cleaned up the article, I'm going to mark this as resolved and remove the CV template, if that is okay with you. Considering the article's history, I am surprised it wasn't semi-protected. It ought to be. That is, if you don't PROD or Afd it for notability and verifiability concerns. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

M'kay, thanks. I don't think semi-protection is necessary right now, since there hasn't been any vandalism to the article for the past few days, but I won't hesitate if necessary. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 15:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oversight

I just wondered whether you have the Oversight tool per your comment at ANI, and found something that you definitely might want to oversight for yourself.[1] Best regards.--Caspian blue 04:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I misread your comment and Luna has a more serious list to be oversighted....-_- [2]--Caspian blue 04:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'd already seen the account you're linking. Thanks for the notice anyways, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a generosity toward the vandal. :)--Caspian blue 04:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:KevinOKeeffe

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I've altered my comments on the AFD nominations and redacted my previous comments. However, as an administrator, you may want to take into account this edit [3] as to the motivation behind User:KevinOKeeffe's more recent actions. Chuthya (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Motivations are not my primary concern, only actions are, and thus far his actions haven't been disruptive. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you don't think that singling out a specific article type and nominating all of them regardless of policy and whether or not those articles meet the criteria for inclusion and just because he doesn't like them as disruptive? Chuthya (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, certainly that would be disruptive. But he hasn't been doing that. He's put PROD or AfD tags on, what, a dozen, maybe a few more? Hardly a drop in the bucket, compared to the grand total of articles that all under WP:PORNBIO. And he's been spot on in his critique on quite a few of them. Perhaps he could exercise a little more caution in which articles he's nominating, sure, but he's hardly disrupting the encyclopedia. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted offending material as requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)

Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Premature

This is 14 hours closed too early. Please see the note that states to add 14 hours because of an earlier pre-mature closed which derailed discussion. I do not want to go through a DRV again. Plus, you ignored multiple things - there were two keeps from two people who edit the page, and at least one keep without any real justification from a user basically following another and echoing. Then there are many merges which would mean that the page would not exist in its format.

In my count, I see 24 deletes, 23 keeps, 1 weak keep, and 5 merges/move off. The 5 merges would mean that the page would no longer exist as its own page. The weak keep, along with the two article creator keeps, and the meat puppet keep would be weighed less. Regardless of weight, the raw value would be only 45% keep. With weight, the value would be even more to the removal of the page. Consensus is not divided, as it leans heavily towards the removal of the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed one - "Keep, consider merging into NPG article". That is a merge, which means that the percentage goes from 45% to keep it as a page to 43%. It is obvious that if this was to close now, the only sensible approach is to have the page merged into the other pages if not outright remove it since the information is already duplicated on the other pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, as you yourself have pointed out, AFDs are not votes, they are discussions. As you yourself have shown, there is no consensus about whether or not to delete the page. Other than possibly ending it too early (not sure how long AFDs are meant to be at en.wp), Likebaka has done nothing wrong, but even that is mitigated by the fact that given another 14 hours, given another 14 days, there would be no consensus on this. This way we can all go home and find something more productive to do, rather than argue about this single stub article ad nauseam. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is rather inappropriate. You predecided the outcome. This suggests that you may not have read everything in a thorough manner nor came in unbiased. You have clearly breached the CoI statement. You also closed 14 hours early. Please undo your close, as I would hate to go through another DRV and there is a lot of evidence against the propriety of your close. You have tainted the AfD by your presence and your comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If we're gonna' wikilawyer about closing time, you're correct that it was closed "14 hours early". Honestly, though, 14 hours wouldn't have changed a thing. As far as the WR thread goes, yeah, I already knew how I would close it, because I had read the discussion and thought about it for a bit, and nothing had changed between the time that I posted that and the time that I closed it. Yes, I did read over it again; no, nothing that had been added really influenced the course of the discussion.

I agree with Mattbuck above that it would not have mattered had a considerably larger amount of time been given to the AfD. Unfortunately, the more popular a discussion is, the more difficult it becomes to actually arrive at consensus; historically, this has appeared to be true.

My close does not, in any way, preclude a merge. I considered mentioning a merger in my close, but decided against it, as I believe a separate merge discussion would be best. Feel free to start such a discussion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A separate merge discussion would never be best, as people tend to stay on AfD and use that as a viable option. Since merge is always a viable option when you move text around (if there is already a similar page), a merge on a page like that would be an effective delete, i.e. saying "keep the information but not in this incarnation", which would mean "keep it to that other page". The mass majority of people do not want an independent page. That is what consensus said. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A merge is not really a delete at all; the history is kept intact (for copyright compliance reasons). I do believe that merging is a viable compromise, but with so much discussion solely about whether or not to delete the article, I would prefer to see a separate discussion (or just a bold merge) rather than attempt to draw out a consensus to merge where one isn't obvious. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

[4]. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Blanking

I'd like to request a courtesy blank of the National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts AFD, there has been a bit too much drama going on there, and due to it potentially involving invocations of the BLP guidelines, I request a courtesy blank and noindex. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't terribly agree with courtesy blanking it (doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose except to obfuscate the AfD right now), but I wouldn't object if you went ahead and blanked it yourself. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You do know that it is against the rules for him to blank an AfD, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I must have missed which policy it is against. Some AfDs are in fact courtesy blanked. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• For better or worse, it is best that the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts remain visible, so all may see the discourse on the topic. Doubtless, the article will come up for review in the future, and best that those who care may see what is different and the same about the conversation the next time around.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Radio Abbey

Hello Lifebaka, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Radio Abbey has been removed. It was removed by 78.145.184.120 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 78.145.184.120 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Jacob Mellis

Now that Mellis has made his professional debut for Southampton, could you please restore the latest version of his article. I can then update it. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed you the best version. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ramapough Lenape Nation

I am not engaging in an edit war, i'm defending the integrety of this page. This person, using an anonymous IP attacks me first by calling work childish. Why not use a logon so someone can leave a return message? He asked for references and they were supplied, then proceeds to tell me what i already know. I am a Ramapough and who would know more about my family than me? There was alot of misinformation posted on here over the years before I started to add the correct information with historical references to prove it. i don't mind coauthoring something but i will not allow misinformation to be posted because Wiki influence is seen around the world and our kids will not be subjected to any more lies about us. If i had my way this page wouldn't even exist as far as i'm concerned. We are living humans, not some extinct science experiment to write theories about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You are engaged in an edit war, regardless of how else you try to brand it. Discuss the issue on the article's talk page. And if you really want it deleted, try WP:AFD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

this is wahta started this ... (cur) (prev) 02:16, 12 August 2009 76.237.194.246 (talk) (26,378 bytes) (POV writing, unacceptable in an encyclopedia. This whole article is one big POV self-indulgent advertising essay.) (undo)

Don't you think the approach was a little harsh? There was no discussion from him before he started and 2 sentences were removed. Hardly an "self-indulgent advertising essay" as stated.

thank you for the tip.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative (talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't excuse edit waring. If you really took issue with the IPs edits, you should have discussed it with him. Then, if you couldn't resolve the issue, ask for a third opinion or pursue dispute resolution. Edit waring is not the answer. lifebaka++ 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

why are you totally blaming me? One question. Since this is about me and my family whom are still living, does this not constitute this article as a biography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative (talk • contribs) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not, I'm just telling you not to edit war and how to avoid edit waring in the future. I'll give the same advice to the IP as well, should the need arise.

I doubt it could be considered a BLP anymore than American can. Were there an article about you personally, it would be a BLP, but an article about a group of people usually will not fall under that policy. lifebaka++ 18:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks Lifebaka, I just got your message. I edit Wikipedia quite frequently (since its inception) although I don't register ( I did about 5 yrs. ago, but I forgot the log-in since then and being lazy, I haven't tried to figure out my old log-in). I am a contributor without an ulterior motive, and my area of contribution is history. I am Puerto Rican, and I am adept with federal and state Native American history and law as an area of concentration (go figure), and this is not a requisite to contribute to an article, as you know. In the Ramapough Mountain Indians article, there exists a user which is under the impression that because he is a substantial contributor, only his contributions are correct. Wikipedia, as you know, is open to all users with good faith edits to contribute. The user you refer to (Ramapoughnative) is a typical example of a troll, and is unwilling and intransigent when it comes to others contributing to articles he considers "his." Wikipedia is for everyone with a good-faith intent to contribute to, and it becomes difficult when persons consider articles "theirs" or resolve to become trolls with other users. Please take a look at Ramapoughnative's talk page, the Ramapough Mountain Indians discussion page, Ramapoughnative's insultive vulgarity and quickness to insult and engage in ad hominem attacks with everyone over the past few years. It makes it extremely difficult for people like me to try to edit (in good faith) and contribute without being scared off by persons who proclaim themselves the ultimate authority on all contributions. Please help. Thank you, --99.132.143.162 (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

Second opinion

Hello, I notice that you also mediate at WP:RPP and would appreciate your opinion here. Thanks, DJ 18:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

It's not my area of expertise, and I see it's already been handled by others. For what it's worth, I agree with them; page protection shouldn't be used lightly, nor should it be used before there's a need. The levels of vandalism and speculation, as of now, aren't high enough to warrant such long-term semiprotection, which would likely prevent many interested in the topic from contributing. If it picks up again, feel free to put up another request, but for now it isn't necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

About the warning on User talk:Xashaiar

What's the point in giving 3RR warning to a user who is already familiar with this rule and has been blocked once for breaking it [5], and now breaks it again? Alefbe (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll find admins occupy a wide range of trigger-happiness when it comes to deleting articles and blocking users. I tend towards the more cautious side. Besides, if he stops reverting, a warning is just as good as a block. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Tich Saund

Hello Lifebaka, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Tich Saund has been removed. It was removed by 86.132.76.250 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 86.132.76.250 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

File:Thiago Silva UFC 94 Press Conference.jpg

Hi, I was thinking the URL being on the picture itself was enough, but here is the actual article where it appears. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I've nuked it. It's always best to link directly to the page the image appears on, so that it's easy to A) check that the image is the same and B) check that the license the image is under isn't reconcilable with out own. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me what wikify means

I had no clue. The link didn't go anywhere. And I think the thing I was working on, well, I wikified accidentally? Cheers! Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Btw The note (editing in progress) wasn't for readers -- it was for YOU -- to prevent us from having editing conflicts -- so when the edit conflict happened, my stuff didn't go in -- so I put a revised paragraph on the "Talk" page -- if you like it why not paste it in the article unless you've got something better already. Its only one para. I learned Hasselblad is a camera maker that offers prizes (but it's really to promote Hasselblad) plus I put SS "famous alumni" listing on her college site in California. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

If you use Firefox (which I do), it saves text put into temporary forms such as the edit box. When there's an edit conflict, your version also appears in a separate edit box farther below, to prevent you from losing work. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. I save my fixes in a text file, and when edit conflicts happen, I try to let the other edits go in, and put my changes in later. Thanx. Are we in good shape with SS? Do you think SS is safe from deletion? If you need my help let me know Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Yeah, it should be safe from deletion. People'll make changes to it, but I think it's fairly clear that Ms. Scalora should have an article here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I changed around first paragraph to emphasize her photography -- I think that's the big thing about her (her photogrpahy is the basis of her books, awards, etc) but let me know what you think -- if unhappy I can change it back, or else edit it to make it better. Plus I emailed SS to try to get pictures uploaded. I'll try to add an infobox soon. Still can't determine what her birthday is; probably early 1960s.Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

beekeeping in the united kingdom

Hi Lifebaka

I am interested in seeing the content on the page you deleted as I am in the process of compiling data etc from my years of beekeeping to add this page to the Wiki.

It would be good to know from you what you thought of the previous page, improvements that could be made etc.

