User talk:Lifebaka/Archive 5

Hello!

Please add new comments in new sections. I will respond to messages here unless you ask otherwise. Or, if you're notifying me of a problem, I'll probably just fix it and leave it at that. I can also be contacted by email.

William Rodriguez

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

Sounds fine to me, I've put it on indefinite semi. As a general note, I'm fine if people fix these sorts of things without coming to me first, since I'm not always going to follow what's going on at the page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

IT is unfair for other users to be unable to balance the view of just 2 people that have already suggested negative point of view against Rodriguez on the talk page, (user Jazz2006 and Contrivance). Requesting full protection or full un-protection. Thanks.Celeronel (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Truly, you'll likely make headway faster at WP:RFPP than here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Earl's List

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

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

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

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

Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

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

The page is a redirect, so it doesn't actually fall under G8. Instead I redirected it to match the article. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I suspect it won't "stick" because it didn't do so last time - see Tikiwont's edit in the history. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I know where he's comin' from on that one. Ideally we should actually keep the talk page up (to show the history of the article), but if no one complains I'll just leave it as it is. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Drvlinks

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

Cal Chamberlain DRV

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

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

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_21

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

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

[Will monitor this page for replies]

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

Deletion Review

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

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

Deletion review for Fábio Pereira da Silva

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

M:TG

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

Does it make sense?

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

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

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

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

Rajsaurus Narmadensis

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

We could, yes, but probably we should talk to him first. That's often the step that's missing in these issues. Of course, if he ignores the "You have new messages!" bar at the top of every page, there's not much that can be done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lifebaka. Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#A persistent user is creating new articles with material from existing articles. would you please delete S.Rajsaurus Narmadensis since it's an extremely unlikely search term. Thank you --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem.  Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahoy matey!

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

I started playing back in Invasion block, and got really into it during Time Spiral, but I fizzled due to lack of funds and rising interest here. So I know enough of the jargon from the Spike-ish time to actually have some idea what I'm doin' there. :P

That aside, I'm glad I'm working with someone who has more experience in this area. I like to think I've got a pretty good sense of what is and isn't disruptive/a personal attack/etc., but I'll be the first to admit I don't know all the background involving the Pseudoscience case, though the sanctions themselves are relatively straightforward. I hope to have some time to read through a lot of it this weekend, but I'm also working on copyediting Magic: The Gathering before 0.7 on the 2nd. If you need anything, feel free to email me or contact me here. I'm also happy to give additional contact information by email. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you can email me at elonka@aol.com, and I'm also on several of the IM clients (AIM, GTalk, etc.). Regarding MtG, I actually got involved with it early on, and have many Alpha cards in my collection. I collected obsessively through Arabian Nights, Antiquities, Legends, and then started fading around the "Ice Age" time period, but I still play when I can. We had some wonderful big multiplayer "Emperor" games going on in my office. My favorite deck is a little red/green one, which I made when I got into an argument with someone about whether they had to have rare or high-mana cards in order to have a chance at winning. So I made a deck composed entirely of 1 and 2-mana common red/green cards, to prove my point.  :)

In terms of the Chiropractic article, feel free to ask for advice, but I'm more inclined to sit back and watch you at work.  ;) The main reason I got interested was because I saw that the editing atmosphere had gotten toxic for quite awhile there, and there was no real admin presence. So I was willing to strap on my armor and wade in, but if someone else wants to do it, I'm fine on putting my feet up and munching popcorn. :) Oh, I do recommend adding a few pages to your watchlist. Like on the log page, check the list of "editors notified of restrictions", and add their talkpages to your watchlist. There's been a fair amount of overflow of the dispute to those pages, so it may help give you a more rounded view of what's going on. Best, --Elonka 01:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Supreme one mana cards, in green and (mostly) red: Shock, Lava Spike, Uktabi Drake, Spark Elemental, Rift Bolt (if suspended)... A deck of just stuff like that could win so fast it's crazy. And they're all common, in at least one printing.

Yeah, I'll go watchlist 'em. 's a good idea. Now I'll really need to go clean out my watchlist. I'll let you know if I really need any help, but it oughta' be pretty obvious by that point. I oughta' be able to handle it, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So far it looks like it's you, me, and MBisanz. Here's a thread on my talkpage you might want to watch too: User talk:Elonka#Notification. --Elonka 16:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions

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

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

Lawyers' Council on Social Justice

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

As much as we'd like to sometimes, us admins can't change the community's consensus on topics. That's exactly why we have no reasonable choice to but endorse the deletion in the DRV.

As far as the length of AfDs, they're already set to five days to try to avoid those sorts of problems. I'm sorry that it wasn't long enough, but usually suggestions that the time be lengthened fall flat (the place to suggest this is WT:AFD, if you're interested in attempting anyways). Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Dan Debicella

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

DRV note for AfD

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

I think something like {{delrev}} could easily be adapted to go onto AfDs (probably I can write up some conditional code for it that'll make just it work). Modifying {{afd2}} doesn't seem possible, unfortunately, because the way that list is generated is through some manipulation of Special:Prefixindex, and DRV doesn't log on subpages the way AfD and MfD do. I'll draw up some code later today for the first solution, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/Delrev. Of course, the exact wordings of things are open to be changed, but the code itself works. Let me know if you've got any questions. lifebaka++ 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred R. Klenner. I think the DRV discussion had something like that in mind. I used in the Ombox box on that page. If DRV has a symbol that represents DRV, we should use that in the Ombox. If not, I'll see if I can have one created. Also, I created Category:Pages at deletion review to be used with this new template. -- Suntag ☼ 15:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Something like this, then? There isn't any special symbol for DRV, but having one drawn up shouldn't be terribly difficult. I also believe I'll go add the category to {{delrev}}. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, {{delrev}} already uses a cat, so I just made the new one a parent of it. lifebaka++ 16:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I think we can go live with it (move it into template space) and fix any bugs there. -- Suntag ☼ 05:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any, I'd hope. The code was relatively simple. It only takes one parameter, |date= (which I oughta' make more required that it is currently, actually...). Biggest bug I can think of is if people don't specify the date, then the date on it'll change using the current code. I'll make some adjustments after I get some sleep. lifebaka++ 07:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Once you move it to template space, please give me a ring on my talk page. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Women's Hospital

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

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

Image:Halloween Decorations.jpg

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

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

Regarding the ANI thread

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

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

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

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

By the way, is it just me, or are everybody's TOC templates/user edit buttons gone whenever they're logged in? It happened to me for weeks, perhaps even months now. Very strange; I half hope that it's a ridiculously large case of bugzilla cause it isn't very convenient as it is. ~ Troy (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to help you with either the issue at Egypt, but I regretfully am entirely a non-expert in the area and would likely be pretty slow in picking things up. Working towards a compromise is always good, though, and should turn out positively. Looking at your proposal, it seems like merges the two versions pretty well. The actual wordings could use some grammatical work, but that's trivial stuff by comparison.

I wouldn't even know where to begin helping out at a checkuser case, so while I'm happy to help with anything you need regarding it I probably will be fairly useless.