I would also be interested in compiling it with you if you would be interested ?

kind regards

Sja somerford (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Stephen

Sja somerford

sjauty@aol.com

All the article said was "Beekeeping in the United Kingdom". It also had some internal and external links, but there really wasn't any actual content in the article. If you're still interested, I'm happy to email you the content, but if you're looking to write an article yourself the version I deleted is fairly useless. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong decision

You have atlast removed the picture ShaikhChandScan.jpg. for some silly reasons. I guess a responsible administrator should first get to the roots and then take a decision. It was a harsh and hasty decision. When no one from Wikipedia:India objects to the image, who are you to object and remove the picture. Kindly restore it or let the administrators from Wikipedia:India decide about the fate of the picture. Cheers Nefirious (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC) {{ImageUndeleteRequest}}Shaikhchandscan.jpg

I am myself, "to object and remove the picture", because it is fairly clearly still a copyright violation, and still from the scan of that unsourceable broadsheet. Truly, if no other admins have seen fit to undelete File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg, it likely means that they agree with my assessment of the situation. Unless you can demonstrate, beyond a doubt, that the image is not a copyright violation, or that you can provide information necessary for it to fall under the non-free content criteria, it must stay deleted. If you continue to upload further versions of this file, it may lead to sanction being placed upon you for disruption. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Goramon

On the nineteenth, you reviewed and put on hold a block by Brandon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to the user Goramon (talk · contribs · block log). You requested a clarification from the blocking administrator, and slightly over an hour later, one was given on the blocked user's talk page. Now, just under five days later, the blocked user has appeared on IRC asking for someone to inform you about this request, and make sure that you had not forgotten about it. When you have a chance, I would appreciate it if you could review this unblock request and either decline or grant it (depending on how you feel about Branon's explanation), as it has been on hold for a moderately-long time. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 17:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. I had been away this weekend, and had something to attend to right after I had made a comment on a related block, and just got around to it. Apologies to everyone involved for my tardiness. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I have to leave you another note, but the user's IP, 124.149.151.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is blocked as well. According to them, this is preventing them from editing any pages, even though the unblock has been granted on their account. I believe this may be the byproduct of an autoblock, but I'm not sure. So, in short, could you unblock this one as well, so they can edit? Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 18:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

*facepalm* I can pay attention, I swear. The IP wasn't used to evade a block at all, so I've unblocked it. There shouldn't be any autoblocks around, but I'll check and remove them if there are. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Full version of NICE to be released

Thanks for helping me and my colleagues test the NICE interface modification. Depending on when you installed the tool, you were only presented with a specific subset of the features we have developed. We are ready to roll out the full feature set which, we expect, will make the gadget significantly more useful. Before we do that, we'd like you to answer a few questions about your activity in Wikipedia as it relates to undoing other's edits and what you thought of the NICE features you were shown.

The survey will ask for your Wikipedia username, but you can participate anonymously if you choose. To do so, send me an email with an address I can respond to and I will have the survey software respond with an anonymous token for you to continue. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Vladimir 518

Hello Lifebaka, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Vladimir 518 has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - subject has received considerable reliable source coverage in Czech language sources (see http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Vladimir+518%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en) - will attempt to expand & source ASAP)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Question by 69.125.36.243 (moved from user page)

Why did you delete Little Jimmy's Italian ice page and the Rita's Italian Ice page remains- is this some sort of small business discrimination? Dennis Moore Little Jimmy's Italian Ice 908 352 0666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.36.243 (talk) 14:59, August 26, 2009

Because Rita's Italian Ice isn't up for deletion. lifebaka++ 15:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Hales and Goran Zoric

Just to let you know, neither of these players that you removed the prod from meet WP:Athlete as none of the clubs they have played for are professional. Camw (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Positive Comments

I would like to appreciate you, not for voting in my favour, but for commenting in the positive manner at article Dil Jan Khan. Your comments were too much related to subject / topic, rather involving in a debate there which is proposed plan of a user to violate the discussion and to attack me. Keep it up. Warm Regards --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Hey, thanks for the note. No interest in "baiting" the guy, just trying to walk the fine line and defend myself against a series of spurious accusations without prolonging the whole mess. As I send, a definite thorn... Thanks again. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I know you're not doing it deliberately, but you're ending up doing it all the same, unfortunately. I don't know if you can avoid it, but trying all the same might help. I'm going to be stepping in where I can to try to handle civility issues all around, and I'd love if everyone would take the hint instead and not force me to actually take any actions (this remark pointedly general). Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The more the merrier; there seem to be a lot of eyes on the article right now, which can only help. (I've been trying to address the persistent "PR-ification issues over the past year, but the new blood is able to actually focus on the content.) Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Pjetër Marubi

Would you mind restoring Pjetër Marubi? Seems to be enough on him out there to warrant an article see [6], [7], book mentions and articles, etc as a / the leading Albanian photographer of his time, who still has working descendants and followers. Thanks,John Z (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind restoring it, but I don't think the previous article will be of all that much use. It listed occupation, birth date and place, and basically nothing else. In my opinion, you're as good off starting from scratch. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks !!

Thanks for unblocking , I appreciate your work and help !--Aqazhar (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

S. V. Torke

It looks like you have deleted the speedy deletion flag. (Since I did not know how to set the deletion process, I took the speedy deletion process). If you do not agree with, you may set it for consensus to decide. I absoluetely do not find any sources expect what the author has included in the in-line links. These in-line links do not refer to what S. V. Torke did over there. You as an administrator may help me to complete the deleteion process for consensus to decide especially the consenusus from India. We donot understahd the ranks of secreteries of various entities. I love to keep this article if I find reliable sources and references Donotask-donottell (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The AfD looks fine to me, though comments about sorting go to it rather than the article. I removed the A7 tag because it's convention that any article with a decent source is exempt from it, regardless of whether or not the subject of the article is actually notable. As long as you understand that my declining of the speedy doesn't mean that the article should be kept, it'll be fine. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What is A7 tag? It looks like it is in India queue. How we can put back in the general queue if needed later? Thanks. --Donotask-donottell (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A7 is one of the criteria for speedy deletion. You had tagged S. V. Torke for deletion by it.

There aren't separate queues for AfDs. I added the AfD you created to today's log page, so that others can find it. All you need to do now is wait the seven days the process takes. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we do this?

I have done some work in this area and have seen administrators dumpling deletion articles for example in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/india etc depending upon where the wiki notable person belongs to. What does this mean? How can we place S. V. Torke in that file? We should leave this deletion to the Consensus from India - they do understand their stuff very well. Hope you help the writer and me on this. We need sources to believe this article. The contents might be good, but are they true facts?

--Donotask-donottell (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's part of the deletion sorting project, which just sorts deletion discussions so that users can more easily find ones they might be interested in. It's not a necessary part of the process, and sorting the discussion doesn't mean anything in terms of the discussion itself. Given a week or two, the AfD will be closed, and all will be well. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It may not be necessary. But, I would like to know that process for me to help involve in any future work like this. Are you sure that Tork'es article is being seen by Indin Consensus? The bottom line is let them decide on this and help us. I want to make sure that this article receives proper attenttion at the right time. Thanks. --Donotask-donottell (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's being seen by whoever looks. They may or may not be Indians, or interested in India. lifebaka++ 23:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

==

We are almost on the 7th day and we do not have any clear-cut votes to decide. It is wiki's decision that I will abide or Wiki may extend it for another 7 days. Thanks. --Donotask-donottell (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:86.33.46.93

Hi,

Just to let you know I have unblocked User:Antchy, following an email conversation I had with her, and I have decided to AGF (I must be going soft in my old age...). It appears that (according to her) a lot of the references were not valid. I have told her how she should go about making changes, both via email, and a summary on her talk page. As she has been unblocked, could you please review the block of User:86.33.46.93? I will keep an eye whenever I can on what she does, and have warned her that if her editing style continues the way it started, then she is likely to be blocked again, and there is not a lot I will be able to do about it. Cheers! Stephen! ^Coming... 16:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be anon only there, so Antchy should be able to edit just fine. I'd prefer to keep the block in place until it expires, so she'll remember to log in (at least, so I hope). If it is or becomes an issue, feel free to remove it immediately. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Stephen! ^Coming... 18:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

*cough*

[8] Exactly how much disruption will this user be allowed to get away with? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably not much more. lifebaka++ 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruption!

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#WP:RFAR/DPP and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -Stevertigo 17:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy the sense of humor. Thanks for the subsection title. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Atlantis in Malta.JPG

Hi, you deleted an image called Atlantis in Malta. I didn't understand the reason? It belongs to someone and I got the permission to use it. Can you tell me the proper way to re-insert it? thanks --Xellas (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You had uploaded the file stating that it is only to be used on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Wikipedia makes no presumption that its content is only to be used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as a whole, is licensed under CC-BY-SA, and all images in it must either be under a compatible license, free (such as public domain), or claimed as fair use. If you reupload the image, you'll need to put a fair use claim on it. See our non-free content criteria before you do so, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama / National Socialism

Hi, on WP:AN/I you offered to email a copy of User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) to interested parties. Would you mind sending one my way? Unless it's an extreme BLP violation, which I doubt, I'm wondering if it would be a reasonable move to restore a copy of that as a sub-page of the DrV page for the duration of the DrV or arbcom case, with a "no index" instruction so that it doesn't get picked up in search engines and edit protected so we can be sure to preserve the exact version that was deleted and it doesn't become the subject of new dispute. Has anyone ever thought of doing that for DRV cases? Wikidemon (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Emailed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Copied from User talk:Stevertigo:

Lifebaka wrote: "On a separate note, please always assume good faith on the parts of other users. Chances are very good it was deleted because Spartaz thought that the best way forward, regardless of whether or not he's correct."

Stevertigo quipped: "You know who else thought they knew "the best way forward?" Hitler. That's who."

Oy. You pulled a Godwin's Law on this. Clearly this isn't going to go anywhere, so I'll just leave you alone. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems with dealing with very young people is that they may not yet know what they are actually talking about. The issue that our Foundation's general council famously raised back in the Usenet days dealt with literal, oblique, and disruptive comparisons to the Nazis or Hitler - such that they represent an attempt to either disrupt discussion, or to send the discussion into the realm of hyperbole and sensationalistic garbage. His reference referred to either deliberate usage of Nazis as a conversational stinkbomb, or else as a kind of conceptual black hole that all discussions eventually wind up falling into.

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

I did not employ the unholy name in any such way. I used "Hitler" as a joke - a bad one, and a very very good bad one at that. We must discuss that particular asshole in certain historical pages, hence not all mentions of the name evoke the Godwin. That means your misplaced criticism of "pulling a Godwin," just as Spectre did at the MFD, indicates not just a youthful not-yet-knowingness, but that you need to actually understand things before you start using them as memes.

Oddly enough, the subject of this entire bruhaha was a draft article that dealt with exactly how the alledged associations between Obama and "National Socialism" are themselves a kind of meme that is "pulling a Godwin" on the entire discussion. I admit I did miss the Godwin point in the draft but there are much much worse aspects to that as well, and I did touch on those. -Stevertigo 16:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging during live AfD

Hi. I'm approaching you because you're an admin active at WT:AFD who hasn't commented at WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD. Do you think that the discussion has reached a consensus – and can be closed as such – or would it benefit from RfC/CENT? I've asked Backslash Forwardslash (already commented) and Juliancolton (wikibreak). Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If consensus isn't obvious, chances are it doesn't exist. Consensus, in that discussion, isn't obvious. Proponents of both opinions make good points, but there isn't reason (yet) to change the status quo, that being that people can, to a reasonable extent, do what's best. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look it over. I'll let it sit, as that section is now linked as evidence at WP:Requests for comment/A Nobody (posted a couple hours after the request above). Flatscan (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops...!

I think I see what I did; someone had tweaked the template and yours truly deleted it based on what it actually said. Duh.  :) Thanks for the assist. Might be time for some breakfast in order to get my head screwed back on. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Durham

You seem to have prodded Durham University Engineering Society which has previous been deprodded a while back. I agree with you about deleting it, but Considering the Del Rev at BEAMES, which cites this, perhaps AfD would be better? DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, stupid me, I should've checked. I'll get to it fairly soon. For now I've removed the PROD tag. Thanks for catching that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome on my talk page! :-) Sunburned Streets (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo stuff

On September 25 you made the good-faith claim that the only one who disputed a point I made that same day (that this is a conflict between someone who does not provide sources or does so in a way that violates NOR and NPOV, versus people trying to uphold those policies) is Stevertigo himself. With respect, I think that this comment shows that there is at least one other person who disputes my point (which is why I felt it was a point that needed to be made). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been following it. Not sure what Eclecticology is trying to prove there. lifebaka++ 21:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I can only guess but I have two: one is that like many Wikipedians he believes that there are always two and only two sides to a story, and that all conflicts here are adversarial - this is a popular view in America which not only has a highly litigious culture, but also has this "crossfire" model of journalism in which there are always two sides, and his idea of fair-mindedness is that both sides are right or both sides are wrong but he can never "take" a side. Second guess is, he has been here since the beginning and doesn't really subscribe to NOR or DE - policies like that were dveloped years after he started editing and many old-school editors just do not "read" conflicts through these newer (to them) policies. Or (a less charitable, but realistic, guess) maybe he just has not read the entire AN/I thread looking at all the links. But whatever his motive, which I really cannot guess at, he sure seems to care about this a lot. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination)

Hi! As someone who contributed to Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich and/or the deletion review of that AFD, I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination).

Note: this is going out to all registered editors with talk pages who commented on either page, not just to those on the Delete/Endorse or Keep/Overturn side.

Thank you. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Luis Masson

Could you please restore Luis Masson which you deleted? There is no mistake. Luis Masson and Lily Masson are both offspring of Andre Masson. Thank you! 82.250.74.190 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Train wrecks

Hey lifebaka, it's been too long! I stumbled upon this train wreck: Tanwir Phool, and I'm not even sure what to do about it. I'm not equipped with the time/knowledge to improve it to something more than a bad stub, but I feel like this is the kind of thing I should at least tag. What would be the thing to do here? Thanks, as always, JamesLucas (" " / +) 01:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Kelly Willard Page deleted?

Hi! Thanks for all you do here on the Wikipedia. I am a bit puzzled as to your reasons for deleting the Kelly Willard page. Understandably, some of the entries may have been a bit informal (i.e. "...went to be with Jesus") but could that not have been formalized without deleting the page? Did it not qualify as a stub? Help me understand, please. I would like to recreate the page (or "formalize" some of the entries if it were to be "undeleted"). What do you think? Thanks! RichLindvall (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Luis Masson - second request

Could you please restore Luis Masson which you deleted? There is no mistake. Luis Masson and Lily Masson are both offspring of Andre Masson. Thank you! Patchen (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

They had the exact same text. The article I deleted was nearly identical to the current text of Lily's article. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

collapse tag

RE: [9] Hello, I removed the collapse tag. this is an issue directly effecting a closed AFD. Thank you. Okip 22:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry man, it is an unusual request, but one which involves the closure of MFDs. Thanks. Okip 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

closed, struck, and re-collapsed. Okip 23:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Recreating Similar Page Previously Deleted

Hi Lifebaka,

I will be creating a similar page that was previously deleted and will write it fundamentally to appear encyclopedic. Shall I continue or make a new page? Thanks Julyyaluj (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to avoid being edit blocked by you.

The person I had an edit war with last year is at it again. Is there a way to have his proposed content reviewed so that we're not doing another edit war? I find his content in this case of dubious value and perhaps if someone else said as much he'd get the idea. And if others think it has merit, I'll back off. LightningMan (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

File:StoogesStooges.jpg

[10]  I guess you saw my topic? :-) Thank you for your interest, but wouldn't it be better if you delete the version, instead of making it invisible? Cheers! theFace 16:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, removing the whole thing would require full deletion and partial undeletion of the image, making it unavailable for a short period of time. What I did was, in fact, version delete. It just works weird. No clue why. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

DRV Cleanup

I just noticed you removed a misplaced DRV here from Wikipedia:Deletion review with the edit summary that you were moving it to the proper log. I was doing a bit of investigation and it turns out that the edit you removed was made by a duck-test sock of banned editor Instantnood. There is no need to restore the edit to any DRV log. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Universal Parks & Resorts by quality

Hi, you removed the CSD tag from Category:Universal Parks & Resorts by quality, with the comment that it's not a candidate for CSD G8. Maybe I should have explained better why do I want to delete it: the category (and its subcategories) is named incorrectly and I created today the correct Category:Universal Parks & Resorts articles by quality and fixed the template. So I think those categories should be deleted under WP:CSD G8 as “categories populated by […] retargeted templates”. Could you delete them then? Or do you still think G8 doesn't apply? Thanks. Svick (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that does explain it. I probably should've noticed, sorry. Deleted now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Svick (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Cycling Tour of Romania

Hello, you removed my speedy request from Tour of Romania on the basis that Cycling Tour of Romania was the correct name based on the lede. You will see that only "Tour of Romania" is referred to in the lede and "Tour of Romania" is used on the Union Cycliste Internationale's website, so can you please revisit this? Thanks, Severo^TC 09:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Current ANI thread

The previous ANI disussion, which you were involved in, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009, is now part of an ANI discussion Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing, where you may or may not wish to comment. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

ProxMox

It's a shame that there is now no English page for information on the ProxMox virtualisation software. Why remove the entry completely, why not just remove the 'advertising' ? Fortunately for French speakers, the French entry is still there in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.241.132 (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Wakeman Agency

Monicaclarke (talk)I had a redirect done direct from Wikipedia, I emailed info@ wiki, they corrected my issue and now its back. .... I dont understand why you deleted it . Is it ok if I redirct to virtual office, can you fix it becuase I have no way to edit The Wakeman Agency - there is no tab for it. —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

There is no mention of any "Wakeman Agency" in the virtual office article, so I see no reason why people searching for one would want the other. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Aquanauts(band)

Hello!

The Aquanauts are a band from Atlanta, Georgia. They are legitimate, and their website with all sources needed is http://www.aquanautsmusic.com/ . We were currently adding and editing our page on wikipedia, which you have recently deleted. Can you please reverse your recent deletion? If we need more sources or contacts to keep the page alive please tell me, and we will do all we can to resurrect our wiki page.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.127.182 (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read our policies on notability in general and for musical groups, as well as our policy on conflicts of interest and the use of copyrighted material, before attempting to recreate the page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

• Hi, can you delete this article as a very short article? Thanks. --Hedda Gabler (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, A1 doesn't apply. The subject of the article is clear, it has content, and it's not a valid A7 candidate. I suggest using WP:PROD or nominating the article for AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from the Contribution Team

Greetings! Please excuse this intrusion on your talk page, and allow me to invite you to participate on the newly-formed Wikipedia Contribution Team, or WP:CONTRIB for short! The goal of the team is to attract more and better contributions specifically to the English Wikipedia, as well as to help support the fundraising team in our financial and editing contribution goals. We have lots of stuff to work on, from minor and major page building, to wikiproject outreach, article improvement, donor contacting, and more -- in fact, part of our mission is to empower team members to make their own projects to support our mission. Some of our projects only take a few minutes to work on, while others can be large, multi-person tasks -- whatever your interest level, we're glad to have you. If this sounds of interest to you, please visit WP:CONTRIB and sign onto the team. Even if there does not appear to be anything that really speaks out as being work you'd like to do, I'd encourage you to join and follow the project anyway, as the type of work we'll be doing will certainly evolve and change over time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me, or ask on the Contribution talk page. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 19:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

I got the email you referred to in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010 November 8#User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives.

Thank you for your explanation that you do not want to take a position on whether or not the original list was copyrightable.

I hope you will take the time to answer some other questions arising from your closure, or related to this discussion.

1. I thought DRV was generally the appropriate venue to ask for discussion as to whether our policies had been followed when material had been deleted.
2. I thought that DRV was specifically the appropriate venue to ask for discussion as to whether the policies on deletions on perceived copyright violation had been followed when material had been deleted.
3. If DRV isn′t the right venue, would you mind suggesting to me a venue you consider more appropriate?
4. If DRV is the most appropriate venue, would you mind offering a suggestion as to how to seek resolution on this issue... Do you think it would be appropriate for me to ask for this DRV to be re-opened? If you think it is appropriate to ask for it to be reopened, do you think you are an appropriate person to ask to consider reopening the DRV? And, if so, would you please consider it? Thanks.

I hope you dont mind me asking you about a phrase you used. You wrote: “I have placed below the portion of your user page which is not an identical copy of Appendix II of the Brooking study.”

In the context of intellectual property rights I am happy to trust your judgment that the subpage was an "identical copy" of Brookings's study. From a practical point of view, though, hadn't the subpage been very heavily wikified? I think the revision history gives a hint as to how much effort I put into wikifying the sub-page. I have done a lot of work on the Guantanamo captives' habeas corpus petitions -- hundreds of hours. This subpage in userspace was part of the scaffolding to support those efforts.

The admininstrator who deleted this subpage seems to have taken a position that I think is strongly at odds with our policies, and with our long-standing conventions. It seems to me that the deleting administrator thinks it is appropriate to hold subpages I have created in userspace to a higher standard than that we require of articles in article space. When a legitimate, policy-based concern is voiced about an article in article space, and then that concern has been adequately addressed, that article is allowed to remain in article space. The deleting administrator′s position seems to be that if they once voiced what they regard as a legitimate, policy-based concern over subpages I have created in userspace, they can delete that subpage, even if their stated concerns had subsequently been adequately addressed.

The material you emailed me consisted of the sentence, "178 habeas petitions were cited, most only once." followed by the list of the names of those 178 habeas petitions. That list of petition names hasn't the remotest trace of copyrightability. In my opinion my sentence is brief enough that I would never claim it was copyrightable. IMO it is just below the border of de minimus.

As I believe I noted, in the DRV, there isn't a single passage on pages 69 through 84 that anyone could claim was protected intellectual property. Like my list of 178 habeas names it was purely the product of collation. There was no spark of creativity. The names of the captives are "facts" -- not copyrightable. The names of their habeas petitions are "facts" -- not copyrightable. The titles of the newspaper articles the Brookings authors used as references, the authors, the dates, the publications, all the bibliographic material are "facts" -- not copyrightable. Pages 85 through 90 contain some phrases, sentence fragments, more brief than the sentence you sent to me by email, that the deleting administrator claims are copyrightable. What was I thinking when I created this subpage? Did I decide those passages were too brief to merit being considered intellectual property? Or did I simply overlook considering the question altogether?

I dunno. Being emailed a copy of my source might help me remember. But, I suggest, if we honor the principle that if material once raised a policy-based concern, is subsequently fixed, it is allowed to remain, even if the deleting administrator's assertion that the half-dozen passages repeated on the final pages were long enough to merit copyright protection this page could be made compliant with trivial effort. As I believe I suggested in the DRV, if the those passages were excised, or if I replaced all those passages with a phrase I drafted, then the page would be completely compliant with COPYVIO, even if the deleting administrator's assertion those half-dozen passages were copyrightable.

Yes, I haven′t forgotten that you chose not to address the question of whether the material was copyrightable. But I believe even if , for the sake of argument, the page contained some copyrightable passages, the page could be made compliant with COPYVIO, with trivial effort.

The Brooking's tables were collated before the DoD published an authoritative list of which captives were, and which captives weren't still in custody in Guantanamo. It was superceded by a "Consolidated list". So the list is of very little value for determining who remained in Guantanamo when it was published. What it is of value for is for collating which captives are named in which habeas petitions. It is an area of our coverage of these topics that, in my opinion, needs more work. And this table -- the wikified version of this table that I was using in userspace is of great value to me. It is potentially of great value to anyone working on our coverage of the habeas petitions.