I've got no idea what the issue might be when you're offline, especially since you say TOCs aren't showing up. If you're just missing all the edit buttons, your IP address might be softblocked, which as long as it isn't disrupting you isn't that big a deal. You can try looking at Special:Mypage while you're logged out to see if this is the case (it'll certainly be in the block log). If I'm misunderstanding the issue, I've got absolutely no idea what it is. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the message. Actually, in regards to my TOC/edit buttons issue, I can view them offline, but I can't when I'm logged in. I guess I should go to village pump. Best, ~ Troy (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, actually! I've solved it by tinkering with "My Preferences" :D ...also, the CU case is being taken care of globally by a the steward I contacted; further information on what to do next is pending ...I was just worried that you had any impression like "troy was edit warring just like that incident from two months ago" (I knew you would understand, but I wanted to make sure by explaining that there were different things that went on). So, I guess that I've gotten closer to solving any further issues; thanks for understanding. Best wishes, ~ Troy (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

IP comments

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

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

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

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

Deletion review templates

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

Also check out Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_30#Template:DRVU_note. -- Suntag ☼ 15:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that template does. At all. It's hardly used, though. Also, I agree with the TfD, I'm just too lazy to go make a statement at it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_September_26#Template:KeptDRV. Drvl appears to be for deletion sorting for DRVs, similar to Template:Afdl. I'll run Template:Drvl by WikiProject Deletion sorting and let them handle it. -- Suntag ☼ 16:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Lifebaka. I created Template:DRV see also documentation and revised the documentation to Template:Delrevafd (among other Deletion review template documentations). Please feel free to revise as needed. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 17:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I did make a minor fix to {{delrevafd}}, but I it was just an error in the original coding. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted a request at Template talk:Delrevafd. -- Suntag ☼ 15:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ernst letter

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

• sigh* I was concerned that would be the case. Thanks. lifebaka++ 20:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A newly uncovered DRV template

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

No reason it couldn't be, but it appears to be deprecated. I'm not sure what to do with it, except maybe turn it into a redirect to {{delrev}}. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Deprecated? OK, I just reread {{delrev}} and it seems to be usable for Deletion under review purposes. Your turning it into a redirect to {{delrev}} seems the answer. Please go ahead and redirect the template to delrev and deleted Template talk:Deletion under review. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Abusive behaviour

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

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

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

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

Template:Newdelrev

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

Like I've said over and over, I don't know how to fix it. I'm open to suggestions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who broke it in the first place, so if you can't fix it, you need to revert it back to a functional version! Jpatokal (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could. The options are a version which doesn't work at all except with regular articles, and a version that doesn't work ideally with regular articles. Besides, as I've stated, the issue is only with the header, and can always be fixed after substitution without much trouble. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We're all a team here. They always send the difficult cases to House. Isn't there a place to list templates such as this so that the best programmers can attempt to fix the problems (Help:Advanced templates? (I posted at Happy-melon's. -- Suntag ☼ 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. I was gonna' say I've asked for help before, and didn't get any, and then I started testin' some new stuff, and I think I actually made it work. {{Newdelrev|pg=12}} should work now, with |ns= left out. The header looks like:

12

So, yeah. It's fixed now. Awesome. lifebaka++ 18:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You verdy bad, verdy verdy bad! You verdy good, verdy verdy good! -- Suntag ☼ 14:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru

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

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

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

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not asking you to get examples. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Mullanchery M Velaian

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

I didn't see any evidence that such newspaper sources actually exist, beyond the images on the article (most of which appear to be photographs instead of newspaper clippings). If you've got some, I'm happy to userfy the article for you so that you can add them and move the article back into mainspace. It could also use a whole lot of work, though, besides just that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I remember (although I'm at a disadvantage here because I can't see the article any more) editor Bose1234 identified the newspaper sources used. The identification may have been on the talk page or in the image files. Isn't that the case? There's no requirement to provide actual copies of sources in any form so it's irrelevant whether the images are photographs or clippings. Could you please userfy the article for me so I can check it out? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Dropped the most recent version at User:Phil Bridger/Mullanchery M Velaian for you, and took off the tags and cats. The talk page was relatively uninformative, and half its content was already mentioned on the AfD itself (the other half being less useful). The images should still be up, since I didn't touch any of them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that as I thought the article did have four newspaper references (in the section called "References"). These are the ones I was referring to above - none of the people calling for deletion in the AfD explained why these should not be considered enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I completely missed those when I looked over the article. Gonna' put the userfied version back into mainspace, restore the history, and reclose as no consensus. lifebaka++ 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. The page could use a whole lot of work, still. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion process update

Just to let you know that there has been a recent update to the criteria for relisting AFDs. You can see the full details at WP:RELIST. The main update is that relisting an AFD a second time should only be done in exceptional circumstances. I'm letting you know because you have recently been active in relisting AFDs. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Objection to deletion

I strongly object to the WP:PROD deletion of request line. I ask that you please restore it, and the redirect from contest line.  –radiojon (talk) 09:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

TodaysFinancialMarkets proposed templete

Dear Lifebaka,

Thanks for the feedback on the talk page for speedy deletions. I may have been a bit testy. I consider the type of article I was talking about to be the moral equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater; they should be stopped every time immediately,as far as I'm concerned. Some of the responses I took to be of the form: "Well that's somebody else's responsibility."

Nevertheless, the template suggestion (which I first took to be a joke) and your patient step-by-step suggestions were useful. There are strange ways of getting things done on Wikipedia.

Would you check out my proposed template at User:Smallbones/draft template. I'll check with others who realize the usefulness of such a template. Any comments appreciated. BTW, the template MAY be useful today.

Thanks again,

Smallbones (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

NewdelrevCFD

There is {{Newdelrev}} (log subst for articles), {{NewdelrevImg}} (log subst for images), and {{NewdelrevUCFD}} {log subst for User categories). Per Category:Deaths by age, I think we need a NewdelrevCFD so that people don't have to separately link to the CfD discussion. -- Suntag ☼ 08:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. It was pretty easy, since I did most of the work already building {{drvlinks}}. It's at Template:NewdelrevCFD, currently without documentation. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for protecting the article Egypt, I don’t know why this article is vandalized up to this level, thank you very much indeed « PuTTY^SchOOL 14:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Great Sphinx

Hello Lifebaka. I doubt that this user is a sock of PuTTy, but I'm concerned about his/her comments towards other people like myself. I have warned the user once. What should/can I do about it? ~ Troy (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and I'm also noting that the account was created today, which is why I feel suspicious. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh ...I didn't "revert" PuTTy's work, I just added my own. How else am I supposed to peacefully contribute? Now I'm really suspicious. That isn't normal. ~ Troy (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

...just noting here that I've been able to avoid further issues for the moment, so no need for me to be in a hurry right now. I guess I should have just dealt with it straightaway instead of going on your talk page ...--~ Troy (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, that's fun. You really oughta' try talkin' to the user. If that fails, drop me a line again and I'll see what I can do. Looks like a nationalist to me, so I'm not sure what's gonna' end up happenin' here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha. I guess it would be fun to look at. Unfortunately, it's not quite as fun to take part in. I have asked for another look by a checkuser because all I need to know if it's the same person—if it is, then it's automatically considered to be abusive as long as there's block evasion or something similar. No need for you to bother now, but I'm still worried about what I should do next because I don't want to get into an edit war over something I've just spent hours discussing. ~ Troy (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt they are. Putty was involved in a few other disputes (and was blocked relating to one of them) while Great Sphinx is only making moves here. The use of the {{user}} template isn't really enough to convince me of socking without some other usual socking behaviors (generally it's painfully obvious). I am keeping an eye on the user, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I still really don't want to start a long, new discussion on the same thing with Great Sphinx. It was already long enough to begin with and it's not as productive as I'd like. I still want to know why can't he just accept that and leave it alone ...not worth the effort. ~ Troy (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Great white shark and megalodon size comparison 002.jpg