So, I request you reconsider your decision to only email me this portion of the deleted material. Would you please consider emailing me the full text of the deleted material? Geo Swan (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Alida Vázquez (1931)

I was the author, and it would have been nice if I'd gotten a notice that this had been submitted for deletion. She's a woman composer listed in other encyclopedias, so should be automatically important enough to be covered in Wikipedia. Pkeets (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Could you reinstate this article? I'll add more indications of importance.Pkeets (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem waiting to happen

In search of advice by an administrator, I've stumbled across you, the person that welcomed me to Wikipedia many moons ago. I'm having 'trouble' with another editor. (S)he's clearly biased, and actually explicitly acknowledged that several times! During a discussion about an edit or piece of text, it's difficult to not get sidetracked by the many (I guess) flamebaits and off-topic comments made by that editor. In the few places third editors have responded, they have 'sided' with me, actually validating my arguments. However, up till now, it has never escalated, or resulted in a out-right conflict, so I'm not sure it there's anything Admin Powers (tm) can really solve at this point. I can give specifics (names, places, ...) if needed, but I guess in all fairness we'd have to involve that other editor too then, and I'm not sure if that's what's best right now. --DanielPharos (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(bump) Down MiszaBot, down! --DanielPharos (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

fyi

We are all volunteers, and you are certainly entitled to take a couple of days off. After waiting a couple of days I thought it was appropriate to ask for help from other administrators, and I did so here.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been emailed the full source. I would still like to have the issue of whether it was a copyright violation resolved. Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad this got resolved, and I am sorry I was not here to take care of it for you. I should have been here to finish what I started.

Regarding my DRV closure, my intent was simply to direct discussion elsewhere. I don't believe that the users at DRV are well suited to make large decisions about how we handle copyrights here at Wikipedia, which appeared to be what you were after. If you have not done so yet, a discussion at WT:COPYVIO about adding some text over there about whether or not lists of facts should be considered copyrightable content under our policies. I should have stated my intent earlier, rather than leaving it to be guessed at. Again, I apologize for muddying the situation. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not regard the situation as resolved. Geo Swan (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My mistaken, then. I suggest you seek assistance in one of the various placed on Wikipedia where those knowledgeable about copyrights gather, in order to receive properly informed opinions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

help

• Hi, can you look at here? I edited page for pictures but IP user always change it, but page is not visual i think. (my english is not good sorry for this). thanks. --Hedda Gabler (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Googleisawesome and User:Channel 6 - circular sockery

Hi,

You seem to be the admin who blocked User:Googleisawesome and User:Channel 6 for disruptive sockpuppetry, so I thought I would bring this to your attention. Hope that's ok. It's just that I noticed that there is some confusion looking at their user page and talk page as to whether they are blocked for abuse of sockpuppets, or blocked because they are sockpuppets. Indeed, one message on each seems to indicate that they are sockpuppets of each other. Now, don't get me wrong, whoever this is has clearly done some massive abusive sockpuppetry, and I fully support a block, it's just that it seems precedurally problematic that it's not clear which one is the 'master' account, should they ever request an unblock. It might be worth just deciding that the oldest account is the master account, and making it clear that they are blocked for sockpuppetry (and could request an unblock) whereas all the other accounts (and there are loads!) are blocked as sockpuppets and therefore are never likely to be unblocked. I hope that makes sense, and you see what I'm getting at. Thanks.--Korruski^Talk 12:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not an "alternate capitalization"

"Wrif" is not an "alternate capitalization" of the WRIF callsign -- radio station callsigns are always in full caps. And nothing links to "Wrif". It serves no purpose. Levdr1 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Also, if I used the wrong template, please indicate the right one. The point is that "Wrif" is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levdr1 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I have tried a "proposed deletion". Levdr1 (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Removed "proposed deletion" as apparently redirects do not qualify. Listing under "redirects for discussion." Levdr1 (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Dropping any further action on this. Levdr1 (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Shmeat revision request

Hi,

Could I respectfully ask you to explain why my article on "Shmeat" has been deleted, and returned to redirecting to "meat analogue"? This is completely inaccurate -- it would be better to delete the article altogether, though what I wrote is fully accurate (as I explained on the talk page).

I would like to ask you to re-consider, and re-instate my article.

Thank you,

Andrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreyman (talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll want to have a look at our basic inclusion policy. While there are billions (if not trillions) of possible things to include in Wikipedia, we do not include everything. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Trucchis.gif

WP:CSD#G5 "by banned or blocked users."

Indef blocked sockpuppet of an indef blocked sockmaster. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been a while since I actually read the criteria. Fixed now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Stella Marconi - Page Deletion

Hey, I had two messages at once, one stating that I hadn't left a message in my "Talk", when I clearly had and the second saying you had deleted the page whilst I was editing it. I was in fact editing it using sources found on-line including newspaper articles just before you deleted it and although I detest bringing this to your attention since it seems rather petty but I was wondering whether there was anyway in which the deleted page could be reinstated or if, upon my creation of the page again, that would meet with another deletion message? In either case, I have found at least one reputable source which could be used and am still searching for more.

I hope you can help. Danglickman (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can show me the source(s), I would be happy to undelete the page for you. Alternatively, I can undelete it and move it to a subpage in your userspace (such as at User:Danglickman/Stella Marconi) where you can work on it at your leisure and move it back to the mainspace when it is more complete. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If you could move it to my userspace, I would be very grateful, I probably should have done that myself I just didn't realise it would be flagged for deletion before I had found reputable sources and/or other information to include. At least this way I can fully complete it and it gives me more time to compile sources.

So yeah, Thanks a lot! Danglickman (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. The page is at User:Danglickman/Stella Marconi. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Stadium photos uploaded by User:Jordanson and User:LoVeCa

Most if not all photos uploaded by them seems to be copyright violations. Photos has got diferent sizes and were taken by different cameras. Besides these users has got huge amount of photos already deleted because of copyright violations [11], [12].--Oleola (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

GotSeeN.com

Hi could you tell me why my article was deleted please? I'm not affiliated with the site, but thought that it is a valid inclusion as it is a free tool for artists to publish their works and where else would they find this information unless it's on here. I had provided many credible sources including The Guardian newspaper. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.198.238 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The answer is in the deletion summary. The article did not tell the reader why its subject was at all important. Tone-wise, it also appeared to be advertising the site. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Integrative Medicine

Thanks for doing that. Also, please also read the note I left for the author, on User talk:Bravewell.  Chzz  ►  17:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

George Porter (athlete)

You added a peacock tag to an article I wrote, with no explanation of what word or words you have an objection to. As I see it, the article covers the facts put into perspective. Please explain exactly what your objection is. Trackinfo (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Phrases like "easily win", "exceptional junior", et al. The adjectives in these phrases do nothing except inflate the personage of Porter. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Rajiv Gandhi.B

Hi there. I suppressed the above userpage as yes, it was a self-reveal and yes, they are not a minor. However, I've no way of knowing just who's information that actually is, and whether this was done in all innocence or not. I'd rather warn the editor once at least and give them the chance of not releasing such information in future. You can't realistically put that cat back into the bag once it's released. Given the verifiability issue, the detail of the information and the fact that a request was placed with the oversight team, I've chosen to suppress it. Thanks - Alison ^❤ 02:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:CTLS test 08.jpg

Hope you don't mind, but I reverted your deletion. Although it's the same picture, the web site has a logo on top. Looks like the uploader is the web site owner, and has saved the web site copy in a slightly lower resolution, added a logo, stripped out all the camera EXIF data, just so it's not an exact match to his upload here. I also double checked in PhotoShop at 800% or so, and there is zero evidence of any logo removal.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:14, 8 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [13]--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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

6th Generation

Hey Im New Can You Make the 6th generation page for me Please i can give you all the info you need(~~RicBoom~~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicBoom (talk • contribs) 22:10, March 20, 2011

I'm willing to take a look, but I have a funny feeling that the band doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:BAND or the general notability guideline, so creating it would be somewhat futile. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

they have been on the charts for there songs like proscenium and MRO-jet in japan — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicBoom (talk • contribs) 22:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to a reliable website to which I could cite this? Or a print source I might be able to get my hands on? lifebaka++ 22:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lifebaka, not to stalk your talk page or anything but sound familiar? BurtAlert (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I put the two together already. Still, as much as it might be a duck, I ain't inclined to block it unless it starts throwin' insults around. And don't worry about stalkin'; as an admin, I kinda' expect this page to be on a few watchlists. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

you can go 3 the6tgenerationband.webs.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicBoom (talk • contribs) 04:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

thesixthgeneration.webs.com is a broken link, it only takes me to the webs.com "we're sorry we couldn't find this page" error. Besides that, a webs.com page would not be reliable, as it is a webhost. Anyone can post anything they want there, with nearly zero review (and that only for illegal content, probably). Ideally, what would work well would be reviews in music industry magazines (or more illustrious publications, such as the New York Times) or a reliable source indicating that The 6th Generation has charted on a major national chart.

Unfortunately, a quick look at Google doesn't lead me to believe this band can have a page right now. I could not find a single mention of the band in the first few pages of results, even after stripping out a lot of irrelevant results (such as iPod nano armbands). This leads me to believe that sources which could be used to verify an article do not exist, meaning it cannot have an article. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

put it in with no spaces like the6thgeneration — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicBoom (talk • contribs) 22:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the issue. You're missing a "h" in the URL.

I browsed around. This band is new, and young, and quite obviously entirely unknown. It is extremely unlikely to get an article until it publishes an album via an important indie label. lifebaka++ 23:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I really appreciate the welcome!!

I´m from Mexico and I do an effort to don't make mistakes in my contributions, so I hope your help when something doesn't look good. Grettings. --Susleriel (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why

why did you block me i didnt do anything but voic my opinionRicBoom (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't blocked you, to the best of my knowledge. If you're referring to this message I left you, you'll have nothing to worry about if you just turn your attention to articles and start working on them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Shared IP templates

Hi there Lifebaka. I know that you're an administrator, so I thought I might as well ask you this. I've been do alot of anti-vandalism work, and I was wondering when it is appropriate to use the different shared IP templates. I understand how to get the information using WHOIS, but when do you decide to put a template on a talk page? Thanks. BurtAlert (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have terribly much experience with blocking, not being an anti-vandal fighter myself, but looking through Category:Shared IP header templates, it seems like most of the times to use the templates are relatively self-explanatory. It usually isn't that difficult to realize that an IP is shared (such as when it's registered to a school or a sizable business), and most dynamic IPs are identifiable by being registered to an ISP. I guess I'd go with the standard Wikipedian answer: Use common sense, and don't template if you're not (fairly) sure. Someone will point it out if you're screwing up badly, and otherwise you don't need to worry about it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You not understand

I put a speedy delete-hoax template on File:BritishPOW.jpg You wrote "decline, using the photo as part of a hoax doesn't make the photo a hoax) [rollback]".

But that was not why I proposed deletion. I proposed deletion because it is not a photo of British POWs. - The website the photo comes from makes it clear that this photo is to do with the "Guerre franco-thaïlandaise 1940–1941". It is therefore a hoax photo.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the hoax is in the claim of what the photo is of. The photo itself is not a hoax. It is an image. Send it to FfD, if you like, but a G3 it is not. lifebaka++ 22:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly,

• An image entitled "Obama meets Idi Amin.jpg" where President Obama has been photoshopped into a photo showing Idi Amin would be a hoax,
• But an image entitled "Obama meets Idi Amin.jpg" that had not been faked and showed two men (but not Obama or Amin) would not be a hoax?

Have I understood you?--Toddy1 (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sort of. The first image could be a hoax, or could be someone showing someone else how to do silly things with photoshop; either way it would not appear in any article and may be deleted (or moved to Commons) on those grounds. The second case, however, only requires that the file be renamed, a far cry from a G3-able hoax. If the image needs to be moved, let me know where to move it and I will. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The photo was used in the original source to illustrate the Franco-Thai War of 1940-41. The source does not say what exactly it shows. I have proposed the photo for deletion partly on the misleading label grounds but also on the grounds of the licence, which I do not think is valid.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

About one deletion...

Hi Lifebaka, sorry to bother you. I was checking some articles and I noteced you deleted the footballer Boris Raspudić article. The problem is that he played recently his first match for the Bosnian national team, thus passing WP:FOOTY/Notability. The article was probably outdated. We better restore the article, or I make him a new one? Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It was only deleted as a PROD, so I've restored it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. :) FkpCascais (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sergeant Hatred DRV

Hi. You closed the Sergeant Hatred DRV at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 22. A few hours after your close, I added a comment, which was quickly reverted by User:Dream Focus. I discussed the revert with Dream Focus at User talk:Dream Focus#Sergeant Hatred DRV, and he suggested that I ask you, as the closing admin.

My stance is that my comment adds value, especially the link to WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect. That it was a few hours late could be overlooked in the spirit of WP:Ignore all rules. Would you allow my comment to stand at the DRV? How about a compromise, where the comment is moved to the talk page, with a link at the actual DRV? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Flatscan's postscript comment adds value, but it can be added outside of the archive box. I have done this here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. I've never been one to worry too much about adding comments in after things are "closed". Timestamps work, regardless. Cheers, both of you. lifebaka++ 12:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good place for it. I've only dealt with templates like {{collapse top}}, so placement there didn't occur to me. Thank you both. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Gharr

Gharr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. You warned Gharr on WP:ANI about attacking other editors. Gharr's behaviour has not improved since, and I would like you to review their edits, especially the unblock request where Gharr attacks me, Sloane, OpenFuture and the blocking admin, and decide on whether blocking would now be appropriate. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Being blocked is stressful, so admins usually grant blocked users a little bit of leeway for venting. I'll have a word with him, but am not going to extend his block at this time. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope Gharr reads your message with care and has a change of heart. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I worked out while gone what I should have done to the AfD... Looks like there's been two accounts in action according to Phil Bridger. Quite likely, from their operating areas, user pages and names. Peridon (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Having to leave and wanting someone else to finish things up is always legitimate. You'll hafta' excuse me if I stay out of any sockpuppet investigations or the like, though, they're not my cup of tea. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I am usually not into barnstars or other digital trophies, but this one caught my eye as very suitable for you. I think you deserve it for your reply to Gharr, which was far more respectful and understanding than I could've created for such editor, and I appreciate giving them a chance to change their habits for the better. You're the one person who, despite all the hostility and attacks flying around, kept their cool. You have demonstrated Knightly Virtues in your treatment of the lone editor who hates and is hated by many. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You Retard

You fudging deleted the page i made. Why are you such a fudgine w***e? StickyNicky711 (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC) B*tch Fack!

about a deletion

You deleted the article Solomon Casseb. He was a famous judge in bexar county. I dont know aht made you feel the need to delete it nor do i see what makes you be allowed to. I want you to restore it immediatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StickyNicky711 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Collapsed these two sections together. As this user is indef'd as a vandalism only account and didn't give much of a reason to do what he wants (truly, calling me a retard and then asking me to do something is not moving in the right direction), I am not going to. If anyone else has a reasonable request, I am open to it, however. lifebaka++ 03:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Mikazuki Jujitsu

The template "Mixed martial arts" was incorrectly used for the article, I have changed it to project Martial arts you might want to copy your post from the mixed martial arts talk page to martial arts talk page. --Phospheros (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm Phipps

Please explain why you have deleted the magazine cover photos on this page - we have permission to use these images but I may not have put the correct coding in to show this.

Sfarrer (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Sfarrer

Having permission doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Unless the image is available under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license (or something compatible), it'll need to be used under our non-free content criteria. These images are not going to have valid fair use claims, I believe, so it would be the best solution to just leave them deleted. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to me - am new to Wikipedia, so am still learning! Have deleted the photo references from the edit page now. Perhaps you could help me with the whole page though - someone (damiens.rf) keeps deleting my page saying it's no good (or words to that effect!) without providing me with any constructive criticism to improve it. Is there any chance you could have a look at the page and let me know what you think. Thanks.Sfarrer (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why have you deleted "Nominal Accounting"?

• Nominal Accounting · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This page was describing an Australian Software accounting package from www.nominal.com.au and was searched on wikipedia by many users. You can check out the website here: www.nominal.com.au it is a real product with thousands of users.

Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.168.135.1 (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Restored as a contested proposed deletion. However, notability is questionable and the article looks a little like an advertisement so it still may be nominated for deletion. In the future you may request the restoration of articles deleted by PROD at requests for undeletion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why has Moutheater been deleted?

I'm just trying to understand why the Moutheater page was deleted. The band has been featured in multiple national magazines and has toured all over the US. From what I understand this means they meet notability guidelines.Amvymra (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The page was pretty much identical to the version deleted in this AfD, including the source list. If there are other sources you had not mentioned there or have found since, I'm happy to take a look at them, but otherwise I doubt much progress will be made. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the last deletion the band was featured in national publications (as in you can get these at any Barnes & Noble in the country) Outburn magazine, Alternative Press magazine, and Decibel magazine as well as mutliple national websites like metal-sucks.com, live-metal.net, metal-observer.com, and brooklynvegan.com. I mentioned these magazines in the updated article.Amvymra (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, so you did. I missed it, sorry. I'll undelete it, then. You might want to add the specific issues of Outburn, Alternative Press, and Decibel that Moutheater was featured in (month and year will do) and add them as references. I can't guarantee that another user won't nominate the article for AfD again, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks.Amvymra (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Gharr's back

Gharr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gharr's back without losing their aggressive behaviour. While he hasn't ventured outside his talkpage, he's accusing every admin who had a part in blocking/not unblocking him of misconduct, and still has no clue about the edit war block which he feels was not appropriate since he didn't breach the WP:3RR. He's deleted all my inquiries without answering them, which is allowed but at this point very rude. Could you give them a bit more time off, or delete the attacks from Gharr's talk page or whatever? I wouldn't give him the pleasure of having these blatant lies on their talk page as a document about the "corrupted state of Wikipedia" or whatever. I'm really fed up with this guy by now, and I'm going to reinstate my ban proposal if he continues this. Zakhalesh (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd noticed he's back. Oh the joys of being an admin...

As long as he sticks to his talk page and isn't handing out gross personal attacks, I'd rather let him do what he wants. Thinking that Wikipedia sucks, even vocally, isn't something we block to prevent.

Deleting your comments to his talk page means he read them and decided not to reply, and while it's not collegial it's hardly actionable. Again, not blocking.

You can put up a ban proposal if you like, though I'm not sure how far it'll get. Cheers. lifebaka++ 10:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks for your response. I don't think trying to get Gharr banned would help anything, as his disruption has been relatively insignificant for a site ban and is no longer centered on Venus project so topic ban wouldn't help either. If they attack other editors again, however, I'll request that they be blocked until they acknowledge that they are the ones behaving inappropriately. I think that'd be the most effective solution to this problem, because Gharr doesn't appear to listen (or read) anything people try to tell them - at least 4 different people have, for example, tried to correct their misconception that they were blocked for a 3RR violation. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've posted an ANI thread requesting indef block for Gharr unless/until they start listening to advice. Zakhalesh (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

An Urgent Message From Someone Working On A Page That You Deleted An Image On

Hi there. My name is Ryan and I am trying to clean up the Raleigh DeGeer Amyx page. I'll be honest with you, I am: 1) very, very new to Wikipedia, and am getting very overwhelmed at how long changes take and all of the rules that have to be followed to put a page together (my deadline is today), 2) am trying to add two images to a page, and that has to do with a file you deleted from Wikipedia Commons, and 3) I just need some HELP from someone who wants to help other people follow the guidelines on Wikipedia, but also finish the work they have to do. Having said that, I am trying to upload again the image you deleted, but this time correctly. I don't know whether the image is copyrighted, but I know that the owner has given me permission to use it, and I need to upload it and include it on his page. Additionally, I have been assigned the task of creating a page based on a collection of notable and verifiable significance called the Raleigh DeGeer Amyx Collection. It has multiple references both in print and online. But I must finish the changes on the other page before creating the collection page. People on wikipedia have been very short and unhelpful to me so far, and it appears that the people that have been on here the longest have the experience, and also the power to just come in and change or delete what I've done without offering any real help to meet compliance. Raw4815 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally, reuploading the exact same way ends with the same result. I've gone and declined to speedy delete the images again, and listed them at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 April 8 instead. This gives you some time to work on the copyright issues with the files.

Although it sounds like giving Wikipedia permission to use the files should work, it does not. This is because content that appears on Wikipedia, including images, is assumed to be licensed under the Creative Commons Atribution Share-alike 3.0 license, which makes it freely available to people other than Wikipedia, thereby violating the copyright of the image. There are three work-arounds to this. First, the license holder can make the images available under a compatible license (meaning either CC-BY-SA 3.0 or CC-BY 3.0, basically). We will likely move the image to the Wikimedia Commons in this case, but the functionality will not change. This will make the image freely available, however.

Second, you can claim fair use of the images. This is likely going to be difficult, because the images themselves must actually be necessary to convey the point of the article. I don't think this is an option in this specific case, but it is in others. You can try it, if you like, but there are people here who make quite a stink about unnecessary fair use images.

Or third, you can just let us delete the images. For this one, you don't need to do anything.

Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Yafei

I respect that you declined my request to speedily delete this non-notable artist. However, your reasoning seems flawed. Please note that the label that he co-founded is also non-notable, and the article for it had been created by same user (likely the artist himself). I am renominating both for deletion, but not speedy. I trust I have your support for this nomination. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The "assertion of importance" in A7 is a far lower bar than notability. It is perfectly possible for non-notable subjects to be ineligible for A7. Co-founding a label, even a redlinked one, is enough of an assertion of importance to avoid A7. I've no idea if Yafei is notable, however, since I haven't looked for potential sources. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In considering whether to request a speedy deletion, I rely very heavily on the following phrase: "credible claim of significance or importance" with my emphasis added to "credible". For instance, an artist may create a page about themselves that says "Random Musician X is a very notable, influential, up-and-coming force in the world of Musical Genre Y." Although it claims significance, it does not do so in a credible way. As I said, I respect your decision, but I think this particular case was at best borderline. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Brief Update Regarding Change Of Status For Raleigh DeGeer Amyx Image

Per your message on the file File:Raleigh-degeer-amyx-in-library.jpg: "Per this message the uploader left me at my talk page, these images might not be available freely. The uploader claims that permission has been given for use on Wikipedia, however, and therefore I believe a copyright solution can be worked out. However, if not, the images are copyright infringement from".
Thank you, thank you, thank you so much. I have been working all week on this. I have another question, though. Is all that needs to happen to get the image owner/creator to say on his website that he permits user raw4815 to post his images on wikipedia? Should he instead state 'post images anywhere'? I'm working as hard as I can to get all these things worked out. Raw4815 (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC) My apologies. I now see your response earlier on this talk page. Let me read that and do some more research before making any more edits. Again, thank you SO much. Raw4815 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled User Right

Thanks very much for this offer. I've read up and it looks quite useful and would be much appreciated. Let me know if I can ever help with anything! Regards, Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Replacement of Contested candidates for speedy deletion

I thought maybe you'd know the answer to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Category help. Thanks for the previous help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Zameer Choudrey

Hello,

I was just wondering if you could let me know why you deleted the page on 'Zameer Choudrey'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestwaynw10 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hum, that was perhaps not the best speedy I've ever done. The page did have issues with tone and presentation (it looked and read like a resume), but certainly it was not a valid A7 and other concerns could be taken care of by editing. I'd be happy to undelete it for you, if you'd like, but in its latest form it is likely to be nominated for deletion--in fact, it was at the time that I deleted it--so someone would need to take the page under his wing and clean it up. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please undelete it so i can have a look at it and tweek it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestwaynw10 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. It can be found at Zameer Choudrey. The single biggest issue with the page, as far as I can tell, is that it is written like a resume rather than an encyclopedia article. This is fixable, but many will still see it as a reason for deletion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

About my article

Please do not get in my business, that's my article and if I've done that's my problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantesutcliffe (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, as you might not have noticed at the bottom of each page, by putting text on Wikipedia you have tacitly agreed that it may be mercilessly changed by others, in any way they see fit, without consulting you first. You do not own a page you've written, I'm afraid. Still, I'm not interested in edit warring over the point, so I've only readded maintenance tags and will leave a note on the talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick Note

Not sure if you're watching the deletion review, but you've been called back. CycloneGU (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I don't check specific DRVs anywhere nearly as often as I should. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Young Naturist America

Please allow me discuss the deletion of this page Young Naturis America,why to allow publish XXX Articles and refuse Naturism Articles.Albicelestes++

No, it'd be better if we discuss it here. Recreating the page just tends to cause it to be deleted again, which after a while causes someone to protect the title to prevent disruption.