Hi, I'm very sure that the image was copied from a picture. I'm not sure what is the problem with speedy and what is IFD. Could you please explain it to me? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The image isn't unquestionably a copyright violation, so an images and media for deletion discussion is probably the best bet. The instructions should all be there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, IMO it is. May I please ask you, if you looked at the image in a full resolution? The image is a clear copyrights violation. Anyway I have no time to deal with the image. If it is OK with you, it is OK with me too.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Stuck it with a {{npd}} tag. Should work out fine. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Atheist Community of Austin

Hi Lifebaka, I'd like you to reconsider the deletion of the group's article. I would have closed this as no consensus. And from a notability view point, weight should have been given to the fact that a NYT's article about the actions of the group exists (and was cited). Thanks, Hobit (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I completely missed your comment when I closed it. Sorry about that. Scanning the NYT article you listed there, it doesn't seem to be much more than a trivial mention (though quite probably would be useful to writing an article nontheless). I stand by my close there, though the consensus is weaker than I had previously read it. You are of course welcome to work on the userfied article and put it back into mainspace when notability is better established. I'm happy to amend my close to say that the article was taken into consideration, if you'd like. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Mo problem on missing the comment. I suspect everyone else did too. Unless I misread the article, it's this group's actions which caused the whole ruckus discussed, so I think it's well beyond trivial. But sure, if you userfy it for me, I'll work to improve it. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I can't because I already userfied it to User:Therealgordon/sandbox. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter Blum

I woulld like to thankyou for your very fast assistance on the AfD talk page. I have left appropriate messages on Klipfontein's. Again, Thankyou--intraining ^{Jack In} 03:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

JIDF

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

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

I've got no idea what's up with this mess, I just figured people might wanna' know. Like I said, let me know if you're having any troubles regarding this (or that you think is regarding this) and I'll take a look. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

They wish to provoke, get a huge ANI or complaint underway, stir comment, create conflict, and fish out quotes selectively to create the impression wiki is antisemitic. That is why the only rational response is to be completely insouciant. Is there a wiki guide to the rodent's rectum reflex? If note, the present brouhaha requires it be written, and all be linked to it! Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, and it's probably not a good idea to do anything special because of it. If your impression of this group is right (and I have no idea whether or not it is), likely the best strategy is to ignore them. Not feeding the trolls seems like an applicable idea. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also for letting me know. I'm not intimidated in the least, however, I imagine some of them have the capacity to hack away and find out our standard IPs, eh. I very much appreciated your involvement, makes us feel like those of us who don't think wiki should be purely promoting a positive view of Israel without the negative, are not totally alone here! Thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As you say fun stuff..thanks for the note.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I bookmarked it under "Harassment". I removed the talk page note so as not to give them any free advertising. I agree with you about Not feeding the trolls. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you forgot to tell me my name was on their list when you were notifying everyone else! To be honest it all seems a bit laughable - I mean looking at their name, their logo and their latest video post (of gun-toting special forces in balaclavas) they seem to be a couple of over-excited individuals with a fairly pitiable and adolescent fixation with military chic. I'm also struggling to find any "anti-Israel" (whatever that rather silly phraseology means anyway) activity in my editing history, but there you go. --Nickhh (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think they updated it after I notified everyone on it. The video wasn't there the first time I saw it. Sorry I didn't get you, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it was kind of mock outrage of course - to have my moment in the sun (I'm no2 on the list after all) and then for people to not even notice it. The video was only put up yesterday I think, but as I say, it's all slightly bizarre and pathetic really on their part rather than anything else. As I think everyone agrees, not really worth bothering about now we know it's there. --Nickhh (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the article Lifebaka. I'm not worried about it to be honest. Much much worse things can happen in real life when Zionist structures feel threatened by a person's thoughts and writings. It's par for the course, really. Anyways, thanks and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 12:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A9

Bam. First A9 tagging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah for ripping most of the code off of {{db-a7}}. Made the whole thing really easy to do. I'll see about getting the rest of everything in line soon. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And the admin-only link: [1]. lifebaka++ 03:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Articlehistory errors

When building an articlehistory, please scroll to the bottom of the page to see if the red error category is lit. The instructions are at Template:Articlehistory. [2] Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Blah, fail. Thanks for fixing it, I'll try to remember that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:NewdelrevImg

Hello Lifebaka. I left a message at Template talk:NewdelrevImg. -- Suntag ☼ 09:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. lifebaka++ 20:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Railroad Museum (2nd nomination)

You said in your close that this has been taken to DRV, but I can't find it there. --NE2 20:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I forgot to actually check for a DRV and took the nom at his word. Feel free to revert my close. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Texas Railroad Museum

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Texas Railroad Museum. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. NE2 21:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

DRV

So, if there's no consensus, does that mean if I go and speedy delete it, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, the deletion will stand? I would suggest a no consensus close should default to the conservative option when BLP is involved, along with the spirit of the above-linked ruling. Daniel (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The consensus of the discussion at the time I closed it was relatively clear to endorse, I just worded the close more neutrally because the close was early and the full period may have led to a less clear consensus. I have no really strong opinion either way on the issue, but I know that deleting the article will end up raising another shit-storm. I'm also relatively sure that all the BLP issues can be handled without deleting the article. In the interest of not generating moar drahmahz I suggest that route, but feel free to disregard me here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please restore Image:São Caetano Balusiegel logo.gif

Could you please restore Image:São Caetano Balusiegel logo.gif? I had noticed the image in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, so I changed the licensing tag to {{Non-free logo}}, and I think using it in the article about the team is a legitimate fair use of a non-free logo. Perhaps I made the change at the same time you were preparing to delete the image, so that you might not have seen the {{Non-free logo}}. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I think you're right about the timing, I didn't see that tag when I deleted. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you an administrator?

--락 (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. lifebaka++ 02:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Forrest Craver

You were the closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm that included the deletion (and userfication) of User:Paulmcdonald/Forrest Craver. I wanted to get you a status update on this article and ask that you take a look at it. I've managed to find more sources and even one that names him as a pioneer of intramural sports at the collegiate level.

Can you take a look and let me know what you think so far?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't feel I'm comfortable enough with WP:ATHLETE to really make that call. It looks fine to me, but I suggest getting wider input. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No sweat. I like to check with deleting admins on potential resurrected articles. I'd like to put a bit more into it before we officially "roll it back out" -- and I prefer to have deleted articles put back by the deleting admin (yes, I can do it myself). I'll dig some more and work on it some, then let you know. Thanks for the feedback!--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added more sources and information, and have restored the article. I made a note on the articles talk page referencing our discussion here. Thanks!--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Youknowbest

Youknowbest: The issue has not been resolved, sorry, no cigar.Youknowbest (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as that board is capable of resolving it, it has. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

Hi Lifebaka, I see that you declined my speedy deletions example, which I'm ok with, but I'm a little confused. I thought that, even if the contributor owns the website from which the image comes from, they still have to file an OTRS to prove that they really to own the picture and not just claim to. Thanks! --Wizard191 (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest using {{npd}} and talking to the user first. The claim is, in my opinion, enough to make it not a blatant copyvio. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

no permission tag and TW

I saw you fixed some of the images I had tagged CSD I11 via TW. Is there a fix that you know of on how to solve that glitch when using Twinkle? Currently you just tick the "I11" option and TW adds the tags. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No idea, I don't use Twinkle. The code I use is {{subst:npd}}, which works just fine. You could file a bug report; I doubt it'd be too hard to fix it. Cheers. lifebaka++

Joe the plumber

If I may suggest, you should extend the protection. There's no consensus in sight on the talk page. Some editors (citing BLP) want some bits information removed, even when said bits have been reproduced by media across the US political spectrum. The edit war will restart the second protection is dropped. Trying to come to any compromise before the elections seems hopeless. VG ☎ 19:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to extent the protection. Having it last longer than 48 hours would be fairly disruptive, as a lot of work is attempting to be done on the article all at once. I believe the best solution is to go drop a note at WP:AN requesting more eyes on it, which I'll go do now, before the protection expires. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Samuel Boyle

You were the deleting admin for Samuel Boyle. I have just re-directed the page to pre-existing article Sam Boyle and merged the information from the previous article. Sound good?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Want me to move the histories around anywhere? lifebaka++ 21:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If they can be easily merged, that's fine. If not, don't sweat it...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging histories isn't terribly difficult, no. So, I've gone ahead and merged the history of User:Paulmcdonald/Samuel Boyle to Sam Boyle. Let me know if I need to get the talk page too, or anything. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Ross Fiscus

Got another one-- it turns out Ross Fiscus was one of the first professional football players on record. Historically significant! That one is ready to restore from User:Paulmcdonald/Ross Fiscus to Ross Fiscus, if you don't mind.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be nice to put a citation on that one claim, but the article looks fine to me overall. I've moved it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ghost Rider

If i read the history right, you closed the succesful deletion discussion for an article on an anonymous swedish motorcycle rider called "Ghost Rider." The same article is back, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Rider_(Stuntman)

I've proposed for speedy deletion. Trying to goose the process along -- before i discovered the article had been deleted once before i simply nominated for deletion, then another editor happened along and reverted the nomination. If you weren't involved in this in the past/don't care my apologies for wasting your time. Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, exact same content. G4'd. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sitashma Chand

Canu plz deletion review of Sitashma Chand thanx.(NepaliBoy7 (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)).

If you'd like to merge the article somewhere, I'd be happy to restore and redirect it for you. But there is not a consensus at the AfD to keep the article in the form it was in. Generally, I saw the merge arguments as weaker than the delete arguments, though I'm open to consensus changing. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Joe Banks

I've been working on Joe Banks at User:Paulmcdonald/Joe Banks and would like for you to take a look at the changes. I have also found a photo that I believe we can use under fair use, but the bots won't let me place it on a user page. I've commented out the photo link so if you want to check it you can. Thanks!!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I went ahead and fixed the fair use on the image to point to Joe Banks for now, even though it's currently a redlink. If the image is deleted before you move the page back into mainspace, drop me a line and I'll restore it for you. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

With that, I'll go ahead and move it back in. Thanks for checking!--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

the picture you deleted

I do have permission to upload that picture for the wiki article. You could give me a clue why you deleted it! Mozza1979 (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Images which only have permission to be used at Wikipedia can't actually be used on Wikipedia. The reason is because of Wikipedia's license, the GFDL. It allows reuse for any reason, whether commercial or non-, with the only requirement being attribution to the original authors. Images hosted on the Wikipedia servers also need to meet the same requirements, or else fit the narrow set of exceptions to these requirements. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Error in closing a DRV

Hi Lifebaka. I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions to close a DRV. I posted

{{subst:DRV top|[[Boston Tea Party (political party)]]|'''Close''' - Admin Gwen Gale's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boston_Tea_Party_(political_party)&diff=next&oldid=248986663 12:42, 1 November 2008] decision not to [[WP:G4|G4]] speedy delete the article recreated after Admin Arthur Rubin's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Boston+Tea+Party+%28political+party%29 06:30, 1 November 2008] G4 speedy deletion makes this discussion moot. The correct process would be post a DRV request to review Gwen Gale's decision not to G4 speedy delete the article or to list the article at AfD2.}},

but this resulted only in this. I then had to fix the close. See this. What did I do wrong? Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 19:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The equals signs in the URL you put confused it. The way templates work is that they take the first thing before an equals sign as the name of a parameter, to it was trying to take |Close - Admin Gwen Gale's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title= as a parameter instead of something sensible. If you're using a URL in the code, I suggest using {{DRV top|[[<Article name>]]|2=<Close>}}. If you're worried this will be a problem again, try previewing first. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the equals sign. That makes sense. Thanks. I did preview it and it showed the error, but I wasn't sure what was wrong. So I posted it and then corrected it. Thanks again. -- Suntag ☼ 06:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Improper deletion

Hi. You deleted the article Heather Harmon. The deletion discussion had more keep votes than deletes. Perhaps this should be restored.--Thiseach (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Consensus is still pretty clear that the article should have been deleted. Please keep in mind that consensus is not a vote-count. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Userfy please

I don't think I remembered to ask... can you please userfy the deleted articles from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott? User:Paulmcdonald/coachname would be just fine.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, done. This should tell which article ended up where (for a while, at least; I don't move things too often). Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I restored (boldly) John W. Breen today when I found significant coverage of him in the news, including a strong presence in the forming of the American Football League.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

CSD G11

Not sure what to do here as there is an AfD going on (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Fitzgerald (producer)) for the Brian Fitzgerald (producer) article which is clearly a G11. It seems to have been A7'd before so maybe that is why it went to AfD this time, but I am not sure. I am tempted to add a G11 and do a non-admin close of the AfD but i wanted to check with an admin first. Or have the admin just close it and do the G11. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally, the way you can do that is slap the speedy tag on it, and see if an admin deletes it. If they do and forget to close the AfD, you can non-admin close it just fine (usually saying it's been speedied under such-and-such criterion by so-and-so). I took care of this one, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Got 'cha. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Failed attempt at a consensus

Hi. What should I do if we had a big (huge) discussion over a topic being added then a user who failed to show any interest in that discussion takes out the new information?? It is in respect to the Muslims being excluded from the telescope article. 24.138.145.57 (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about here. I just looked over Talk:Telescope, and it doesn't look like it's been active in the past few days. Could you give me some diffs? Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I seem to be the target of these comments I thought I would add some background. There have been what seem to be a series of (nationalistic?) edits over at Telescope, Optical telescope, and History of the telescope along the lines that Ibn Al-Haytham's work on optics led directly to the telescope so he should be mentioned in a short summery/history section. I and several other editors have pointed out that adding just Ibn Al-Haytham as the optical "father of the telescope" is POV/UNDUE since there are many pre-telescope optical founders[3], there don't seem to be other sources[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] that arrive at this Synthesis, and there already is a History of the telescope article where Ibn Al-Haytham is dealt with in detail (and he is not in the summery there either). The Ibn Al-Haytham POV pushing seems to be coming in many waves and has led to administrative action re: one of the editors involved[10]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Send to DRV

I've sent the remaining two articles Max Holm and Graydon Long from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm to Deletion Review. I can see arguments made where some would say they are still not notable, some would say borderline, and some would say keep. I think it might be best to get some "weigh-in" from other editors. There's a few others that I sent to DRV as well--ones that I have put some work into.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject: Dungeons & Dragons