It's not that we don't allow naturism articles, it's just that the specific article you've been writing reads like an advertisement and doesn't tell the reader why Young Naturist America might be important. The simple way to fix this issue is to include some text that states details about YNA (date of creation, founders, geographical areas YNA works in, awards won, etc.), rather than most of the article, which is merely text about naturism. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you reply,I will add this details,RegardsAlbicelestes++ —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC).

creation date,founder and geo.location have been added.Albicelestes++ —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC).

I see them in the edit summary, but they would need to go actually in the article.

Your best bet going forward would be to create a userspace draft of the article at User:Albicelestes/Young Naturist America so that you can work on it without having to worry about immediate deletion. Once it's good to go (either by your own reckoning or by checking with me, though I might end up being a bit harsh on it), you can move it back to the mainspace as an article. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

DB-Meta AFD check

I have adopted your language, with a bit of red, and was wondering if you thought the revised version would be acceptable. Meta talk, updated sandbox. Monty₈₄₅ 20:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your prompt handling of personal attacks and removing them from site. :) Now go drink some beer or something. ;) BelloWello (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

deletion of within hubris

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.215.191 (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikia is a far better place for this ARG to consolidate information. Regrettably, Wikipedia is very particular about what information it does and does not allow. Even if you could get an article for the ARG, just about zero information actually about the game could be verified in reliable sources, so it couldn't be included. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine - image resources

Dear Lifebaka On 13:07, 3 February 2011 at the Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tellus_Audio_Cassette_Magazine you removed the covers of all of the issues of Tellus. I think that this is valuable information for archival researchers. I see that you left the note:"(decline; might well be notable, suggest AfD; rm gallery)". I am not that experienced with Wikipedia structures and policy, so could you point me at what I should do to re-install the images? - or would you do it please? Thanks much. Valueyou (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The images are a bit much to have at the bottom of the article. Unless you can really demonstrate a need for them in the understanding of the magazine, you should leave them out. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ref tags at AN/I

Thanks for fixing that. I'd just realised there was a problem, but wasn't sure how to cure it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Moves

Once, a lomg time ago, I requested a move, and never got an answer. Next time I think something should be moved, and it does not work, I'll send you a message, since you seem to have the tools to do it. Thank you for your help. Kraxler (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

deletion of the article about TinyButStrong

Hello, I was about to update the article about TinyButStrong, but you deleted it few months ago claiming criteria Wikipedia:CSD#A7. I'm surprised that the article could have "no indication of importance", nevertheless TinyButStrong is not a web content, it's a library, it's a software. I'd like we have this article back so I can update it. Did you claimed this criteria for the article formulation or for the TinyButStrong template engine itself? --Parchemin (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I misread the article. I can restore it, but it is likely to get tagged for deletion again by the next user who comes by and sees it unless someone takes it under his wing and gives it a bit of work. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If it has been deleted because of misreading then it should be restored. I wanted to update it but I can improve it if your complain could be more precise.--Parchemin (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Complaint

I saw that you are an admin, so I would like you to ahve a look at the behavior of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), as seen on the page history (and talk pages) of Arthur William Wallander and Benjamin S. W. Clark etc. and tell me what you think about it. I never asked for anybody to be blocked yet (after five years and more than 10,000 edits), but now I'm in doubt how to proceed. Kraxler (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We are clashing at three articles: 1) Please look at the evidence already in the article and the reference used and help decide whether Kraxler's 3RRs are in error at Arthur William Wallander. The evidence has been in the article history since I created it, the Connecticut Death Index, but Kraxler is demanding, ala Donald Trump that I post a death certificate, because the cut and paste from the index isn't enough. 2) Please look at Rodney R. Crowley to decide whether the infobox stays or goes, Kraxler has argued that short biographies should not have them here when deleting them from other articles I have added them too. He has removed this one saying there is an error in it, but I can't see any obvious error, and Kraxler hasn't fixed any perceived error, or pointed out what the error is. Good editors can disagree over these style issues. 3) Also please act as a third opinion as to whether the redlinks at Benjamin S. W. Clark stay or go. If there is no redlink the next reader has to create the link again to see if there is an article or not, just like I did. Stylistically people don't like red links, but the MoS says they should stay if there is a reasonable chance there can be an article in the future. I believe there can be an article for each red link I created. Kraxler has very strong ownership issues to his articles reverting any changes made to them despite the edit's adherence to the MoS. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Kraxler, as an admin, I find the recent trend towards adminship being anything other than "not a big deal" really scary. I passed my RFA with flying colors so that I could help with deletion work, and other janitorial tasks. I cannot, in good faith, render opinions as an admin, since the community entrusted me with tools, not with status. My opinions are probably worth less than either of yours on these subjects, since you are both more familiar with the area. Still, I'm asked for my opinion, and I'll give it. Do what you will with it.

On Wallander's article, I'm not seeing the reference Richard is referring to that notes the "Sr." in his name. I probably just missed it, but I'm likely to keep missing it even if I keep searching, so could you provide it here?

The Connecticut Death Index has: "Name: Arthur W Wallander Sr Father's Surname: Wallander Death Date: 3 Nov 1980 Death Place: Greenwich, Connecticut Age: 88 Years Birth Place: New York Birth Date: 3 Feb 1892 Marital Status: Widowed Spouse: Emma State File #: 22837 Residence : Greenwich" The source is in the history of the article from when I first wrote it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Without a link I can't really verify the info, but since the CT Death Index for 1980 is behind a paywall, it wouldn't be reasonable to expect one. Thanks for clarifying, it does seem that I'd just missed it.

While Mallander is a Sr., it doesn't seem that the suffix is strictly necessary here. The suffixes are used on people so that we don't get confused between the two, and since no other Arthur William Wallander has an article (in fact, I just created Arthur Wallander as a redirect, seeing that it didn't exist yet). I arrive at this conclusion based on common sense, so MOS might contradict me; if it does, simply quote it at me and I'll be quiet. lifebaka++ 04:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We aren't arguing over the article title, just the lede. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware, but I still don't see the need to include the suffix. Clearly, since you have a ref, you can, but that was never the argument, right? To be blunt, a dispute over whether or not to include a sourced suffix is somewhat silly, so I encourage one of you (it doesn't matter which) to just drop it and move on. This is not a terribly important dispute. lifebaka++ 15:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

On Crowley's article, I don't see why we shouldn't have an infobox. I'm not aware of any guidelines stating such, but every article I have ever looked at has one, and consistency is something we strive for. So, an infobox should be there. Just like Richard, Kraxler, I'm not sure what you mean when you are claiming that the infobox is wrong, so could you please elaborate?

On Clark's article, the two redlinks to Farmers National Bank (Malone, New York) and Morningside Cemetery (Malone, New York) seem fine, and are certainly preferable to pointing at a disambiguation page or nowhere at all (respectively). I'm not sure if the parenthetical on the cemetery's link is in line with the MOS, but you two would have a better handle on that than I. The rest of Kraxler's cleanup on Clark's article looks to be an improvement.

Back in my admin-y voice, you two appear to be edit warring on Arthur William Wallander and Rodney R. Crowley. This is not awesome, and you should both stop. Seeking third opinions (or fourth, 'cuz I guess I'm the third...) is far preferable. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

He didn't like your opinion at Rodney R. Crowley and is still removing the infobox saying it is incorrect without explaining what the error is. Will you join the discussion there? This is way too much drama over a style issue. It appears he is venue shopping till he finds someone to support the removal since you didn't support his opinion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Norton certainly is edit warring, I'm trying to keep the info correct, which took me a long time to gather. Besides, Mr. Norton seems to be half-illiterate, since the text is flatly contradicting the info in the box. Besides, he tramples on about every wikipedia guideline I've ever seen, configurating VANDALISM. Could you refer this to some higher authority where I can argue showing the guidelines, and how Mr. Norton does not comply with them? Kraxler (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been asked three times what the error in the infobox is that you are using as an excuse to delete it, and you still have not responded. We fix errors rather than delete entire infoboxes or articles. I wouldn't delete the entire article if I found an error, I would fix it. The New York Times prints a paragraph of corrections every day, that doesn't mean it is not a reliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, Kraxler. If the information in the infobox is incorrect, correct it. Removing the infobox, correct info and all, isn't the right solution.

On another note, be careful about the word "vandalism". It describes a certain set of actions, deliberately taken to deface or damage Wikipedia, not simply edits that you disagree with. Richard's edits are in no way vandalism. lifebaka++ 15:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Since Mr. Norton tramples on the guidelines, it's vandalism. I pointed out in many instances what is wrong, and what the guidelines say, and Mr. Norton tells me to go to hell, or just reverts without comment, that is vandalism. I'm disposed to argue about it before a higher authority. See the Crowley talkpage what my opinion is on correcting unnecessary infoboxes. Norton does not add any info, he just replicates two, three or four times the same stuff, like 32 edits to create a single sentence stub. It took me almost 2 years of research to write about 500 bios, readable, helpful, correct-info articles, and I resent it that somebody thinks I have the time to correct the crap he adds. I've seen thousands of infoboxes without taking exception, I do not argue about style. Mr. Norton is unable to comprehend both article and guideline texts, and never answers to a debate. After I complained to you, I finally got a nonsensical answer on the Wallander talkpage which started with "Dude, you..." Dude??? Dude????????? I don't think so. Kraxler (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's not vandalism. It's what we call a "content dispute", and calling those you're in a dispute with names (or degrading their intelligence) doesn't tend to look good. Echoing what Elen has said at AN/I, where I see this has ended up, issues with content in the infobox are fixed by changing the content in the infobox, not removing it all together, and especially not by editing warring over said removal. I doubt I need to reinforce her threat about the personal attacks, but if you continue them you are going to end up blocked, and in the meantime they distract from your points.

On a related point, taking offense at Richard beginning a statement with "Dude" is an overreaction. People have license to use the phrases they like, as long as they remain civil. You're a bit too worked up about this, and need to cool off. A day or two away from Wikipedia would probably be a good bet. Relaxing always helps the nerves. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and advice, Lifebaka. Considering the outcome of the "incident", I'm sorry to have wasted your time. I'm perfectly calm now, and I will try to get on with my research now. Kraxler (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Windsor Ribfest

I just noticed that you declined the db-g11 that I placed on this article this morning and I've got a question for you. How can an article for an event that won't even take place for another three months be regarded as anything other than "promotional"? Also, please take note that the link that appears twice, in even what remains of the article; and being offered as a "reference", is to the main website of "Family Shows Canada", an event management and promotion company based in London Ontario. If you visit the talk page of the person who created the Windsor Ribfest article; you'll see that there are potential issues regarding COI and that editor's involvement in several articles they've created over the past six months, all sponsored by the same company. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not claiming that the article isn't an advert, that its author doesn't have a conflict of interest, or that the event is notable. However, G11 requires blatant advertising, with zero hope of the text ever being part of an informative article, which this wasn't. PROD and AfD are what you're looking for. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 10#Ideal wealth distribution

Hi Lifebaka. You closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 10#Ideal wealth distribution but have not restored Talk:Ideal wealth distribution to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ideal wealth distribution. Cunard (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. It sounded like DGG had done that. I reverted the close so that discussion can continue, then. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No one at the discussion opposes a restoration of Talk:Ideal wealth distribution to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ideal wealth distribution. Since this is an uncontroversial request, which would likely have been fulfilled at WP:REFUND, would you close the DRV early? Cunard (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I can, yes, and probably will, but I don't see that it'll hurt to let it run another day or so. I'd only closed it quite this early before because I mistakenly thought that the request was already carried out. Best practice is to let a discussion be open for at least a day before invoking WP:SNOW. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Restored and prodded Tom Cruise Picture

Hey there :) Just wanted you to know that due to adequate citation and what appears to me mostly original writing, I contested that Tom Cruise Picture is truly CSD G12able and restored it. I don't think it should exist and it is mostly OR/SYNTH, but do want to allow the author to speak their mind since they seem very invested in the article. I've sent it to prod in the meantime, which I don't think it will survive. A complete AfD would also be suitable in my opinion. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Kyle Barbour 03:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your closure of AfD for Abraham Reuel

Hi Lifebaka. In your closing comments for the Abraham Reuel AfD you wrote:

However, Dougweller's point that Abraham's story might be notable is good, valid, and those favoring deletion come nowhere near refuting it. However, there is no discussion about whether the story is itself actually widely known or reported...