Hi! I’ve been working on a lot of ‘’Dungeons & Dragons’’ articles lately and saw that you've edited some too, and am inviting you to join Wikipedia’s D&D group. I've been hard at work removing tags placed inappropriately on D&D articles, as well as modifying articles to remove tags that were placed legitimately. In addition, I have been compiling related articles together so that the articles are longer, making it easier to remove tags and to have short articles on lesser topics by just putting it into another appropriate article (links to such compiled articles can be found on my userpage). Check out the project here , and ask any questions that you may have here. Thank you for your time. Drilnoth (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Page deleted

why did you took my page down wzzp whit that????? the name is Static-beats —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertschouten (talk • contribs) 15:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't help you without some specifics. What exactly was the title of the page? lifebaka++ 15:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

why did you remove my article about static-beats its easy to verify and when you look up static at wiki pedia there is a

bass player nobody ever heard off

just goolge the name staticbeats and you see it 4 your self —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertschouten (talk • contribs) 15:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article did not tell me why the subject is important. Feel free to recreate it so that it does. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for page restore

Hi there, I had by user-page deleted, as I was going to quit editing on wiki, anyway after a discussion I had in email with some editors on wiki, they've convinced me come back, thus, if its possible could you restore my deleted user-page? thanks. --Street Scholar (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I've restored the history below the current version. It should all be accessible now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Street Scholar (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Formally declare what?

I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you were talking about in your last comment on my talk page. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Then don't worry about it too much. I'm sorry that I was vague, but I didn't want outright say exactly what I meant on-wiki. If you'd like, I'd be happy to explain to you more privately, such as through email. Feel free to remove my message from your talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Freebiejeebies

How long before you can decide whether to restore the page? Will you be able to protect an accepted version from marking and deletion once it is created? Thanks Simon2239 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you now able to now undelete the page so that it can be altered and discussed properly? Thanks. Simon2239 (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for more input to the DRV. It looks like the other regulars haven't gotten on yet today. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you now go ahead with the restore? Thanks Simon2239 (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I think it really must be clear that this should be overturned now, are you able to do this for me? Or is there a time you've got to wait before doing it or something? Thanks! Simon2239 (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Do you think I could have rollback? I do a lot of vandal fighting. I'll watch your page so you can reply here. thanks for your time Alio The Fool 17:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, so you should have it shortly. You should read the stuff on it at WP:REVERT and WP:ROLLBACK before you start playing around with it, if you haven't already. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I will look it over Alio The Fool 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Lifebaka. We're trying to develop a template to nominate hooks at DYK, somewhat like Template:Newdelrev. A current problem is the [edit] button. See Template talk:DYKsuggestion. Transcluding the template cause [edit] to lead back to the template page rather than open the DYK section. See Template:DYKsuggestion/Test. However, subst the template incorprates a real mess into the DYK section. If you have some time, could you lend a hand developing Template:DYKsuggestion. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 08:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a bit. It should work now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks excellent. Thank you! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Template-giarism

Greetings, As I'm barely at all versed in template coding I try to borrow stuff I understand where I find it. I'd love to try to tweak your MTG invite template for use at WP:BOO, but I wanted to express interest to you first, and ask if there are any pitfalls a newbie like myself might fall into.

By the way, you have an eerily-quiet talk page for an admin. What's your secret?--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 07:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Biggest things I can think of are to make sure that you don't subst: in anything that you want to keep in code form (such as #if statements). For boilerplate messages like this, what works best is to use a parameter, |subst=, which the usage instructions say to set as |subst=subst:. If you plan to include the signature automatically, you'll need to break up the tildes, like ~~<includeonly></includeonly>~~ so it doesn't sub in until (and only when) the template is substituted. The stuff at Help:ParserFunctions will help if you're planning to use any conditional statements, but the code over at WP:MTG/I is pretty stable last I remember, so straight ripping it from there should work.

I honestly have no idea. Some of the stuff I've done recently should have blown up here. I think lack of ANI and such work is my "problem". Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?

2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?

5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?

6. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Would this be considered "blatant"?

Before I did a G11 nom for it I though I would ask you if Babicz Guitars came across as "blatant advertising"? It has been rewritten so it is not a blatant copyvio of Products, Identity Series or other sections of the website but it is still nothing more than the information contained on the website. No citations, no other references. The entire article is information from the website. In looking over the history it seems like there was a CSD on it (or a previous version) and a removed PROD. My very first thought was it was just a cut and paste from a catalog because that is exactly how it reads. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd call it salvageable, personally. It would take a bit of work to do so, however, and I'm not convinced (from reading the article) that there's any notability there anyways. AfD is a safe way to proceed, but feel free to try G11 or A7 first. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Feedback appreciated

Your feedback is appreciated in the New "i12"? discussion on the rewording of G6. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Abuse from KM*hearts*MC yet again!

Can something please be done about User_talk:KM*hearts*MC as I am getting very annoyed that this person has not been blocked. This user continues to send abusive and threatening messages and still nothing is being done about it. My last message said "I truly do not understand why you feel that you're the end all and know all when it comes to Madonna. Whenever any editor goes against your opinion, you like to throw these temper tantrums until you get your way. It's very sad that someone who claims to be an adult acts like a child on the playground."

Something needs to be done about this user, as again and again they are warned and still continue to be uncivil. Many thanks JWAD (talk)

Gave the user a final warning. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The user has just sent me this:

You are in no way affiliated with Madonna, this tour or her record company so nothing you say is true, its all opinion or speculation. Anything this is added on this site is pure speculation unless it can backed up by a credible source. In reference to the BAWT, no one got their way. And more importantly, a threat is a phrase or statement that implies physical harm that could result in permanent damage or death. Someone telling you to grow up is not a threat. How you feel threatened by someone you've never meet and are more than 8000 miles apart from each other is beyond me. You're not the know all and end all concerning Madonna and you honestly need to learn how to get over things before it starts to affect you mentally. KM*hearts*MC (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Is something once and for all going to get done about this user? I will not put up with this behaviour as it has happened again and again and I want something done about it! This user has had warning after warning and has been abusive to a large amount of people. Can you please block this person. Comments on my mental health are unacceptable, it is the other user with the issues, not me. I am just trying to improve the articles. I draw your attention to Defamation and Cyber-bullying. Thanks JWAD (talk)

I had seen that, yes. It was written before I issued the warning, so I don't plan on blocking for it. I'll be keeping an eye on the user, to make sure xe doesn't do any other massive civility violations for the next week or two, but eventually I'll forget. If it doesn't look like I've noticed the next time something comes up, just drop me a short note here and I'll look into it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Restored an article

You closed a deletion a while back at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott, a part of the West Incident. I restored one of the articles to Harrison McJohnston based on his status as an author in the business world as well as limited athletics. Thought you'd like to review it, just to be sure--but I'm pretty sure the sources and breadth of the article are enough, even though the emphasis is less on his American football coaching.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks fine to me. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Joy

 Marlith (Talk)  has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

 Marlith (Talk)  04:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why I hate Speedy Deleters

Life, I think you were correct, I did say that the response from the NPP as silent too soon---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

62.24.251.240 blocking

My ISP frequently changes the isp address assigned to users. I do not know what bad things 62.24.251.240 did, but that was a different person, not me. The bad person will have got a different isp now. Hopefully I will get a different isp next time I log on too. So the ban on 62.24.251.240 is pointless. Edit: I see my ISP has changed itself anyway. 89.242.120.74 (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I have a different ISP address, Wikipedia seems to think that I am 62.24.251.240 and has blocked me from adding comments to two talk pages. I do not understand why. Can something be done about this please? 89.242.120.74 (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That was related to the whole IWF fiasco, which has ended. The reasoning behind the blocks are explained at User:Lucasbfr/UKBlock and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

FSM logo on bumper

Hello, Lifebaka. I note that you just deleted the subject photo, one that I uploaded a few days ago. Did you, perhaps, have a chance to read the whole text of the submittal? What I wrote there was "public domain as seen on car bumper - if determined non-public domain, the graphic, itself, is licensed Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0, with a special provision for used by Wikipedia [11]". I would appreciate your assistance in correcting the defects in my submittal. I had thought that this sort of photo had a reasonable chance of being considered PD, but I guess you feel that is incorrect. If that's the case, though, then the modified CCA3 makes an exception, by name, for Wikipedia and Wikimedia. Much obliged. Tim Ross (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And, if none of that is sufficient, what do I need to do to make a fair-use claim? I had considered putting that into the original submittal, but couldn't figure out how to do so. Thanks again. Tim Ross (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a fair use claim, personally, as non-commercial images aren't kosher (since the GFDL doesn't have a non-commercial stipulation), and I'm not sure that the image is PD either. If you've got the fair use claim ready to go, I'll be happy to restore it for you. Or, you can reupload it with the fair use claim on, either way is acceptable to me. Cheers.

That's very kind, Lifebaka. Yes, I'd be delighted if you would fix it up for me. Here's the fair use claim, which I hope is adequate: Tim Ross (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-free use media rationale for Image:FSM Logo on bumper.JPG

Description: logo of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the bumper of a car

Source: self [User:Tim Ross]

Article: Flying Spaghetti Monster

Portion used: entire

Low resolution?: yes, 800 X 451 pixels

Purpose of use: document the general appearance of logo as it is customarily displayed

Replaceable?: only by another image showing the logo

There, I restored it and added the fair use template. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Lifebaka Tim Ross (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Avnet Inc.png

Hi, you undid the RFSD on this image. It was a bot created PNG version of a GIF logo that is not allowed to be presented as a PNG per the logo creator. There is a note on the website were the original GIF logo was retrieved from that explicitly states that the image must be used as a GIF with the red set to a specific RGB color value. This PNG version needs removed as it is not a valid use of the logo. Thanks. BcRIPster (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd violate copyright, anal as the copyright is. The .png version's been nuked under I9. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Update

I've found some good sources on User:Paulmcdonald/F.J. (Mickey) McCormick from the Wescott deletion above. Still needs some wording, but I wanted to check with you. His involvement in the "free substitution" rule chantges in 1953 were very outspoken for the smaller colleges of the day.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd imagine that more could be written about his involvement in the "free substitution" rule change (though I've got no idea what that is), then, but it looks like it's coming along well to me. Sourcing looks good. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've found some more information and a lot more sources. I took the liberty of moving the article back into mainspace at Francis J. McCormick (name change). Thanks for your input!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that does look better. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

new article, same AFD I've found more detail for User:Paulmcdonald/John D. Schwender, turns out that his coaching was so violent that the faculty voted to suspend the entire football program for a year. I think that's interesting enough (and have some nice sources) to bring back to userspace and will be bold and do so. If you have objections, of course let me know and we can re-userfy!--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Party shading/Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats

Hi, I am rizalninoynpoleon from the Philippines, could please help me in making the colour templates for the all the historic and current parties for the Philippines as I am making the Wiki pages of the Philippine congressional committees also for the congressional delegations of the provinces and cities represented in the House of Representatives as well as the members of Senate who elected at-large. Please reply ASAP. Thank You and Good Day. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonty Haywood

I request that you review the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonty Haywood. It has become clear that the following users are sock puppets or meat puppets of Jonty303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

• Kernow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jessi1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wiw8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rabidfoxes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For evidence, see:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kernow
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kernow - Checkuser cannot prove innocence. We are dealing with somebody who knows how to game the system.
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jonty303

I request that you refactor the close of that discussion to either delete or relist for more discussion, as a majority of the Keep arguments were based on violations of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. Jehochman ^Talk 20:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the length of time between the previous discussion and now, I believe that a renomination is the best course of action. The arguments in the AfD are about a different article than the current version, and it would unnecessarily muddle consensus to have the two on the same page (especially with a previous close in the history). A fresh AfD is the simplest solution in the long run, I believe, though feel free to take this to DRV if you disagree. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lee new DRV

Just passing the info along as it was created per your comment/suggestion at the September 28 DRV. If you haven't already you may also want to check out Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirect question and "Need history check for Matt Lee" ANI thread. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey!!

Hey!! It's me. You remember, you sent me that message about how you'd ban me if I kept editing? Well what can I write? EVERYTHING I DO SEEMS TO BE MAKING ME GET IN TROUBLE ON HERE! HELP ME!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiffren or Angel624 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Exopolitics

I have nominated Exopolitics, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (4th nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Finished closure

Hello! I noticed you closed a discussion, but did not remove the templates from the article, which I have done. Cheers! --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! Silly me. Thanks for that. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thank you for taking the time to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nordine Zouareg, I really appreciate it your time. Having a wonderful week. travb (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I left a comment at WT:Articles for deletion#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nordine Zouareg, and I'm not sure if you saw it. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Kit body america4.png

Hi there, I understand why you removed the speedy tag from this image, but the template also says that I could put a reason below the tag, which I did. The image uses not one, not two, but FOUR copyrighted logos, which makes it a derivative image and it should be deleted. – PeeJay 08:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'd missed the explanation of the tag below it. I agree, that's almost assuredly a violation of copyright and I've deleted it. In the future, if you use {{db|reason}} instead, you shouldn't run into this issue again. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 15:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

About deleting image "Cone lamp.jpg"

I, Kri (talk), am the author and copyright holder of both images; Cone lamp.jpg and PH Artichoke lamp.jpg, even though one is uploaded via Wikipedia and the other (the newer version) via Wikimedia Commons. Author information is recorded in both versions; if that is not your opinion, please explain to me further why you think it's not. --Kri (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I'd missed that. I've deleted the local version. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! --Kri (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Eye of Tyr

I have nominated Eye of Tyr, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eye of Tyr. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. dougweller (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As your behavior in this has been brought up in the AfD by another administrator, you might want to enter the discussion. I agree with him and am extremely disappointed about the creation of this article. I don't know you at all, but I don't think this can be ignored. dougweller (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Handled swiftly and truthfully! 'S about the best I can do, I'm fairly sure that anything less would just make things even worse.