With respect, I find it very hard to understand these comments. First, and just as a trivial clarification, Dougweller didn't participate in the AfD; it was user Dweller I believe you were referring to.

More importantly, it's my impression that notability is a more of an objectively-defined standard than a matter of subjective impressions. That being so, I don't understand how Dweller's assertion, "Keep. Story is notable" without any supporting evidence forms a sufficient basis for your statement "his point that Abraham's story might be notable is good, valid". It might be notable? On what basis? On what evidence?

Also, I'm just very puzzled by your statement that the AfD included "no discussion about whether the story itself is actually widely known or reported". That's exactly what most of the discussion was about, as I read it. The principal basis for the AfD and most of its discussion was the lack of reliable source coverage of this story. I doubt any article that has been at AfD recently has been the subject of a more painstaking search for sources by so many people. I even initiated a search in German and Hebrew with the assistance of volunteers at the reference desk, and linked to that refdesk thread. Those searches turned up absolutely nothing, a fact which was disclosed more than once in the AfD thread.

As was also discussed at length at AfD, this article is based on exactly one reliable source that's relevant for notability purposes. But one such source does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO, WP:GNG, or WP:BLP1E, as I read those policies. With all possible respect, I'd like to ask you to please take some additional time to review the discussion, the article, and the article talk page, in terms of those policies, and revisit your decision in this matter.

It'd be fine if you'd like to reply here, as I've temporarily watchlisted this page. Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Just re-read your closing comment at AfD: Could you be saying that although the subject isn't notable, you think his claimed biography might be? That'd be an interesting suggestion, but if you're making it, I'd again have to ask what basis or evidence you have for thinking so, and to just observe that in searching for sources of notability for the subject, we all necessarily searched for the same re the biography, as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Our general notability guideline is hardly objective. It is a weak, poorly applied attempt at writing an objective inclusion guideline, and it's the best thing we've ever come up with, but it is still very, very subjective. What constitutes sufficient coverage is a matter of perspective, as is how much coverage is required to be non-trivial, and whether or not the coverage is reliable and third-party. I'd put to you that if the general notability guideline were itself objective and all-encompassing, we wouldn't also have subject guidelines like WP:BIO or WP:BAND.

For instance, the book, "A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes," does not help with the notability of Abraham the man, but it does help with Abraham the story. Clearly someone thought it important enough to put it in the volume, which means something.

Your point about the conversations touching on whether or not the story is well known is good. Were it, this would likely have come up in one of the searches many of the AfD's participants conducted. This weakens my close, but I don't think tips the discussion over into delete. But... The call is close.

In reply to your re-reading, yes that is what I was trying to get at. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I'm aware of the potential problems with it, and that it would require a rewrite of the article. Those combined with the lack of relative explicit discussion on the topic are the main reasons I closed as no consensus. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It's seldom anyone's idea of fun to have his decisions questioned: I appreciate your being able to discuss the matter gracefully.

So if I understand this correctly, your idea was that the notability of the man is different from the notability of what sources present as being his biography, and that if we concern ourselves only with the prevalence of his as-presented biography then we don't need reliable sources to establish notability. It took me a while to get my brain around that, but I have now, and I'd like to respond.

Basically, if the available sources presented the narrative as a myth or folk tale I could see how your idea could gain some traction. But they don't; every mention presents the narrative as entirely factual, as simple biography. No source presents it as anything else. So it still seems to me that the question the AfD was trying to resolve was, "Should we have a biography of this person on Wikipedia?"

If that wasn't the question you based your ruling on, then I'd respectfully submit that it should have been. I'd further submit that since this was clearly a biographical article, that WP:BIO and to a lesser extent WP:BLP1E would be the applicable guidelines. And since this was a biographical article, I don't see how the demand made by those policies for significant coverage in factually reliable sources to establish notability can be legitimately circumvented or suspended.

I mean no disrespect, but if we were to deviate from WP:BIO in the way you're suggesting, we'd lose the distinction between biography and myth on Wikipedia. Our readers could never know whether what we present as biography might just be an interesting story that had happened to bounce around the internet or appear in a book of folk tales.

The idea you've proposed seems to me to have some very complex implications, and it would take considerable time and scholarship to try to reconcile those implications with existing policy. It would take still more time and effort to try to integrate the idea into existing notability guidelines. Fortunately, I think it won't be necessary to open a debate about whether we should attempt to do so.

I say this because you said you based your decision on the notion that the story as a story might be widely known. It's not, as the search for sources that we all performed in English, German, and Hebrew revealed. But since that didn't seem convincing to you, perhaps you'll be convinced by a Jewish author having said the same thing, explicitly? After Mbz1's article went "live" on Wikipedia, on 4 April 2010, it ricocheted around the web in the usual way, via mirrors and blogs, and even showed up on some Jewish-oriented web sites. The Wikipedia article became, in effect, a primary source for some web sites. One such occurrence will be of immediate interest to you, because its author specifically identifies the narrative as "little-known".

A 30 April 2011 article published as Little-known facts about The Third Reich on the Jewish-oriented web site aish.com includes mention of our subject. Since it duplicates the reversed-order naming error of the subject that user Mbz1 made when she created her article, it appears to be a "circular reference", i.e. one derived from Wikipedia itself. Despite its apparent uselessness as a source for that reason, its description of the story as "little-known" does seem quite relevant to your objection.

Given that our very thorough search for sources established that as well, and given that we have a prominent Jewish source also saying that the story is little known, I'd like to ask you to reverse your decision in this case and delete the article. We have just a single reliable source of significant coverage for it, the Miami News article from 1966, and that just doesn't meet our long-established and long agreed-upon notability standards for inclusion of a biographical article in the encyclopedia. Thank you,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that does rather change things. I need to take at least a couple of hours rolling this around in my head before I make a decision. While I am going to change my close, I do not yet know whether I will switch to delete or relist the discussion. On another note, I don't believe that switching the article to be about the story requires any changes to existing policy, but that has no particular bearing to this AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It is actually quite unbelievable. There were 7 votes to keep the article and only 3 to delete it. One delete vote was made by IP, another delete vote I included was not a vote, but the nomination. So should we be talking about 7 votes to keep versus 1 delete?

Now, if User:Ohiostandard is genuinely concerned about unsourced BLP, there hundreds of those at wikipedia, but, no, User:Ohiostandard spends tremendous efforts to delete only one Abraham Reuel, the one that it found while hounding over my contributions, the one that is sourced by three RS, and the admin is going to help the user in its task. Simply unbelievable!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1, We're obviously in disagreement about this, and about what constitutes a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability in this case. But I'm very sorry to learn that you view this as personal when I wasn't even the one who took the article to AfD, and had actually refrained from doing so despite my belief that it didn't meet inclusion standards. Further, it may interest you to know that I came across the article during your topic ban discussion − where I deliberately refrained from piling on, or even commenting at all, btw − because you kept repeating that only a tiny minority of the articles you create are pro-Israeli/anti-Arab. I wanted to investigate that, so I did. But don't let's argue on another user's talk page, please. Post to mine if you'd like to continue the discussion. There was something I wanted to ask you about concerning an unrelated matter that had caused you some concern, anyway.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Lifebaka, I appreciate your being open to reviewing your decision, never an easy task. I expect a certain newly-arrived participant here will attribute a biased motive for my saying so, but I very much doubt that further discussion is likely to produce new arguments: I think reopening would just be likely to produce more of them; more arguments, that is, not new ones. Debates that have anything to do with Israel always seem so contentious, and users "traveling together" (to put it as politely as I can) seems to be so much the rule that I'd personally prefer not to see this reopened, but do as you think right, of course. There's certainly no rush, at all; it would seem wholly reasonable to me to take even several days to mull this over. Thank you,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A relist I would have wanted to do fast, so as not to lose continuity. Besides deciding not to relist, though, I have taken quite a while thinking about this.

You have certainly swayed my opinion to favor deletion, but I am not as sure about consensus itself. I know that I lean slightly towards deletionism (not as a pejorative) most of the time, and I am swayed easily by good arguments to delete. So I am inclined to close as delete when it might not perfectly be consensus. Balancing my own bias against the strengths of arguments and the clear majority on the side of keeping, I am going to leave my close as no consensus. Additionally, I'd probably be hung out to dry at DRV if I switched my close to delete, and I've no interest in causing those drahmahz when the end result would be the same. I'm happy to tweak the wording of my close, if desired.

As for having to change any policies to reflect the idea that a biography can have notability as a story while the person the biography is of can be non-notable, none is required. All that really needs to be done is change the text so that the article is about a story, not a person. I don't know if that is the correct solution in this case, but in general it should hold. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please change the wording of your closure to "kept" as any AfD on an article that is supported by 3 RS and is voted to be kept by overwhelming consensus should have been closed? Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That'd be a bit more than a tweak of the wording. So no. lifebaka++ 06:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• I do not think that administrator can do anything but to relist AfD (or better do nothing) in this situation, because deletion after canvassing may be a reason for WP:DELREV. This unnecessary WP:DRAMA can be stopped by simply doing nothing, just as many other WP:DRAMAs. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"Deletion after canvassing"? It looks like you need to familiarize yourself with the page you cite, WP:DELREV. The process isn't just for contesting the deletion of pages; it's used for any appropriate and good-faith objection to an XfD outcome. Further, it specifically requires prior discussion with the administrator who made the closing decision. Thus your suggestion that this discussion is "canvassing" or somehow improper is just way out of line. Your derisive characterization of this process as "drama" is equally uncalled for, all you've done by making that remark is to inject a needlessly contentious element into a previously civil discussion.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

So, you do believe that debates around deletion of this article (that also took place on many other pages) do not represent inappropriate WP:DRAMA and must continue? Whatever. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Reuel

Thanks for closing, but User:Dougweller hasn't commented on that AfD. Did you mean me? We're commonly confused with one another. --Dweller (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I see I'm not the first to come here with that. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Fixed. Sorry about that. lifebaka++ 17:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I saw that you declined my request for speedy deletion of File:Székely Gugel Túlbár logo.png and File:Szekely-gugel-march15.jpg. Simply, it`s nonsense because it`s not google and there isn`t any "Szekely" version of google. Nonetheless, I have put a new request under G11, which openly promotes an inexistent language/territory which is not made by google. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Patent nonsense has a very narrow definition here, which that did not fit. Just because you find it nonsensical does not make it speedy-able. It is also hardly advertising at all, much less blatant. If you have such a problem with these two files, try WP:FFD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, Lifebaka, Take me to your leader

Hey,

Could you explain your rationale here ("don't need to move one redirect over another one")? The page that's requested to be moved is not a redirect.

For what it's worth, I'm doing this to follow up for a user who originally sent the redirect to RfD here, which I closed since that's not the right venue to request what amounts to a pagemove. What he wants to do, obviously, is have the page currently located at Take Me To Your Leader located at the lower-case title Take me to your leader, which is the redirect in question. Thanks--  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of moving it when the lede of the disambig has the same capitalization, and has for several months. That tends to mean consensus is in favor of the status quo.

To explain my comment, note that Take Me To Your Leader, which was to moved, is a redirect to Take Me to Your Leader. And, as I noted, moving a redirect to another title is pointless, especially when the move target exists. lifebaka++ 04:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It was me who originally requested the move. WP:CAPS says:

For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless the title is a proper noun.