This is probably going to end up at AN/I or the like, so I'd just like to note that I have classes throughout the day until around 21:00 UTC, so if a discussion requires my presence it might be an hour or two before I can reply. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Looch's posts on Wikipedia review, he admits to being a vandal and a sockpuppetmaster.[12]. dougweller (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Granted it wasn't the smartest thing I've ever done. I took a chance, taking that he wanted "to do it the right way" at face value. It seems I was wrong. lifebaka++ 15:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It happens. AGF and all that. dougweller (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to head to AN/I and I think we can consider this matter closed (almost). Lifebaka - do you want to handle the deletion yourself? I think it's reasonable to give you right of first refusal to do so.  Frank  |  talk  16:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably leave the AfD open for another half-day or so before speedy closing it in any other circumstance, just in case, but I've got no problem if anyone wants to close before then. Otherwise, if nothing changes I'll close it tonight. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No point in keeping it open, it is an out and out hoax and I suspect the first creator and Looch are the same person, since Looch freely admits to vandalism and sockpuppetry. There may be more of his out there. As I say in the AfD, I actually acquired a couple of the articles and they are completely irrelevant, let alone the lack of any verifying information, the fact that it's something from Baldur whatever number, and that Tyr isn't know for his 'eye'. dougweller (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, I just wanted to give it another few hours to make sure. I went ahead and closed it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I will not be taking this to ANI or anything similar, as I said on my talk, I realised (not at first, but after a while) that you possibly created this as a request, not as your idea. The mistakes you made were not checking the previously deleted article (same text, deleted for copyvio), not mentioning the fact that it was not actually your creation but a creation by request, and that you assumed too much good faith. All of this is easy to see in retrospect, but most of us would have done the same as you did at that time. I was at first very disappointed to see a hoax created by an admin, but further discussion with dougweller and thinking about it made me realise that there was probably some more mundane reason for the mess. I'm glad it's all sorted out, and as far as I am concerned, this case is now closed. Fram (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for closing it. I would like to say that not only am I convinced that Looch is the original creator as well, but that he left clues in it, eg the two web links, one to some fringe radio guy who'd 'like to hear about the Eye of Tyr', and the paranormal link, neither of which mentioned this alleged artefact and neither of which were archaeological. No details, names, etc. for the discoverers. Nothing useful in Google except the Baldur thing. Maybe easy to see in retrospect, I don't know. Anyway, sorted now and presumably on all our watch lists. I suspect Looch will try a variant with another title next time (he seems to see this as a game, so he may well try again) dougweller (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Fram, I take full credit for those various stupidities. At least I won't make the first two of those mistakes again (probably I will assume too much good faith), and I'll make a better attempt to check the sources next time I'm filling a request like that. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 05:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of an article

Hi!

I want to know, whyhad you deleted an article on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kelly_Sundown_Carpenter

And what to do to restore this article.

Yours Helvete1985 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helvete1985 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kelly_Sundown_Carpenter

Why was this page deleted and what to do to restore it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helvete1985 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The page was deleted as the end result of the proposed deletion process. As it states there, I (or any other admin) will restore the article upon request. If this is what you'd like, just say so here and I'll restore it for you (though please give me up to 24 hours to respond, I am merely a volunteer). Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WHY'D YOU DELETE ALEX STORZILLO? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Storzillo

HE'S A REAL PERSON,UP AND COMING ROCK GUITARIST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.130.198 (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Because there was no indication that he's anything other than unknown, "up and coming" or not. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A Rocket to the Moon

It's probably not worth your while, I'll just have to start from scratch. Chubbles (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, I don't know. It could be useful, but chances are it won't. Still, if you want it, the offer stands. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it'd be all the more likely that I'd get slapped with a G4 if I didn't start from scratch...sigh. I think I'll just come back in a couple of months after the AP tour starts. Chubbles (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Labels

I imagine that you will find Wikipedia a particularly hostile place to write on record labels, since they are not typically the subject of news articles on their own. I've always been of the opinion that record labels' notabilities should stand on their roster of acts and not the number of news stories in Google about them, and that there should be a guideline in WP:MUSIC about them, but no other regular contributors believe that in practice, and many labels are deleted per WP:CORP (of all things!). What kind of music? What era? (this will help me think of good places to look.) Chubbles (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, recent metal isn't covered well in paper discographies, so if you're looking to put up more than a short history and a memberlist, you might not be in much luck. (But then again, most record label articles aren't much more than that, and as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with an article like that; serves my purposes well enough.) I notice that Blabbermouth.net regularly finds bands signing to this label newsworthy, which is useful. Alternative Press does a full-page label profile every month, and occasionally cover metal labels; it's only in the print edition, and I don't know if they've ever done this one, but you might turn something up at the library. Other than that, checking the hard copies of the usual suspects - Decibel, HM, and such, might be your best shot. I'll go out on a limb here and say you're probably already better equipped to know which magazines to consult than I am. Sorry I can't be of much more help here. While you're out there, Siege of Amida Records also could use an article... Chubbles (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Amanda Riska

An article that you have been involved in editing, Amanda Riska, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Riska. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Autumn (russian band)

Disappointed to see this deleted - like the band and was looking for information.

I'm British, so I'd imagine if I was looking for info on a Russian band then they're notable. Is there any way of restoring it? I'll find proof of notability myself if required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.30.148 (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to restore the article for you as a starting point, but I don't think it'd be of much use. It listed the genre of the band as gothic-doom metal and had an album list, and that was about it. You probably won't be any worse off starting from scratch. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the quick response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.30.148 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

MTG on the brain

Hey, lifebaka, hello again. I've pretty much got my masters degree in the can, so my mind is slowly coming back to the MTG WikiProject...might be doing some tinkering before long. Got a quick question for you that might help me get jump-started. Is there a way to find a list of all of my User: pages? I'm pretty sure I made more sandboxy pages last summer, but I don't know how to find them anymore. I might have tagged them for deletion, but it'd be good for me to know. (I'll check back in with you here.) JamesLucas (" " / +) 18:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:Prefixindex is always handy for things like that, but it won't help find deleted pages. An index of all pages starting with "User:JamesLucas" is here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with edit war

Lifebaka, I could use some help with an edit war going on with the article Dan Debicella. The subject is a Connecticut state politician (and I have edited a number of their wikis), but there has been an on-going edit war between supporters and opponents of the subject in this article. The "Pro-Debicella" editors continue to remove information they believe reflects poorly on him, while the "Anti-Debicella" editors use biased languaged meant to make him look bad. Basically looks like only partisans are editing this page, not people of good faith.

I have tried to write a compromise article that includes all information, but in a newspaper fashion with both sides represented. I encouraged both sides to look at the compromise and see if they could come to an agreement. However, both sides have entered a "flame war" on the talk page, accusing each other of being specific people. (I am even accused of being Debicella, which I am not).