The article is about a phrase used by aliens, and there is no evidence that the capitalisation of the title has ever been discussed previously. The redirect is blocking the proper renaming of the page, so needs to be deleted. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a disambiguation between a bunch of things of that capitalization, so I can see the other argument. Stick up a requested move and retag after a week if there's no response. lifebaka++ 17:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't be bothered; life's too short. Goodbye. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of page Seeks

Hi LifeBaka. I must contest the deletion of this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeks . It describes a software used by many users, including a high trafic website, that of Ubuntu France. The search engine Seeks has a wikipedia page in French that was never contested. It's a very much discussed piece of free software (see refs and documents, there are even more, mailing lists, forums, IRC chan logs that are all public). Moreover, similar software Faroo and Yacy have similar pages. I can't see how the importance of decentralized search, and that of alternative Free software search engine, differ from Faroo and Yacy to Seeks. I've read A7 and I'm familiar with Wikipedia's rules. Again, I believe it does require more explanations here for deletion than just invoking A7. I'm not sure what are the steps to contest this deletion, but I'm willing to take them, and I'd be sincerely interested in your comments and directions for doing this. Thanks. Beniz (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was a puff piece. Had it mentioned any of the above information, it wouldn't have been eligible for A7. A complete rewrite is what it needs, and the previous content won't be terribly useful for that. On an unrelated note, you'll find that arguments which invoke the existence (or lack thereof) of article articles won't hold water.

I can userfy the article for you, if you want to fix it up. lifebaka++ 17:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi LifeBaka. Yes I would like to fix it up. I disagree that it was a puff piece. The A7 flag appeared within a few minutes of the work in progress. Letting the article live for a few days at least would allow other people, with more informed and mitigated views, to flesh it up and foster discussion. A talk page was opened about the A7 issue, but is now gone along with the article. I believe that it would have been the proper location for such a discussion. I'll be interested to discuss the fixes, and to get your approval, but please do allow time for this. Thanks. 82.224.7.139 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have userfied it to User:Beniz/Seeks for you, added the {{userspace draft}} tag, and removed the navbox and categories while it is in userspace (articles in userspace aren't suppose to have these, so feel free to readd them when you move it out).

Primarily, what the article could use is a lot more information about why Seeks is important, and a lot less information detailing its features. It also needs some third-party sources to verify information (other than features and such, where primary sources are fine) and to demonstrate that Seeks meets our general notability guideline. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Beniz (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

About Talk:Tony Flynn (footballer)

Of course I should have removed the speedy tag. Apologies for wasting your time... just like I'm - Facepalm - doing right now. {{D'oh!}} --Shirt58 (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Neovandalism

Thanks for reviving a copy of neovandalism. Am a new user and have no clear idea as to how to revive deleted pages or overcome such degree of resitance, nor do I have any intention to antagonize anybody. Your help will be very much appreciated. --To_Expand_Tolerance_ 20:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)

Any chance you can kindly also revive burnt-out diabetes mellitus e.g. as a userfied page? New users often do not have the know-how or expertise to do so. Thanks. buntout123. --_To_Expand_Tolerance_ 00:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)

I'm skeptical on that one, at best. As the AfD showed, I don't really believe that article currently deserves a place on Wikipedia. Some mention at Diabetes mellitus might be warranted (which will need to be discussed at its talk page, first), but without a decently sized body of reliable sources to draw from, a stand-alone article can't really be justified. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well...

I appreciate that leaving it alone will stop that dispute, and that's fine. That however, will not change the fact that this was a symptom of the underlying problem. Incidentally, it's gone from accusing me of vandalism (which is still listed on the anon's user page) to accusing another editor of wikistalking [14] which doesn't exactly inspire a great deal of confidence...nor does the fact that contributors are needing to exhaust their time responding to the type of thing. In any event, I hope you will keep an eye out and appreciate the message several members of the Community were trying to express here - that is, even without my involvement, this will probably be resolved in one of two ways, but it is my hope that the proactive-intervention way will deal with it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And I see it has been resolved. I'd hoped not to lose the editor, in spite of her obvious trolling, but oh well. I can't help those who refuse to help themselves. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Nmatavka/N0rp

Would it be possible to email User:Nmatavka/N0rp to me? My e-mail is n.theo.dore.matavka.files@gmail.com --Nmatavka (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

re-post of Development as a Service

I posted a Wikipedia article about Development as a Service but it was flagged for advertising. I'm petitioning the article because it mentions several companies who provide the service, making it an unbiased article. The article has already been deleted, but I am going to post it again, hoping for your consideration.

Thanks.

Dated to allow archiving. lifebaka++ 22:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ryan Rottman

I know that's not allowed, I know all about the edit history being a part of the page move, I just wasn't aware of which db tag to use. I'll use that for future cases. :) QuasyBoy 21:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

New User Boxes

Hi, I have created 2 new user boxes for tolerance and for kidney disease:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Burntout123/Sandbox
What is the process of bringing them to life? Can you kindly make this happen? Thanks --S.Burntout123 (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Just put them each on their own subpages (such as User:Burntout123/Tolerance and User:Burntout123/Kidney Disease). You can then transclude them onto other pages by using the format {{User:Burntout123/Tolerance}} to make the content at that page appear. For example, for my userbox at User:Lifebaka/Userboxen/Talk to me, I use the code {{User:Lifebaka/Userboxen/Talk to me}}, which looks like this:

Feel free to talk to me on my talk page. I don't bite.

Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try. --S.Burntout123 (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ewen MacIntosh - Pls restore - deleted due to inexpert Googling!

Thanks for the reply! That sounds fine. I will have to read up about the finer points of userfying - my knowledge of this process is pretty basic (most of my Wikipedia skills are not a lot higher than that...). I will do my best. Cheers! --Yickbob (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Preloads for db-meta

Hey Lifebaka. I just wanted to let you know that all of the preload templates have been made, and this requires your expertise. If it's laborious, if you show me how to do the first, I can probably take it from there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice

I have opened an AN/I notice on the conduct of UrbanTerrorist, and some of your comments to the user have been mentioned. You can reach the AN/I discussion here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox: TURF Insight

Dear Mr Lifebaka,

I have placed the proposed text on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sandeep999/TURF_Insight . Please take a look and comment on how to make it Wikipedia ready. I already can think of many things like Key attributes and Architecture as sections which could be interpreted as promotional. But since these are very valuable insights into the product itself, I thought I'd ask your opinion before I delete.

My request would be to please guide me to make this article publishable. I have tried to keep it way more neutral than any other such article like the Google Search Appliance page which talks of a similar product. Please do be patient and guide me through the process.

Thanks

Sandeep999 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sandeep, you really need to decide whether this article is about the company or its product. I'd suggest the former, as the latter will be much harder to defend the notability of. Just about everything in the "Products" section needs to go, as well as everything in the "The Problem it addresses" subsection and the "Architecture and Functioning methodology" and "Key Attributes" sections, to waylay advertising concerns. The lede section appears to be overlinked, and many of the internal links need to have their first letter in the lower case. I've gone ahead and wikified the text for you, commented out the categories (article categories don't go in userspace, but you can remove the <!-- and --> from them after you move the article back into the mainspace), removed external links from the body text (where they don't belong), and done some other minor fixes.

In addition, you're going to need to find a couple of articles written by others about TURF in order to demonstrate its notability. Specifically, we're looking for reliable, third party sources that can be used to verify the information in the article. Without them, if you move the article back into the mainspace, even after removing all the potentially spammish content, it could be deleted again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Lifebaka,

I cannot thank you enough for your help here. I have made all the changes as per your instruction. It would be great if you could take a quick look and give any more suggestions before I move the content to the main page.

Thanks again,

Sandeep999 (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have provided Sandeep with further analysis of the current state of the article at User_talk:Sandeep999#Gaming_the_system. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr Lifebaka,

Due to the points made by Tagishsimon which hints at a possible sabotage soon, I have changed the article to be based on the parent company. It is under : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sandeep999/Xurmo_Technologies . Please review it and comment on it soon. One of the points regarding the Language Modeling being linked to the Language Institute in CMU is because the head of the Language Institute Prof Jaime Carbonell is the advisor for xurmo as can be clearly seen on the Xurmo website as well. He is helping them with the language modeling part that the Language Institute describes as its research area. Please review again and comment. Thanks.

Sandeep999 (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's looking a lot better, but, like I said before, you're going to want to find some more sources to verify as much of the information as possible and demonstrate notability. Tagishsimon's comments are brutally honest and harsh, but he's correct in that the source you've provided so far are probably not enough to satisfy others at a deletion discussion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Quasi opinioned that "It wouldn't qualify as unambiguous advertising, I think it would have just about enough of a claim to significance to pass WP:A7#A7, but others might disagree. I don't think there are any other applicable criteria. " Would you also think that it would not qualify as one for "speedy deletion"? Thanks ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep999 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but speedy deletion isn't the only way an article can be deleted. There is also proposed deletion and deletion discussions. As I've said above, the main issue I see with the article right now is that, if it were to be nominated in a deletion discussion, I believe it would be deleted for a lack of sources to demonstrate notability. A quick set of Google searches (News, Books, and Scholar) for "Xurmo technologies" returns only a single patent, leading me to believe that such sources probably don't exist. If there are any you are aware of, I highly suggest putting them on the talk page of your draft, as not many users are going to be willing to sift through thousands of web search results when they don't believe they will find anything for it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Added a few more sources. Will it float for now? Thanks in advance. Sandeep999 (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And verily it was moved, and did indeed immediately appear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xurmo Technologies, where this appeal was made. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Conversation you might be interest in

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Shorter message when contesting deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your quick response (and fix) to Feedback (Marvel Comics). I was wading though the OTRS backlog, so I didn't have time to check the whole article, just to verify that there was a substantial copyvio. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 22:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jon Finkel

Do not edit my words again, as per WP:NOTCENSORED. If you can't handle naughty words, go here. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And you might want to remember that WP:BLP applies in all namespaces, including talk pages. lifebaka++ 23:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Opinions aren't a violation of BLP- you think you can win a libel/slander suit for someone calling you a bitch? While not appropriate in articles because it's not encyclopedic, it doesn't give you justification to censor me in talk pages. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lifebaka. You have new messages at SunCreator's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Azarbaijani Kurds

Hello.This article Azarbaijani Kurds distorts the history of Azerbaijan of Iran and facts.As you can see, there is not even one reliable source to prove the ancient presence of Kurds in Azerbaijan of Iran.Please check this page again and let for deletion of this article.Thanks--Orartu (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No. That's not what WP:CSD is for. Edit the page if there are issues, but I deletion will not solve anything. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Mowhay Radio

Dear Lifebaka, thanks ever so much for deleting that article I spent days on. Could you at least send me a copy? I hope you do it fairly swiftly.--M4th5 (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I put it at User:M4th5/The Mowhay Radio for you. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Inter-Municipal Land Planning

Hello, In Fact we decided that the name "Commercial Location Development" we used in the beginning was not precise enough. We would like to replace it with : "Inter-municipal Land Use Planning". With the same basic content that we would like to update.

If you can change the name of the existing page, you're welcome to do it. If not please let me create a page with the new name: I created "Inter-municipal land use planning" that I redirected to "Commercial location development" is it the right way to do it ? - Or would prefer us to add a chapter on "Inter-municipal land use planning" in the page "Land Use Planning" ?

Thanks for your help and friendly yours. Fparvex My mail : parvex@serec.ch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fparvex (talk • contribs) 07:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that looks fine as is. We just don't want the content existing in multiple places, as it's much more difficult to update that way. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Whole body vibration‎

Thank you for the page move. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Block of Marshallsumter

It sucks, but I agree. What a mess. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My sentiments precisely. I wonder if you know whether we should notify other wikimedia projects, such as commons, wiktionary, etc. as MS has edited extensively elsewhere, including uploading some images which are as we speak tagged for having inadequate copyright info.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It certainly can't hurt to make them aware of both the copyvio issues and the research. What the other communities do about it is up to them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)