Not sure what to do here. I am basically going to walk away, because I have better things to do than get involved with an edit war (this is the first time I have seen this, but I imagine it is common). I would ask that you review my version (which is the one currently up) versus those of the two partisan editors (which are in the history). I might suggest either a long-term lock on the article or banning the two partisans if you believe I have captured the best of both of their versions. Or you should edit as you see fit, as someone who will be viewed as compeltely neutral. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBard2 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have any preference personally on how the discussion ends, and editing the article to a version I (or others) prefer over consensus while it's protected is a pretty big abuse of my admin privleges. I'll try to keep a level head on the two of them (which will probably be some heavy-handed "discuss the article, not each other, or I block both of you"), but that's about it for my involvement. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am not going to edit it any further. If the partisans cannot agree and begin an edit war again, feel free to revert to the version currently up (which I believe is more neutral than either of theirs). Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBard2 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Lifebaka, PLEASE help me, or ask someone else to. As you will see, when the article became unprotected, I made a series of good faith edits to address the concerns of the editors who keep reverting the article without adding anything themselves. There is a mistake of moral equivalency being made here. My intentions are NOT the same as the other editor's...namely, to censor valid information. I honestly want both sides fairly presented. I am being obstructed from doing this at every turn and my frustration is reaching a breaking point. At what point does a user get banned on here?? I have no doubt that if this were a higher-priority article, they would have been a while ago. Is it too much to ask for a neutral editor to come in, take a hard look at the article and its sources, and make an executive decision as to at least what VERSION of the article should be used?? I'm banging my head against a wall here. Please advise. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in what the dispute is about. Talk about it on the talk page, be civil, don't edit war, and I'll be happy. That is all. lifebaka++ 18:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you really don't understand the dynamics of the situation. This has been going on for five months now. I have been steadily making good faith edits to address all points of view since that time. Look at how the article was then compared to how it is now. And then observe how at every step of the way this user (Orangeman2/76.23.169.18) has been simply reverting everything I've done, regardless of merit. So while it may appear there is an edit war going on, that's only because Orangeman2/76.23.169.18 is undoing all edits and then I have to go back and put them on. This person only has one goal - to protect Mr. Debicella - and they cannot be reasoned with. Hashing things out on the Talk page really isn't an option at this point. Admin intervention is required. That is why I'm reaching out to you. Thank you. 69.0.13.202 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's called an edit war. When he does that, try talking to him on the talk page instead of just re-reverting. It does take two to edit war. If the edit war starts up again, which seems likely at this point, I'll protect the article again. lifebaka++ 18:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I have been trying to do just that for over five months now. It doesn't work, mostly because Orangeman2/76.23.169.18's main concern is Debicella's reputation, not the quality of the article or the validity of the content therein. Third party moderation is sorely needed. And what am I supposed to do other than "edit war" when talking doesn't work? Just sit back and let their reversions stand? I'm sorry, but I won't do that. To do so would be to allow bullying and censorship to rule the day. I'm pretty sure that's not what Wikipedia is all about. I have made several attempts to avoid edit warring by involving neutral editors/admins, with little success. None of them have tried very hard and they give up quickly, leaving me and this editor to duke it out like kids on a playground. It's getting really tiring, as you can probably imagine. Isn't there some kind of judicial body in place to make decisions in cases like this? 69.0.13.202 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Try dispute resolution. lifebaka++ 19:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing the language of your attacks is NOT editing in good faith. I am very willing to compromise on this article, and have already agreed to The Bard's edits-- even though they include a number of irrelevant votes that were only ever noted in the Senator's opponent's campaign. I will return to the talk page to work this out with the above person from the Senator's opponent's campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeman2 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Dwellers of the Forbidden City

Hi there. :) I noticed that you had participated in the deletion review of the module Dwellers of the Forbidden City, and helped to overturn the initial deletion. I just wanted to let you know that today, the article was successfully turned into a Good Article. :) BOZ (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Another CFB coach

FYI--I restored Mark D. Nave, originally deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott. Found some more sources on him and the 1903 season when the faculty voted to disband the program.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Like to see the article on Ken Rechtin come back into play

It was deleted because he was considered a non-notable kentucky politian, but he works for Campbell country's fiscal courts now and has a lot of influence in northern kentucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.7.130 (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My name is Ken Rechtin. It is disappointing to see that I am a non notable politician and therefore deleted. I learned of this when someone told me recently that there was an entry on Wikipedia and that it was removed for the above noted reason. I now wonder what it means to be a notable politician and how does one achieve that status? I am very proud of my public service. I have served in the public sector for nine years as a City Commissioner for the City of Newport and for the last six years as a County Commissioner for Campbell County.66.42.138.114 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to restore article

Could you please restore the article "Andrew McMahon (album) (deleted 08 Jul 2008 at 22:18)"? This is the only record of this EP on the internet, and I even know a friend who has the original disc. It's rapidly becoming more valuable as Jack's Mannequin grows in popularity. Thanks :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.204.160 (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

update on Steve Weber

Steve Weber is co-founder of the band The Holy Modal Rounders Fans friends and fellow musicians would like to know what is new with him He is at facebook.com and his current status and activities are of much interest to anyone seeking information on The Holy Modal Rounders I am speaking in the third person--but I AM Steve Weber! Just want to let people have the option of finding me, Thank you! Steve WeberSFWonline (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Hey lifebaka; it's been a bummer not to have you around! Hope you're well, even if you're not editing. JamesLucas (" " / +) 17:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been around. Sorta' fell out. I'm fine, though. Lemme' know if you need/want/etc. my help with anything. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Solomon Hutcherson

You Deleted an article on UFC Veteran Solomon Hutcherson because he hasn't fought in notable organizations Solomon Was on TUF 3 Fought Once in the UFC a KO Loss to Luigi Fiorovanti and had a series of fights in KOTC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokk3 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to give you the article content and history so you can work on it, but I'm hesitant to simply restore it for you. I worry that it'll just get deleted again before anyone works on it. If you plan on working on it, just drop another note here and I'll restore it or userfy it to where ever you'd like. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 18:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The beat goes on

Still at it on passive smoking. I admire your instinct to assume good faith, but SonofFeanor is clearly in contact with the people behind the other accounts, by his own admission, and they're continuing to edit-war collectively and use the accounts to violate 3RR. Sorry to bug you; I'm just getting annoyed at the situation on that page. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sorry I didn't act on it more quickly. I was out running an errand. SonofFeanor likely won't have additional "outside help" for a while, so now I just have to convince them not to edit war. I'll protect if more reverts happen. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: "Don't care if you are willing to compromise. I am not." I'm pretty much done dealing with this particular editor and am planning to shun him to preserve my own sanity and whatever enjoyment I derive from editing here. I thought it worth notifying you of his attitude, since the protection will expire soon. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been keeping an eye on it, but I might've missed it regardless. I don't believe that's a useful attitude to take, and I'll have a word (or three) with him about it. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 02:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Confused about deletion

Yesterday you deleted File:Meester Waldorf1.jpg under F5, unused nonfree media, but I don't understand why. Two days ago, I was cleaning out the F5 candidates, but declined this one because it was in use; I tagged it for deletion, but only because of an insufficient rationale. The uploader, James26, now wants to fix the rationale; would you be willing to restore it for him? I would do it, but I don't want to wheel war even on a small scale :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I must've missed it. I was working rather quickly. It'll be back in a sec, and I'll let James26 know as well. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. -- James26 (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed your message

I changed your link to WP:RFCU on WT:AFD to link to WP:RFC/U as that appears to be what you meant to link, and those two are commonly confused. If that's not what you meant, please revert and accept my apologies. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's fine. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC

The passive smoking article is most likely go right back to edit warring. I ask that you keep it locked until the RfC is complete. Soxwon (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to, really. It'd have to remain protected for quite a while, it looks like, if we waited for the RfC to complete. This is inconvenient to those who want to edit the article in ways not related to this dispute. And the article does appear to get a decent bit of editing from passersby. The looming threat of blocking should be enough, hopefully without me having to make good on it. And do note that this doesn't mean regular WP:BRD can't be done, so long as there aren't additional reverts before or during the discussion part. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Passive smoking

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Passive smoking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Yilloslime ^T_C 17:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Two more SPAs

It seems two more SPAs have popped up supporting SonofFeanor, this is getting ridiculous. Soxwon (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article. More won't be showing up for a while. WP:SSP is the way to go if you feel it necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if it's socking or meatpuppetry, so I left something in WP:AN/I. Soxwon (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't really view them as different, so the page covers both. I'll be dropping in on that thread presently. lifebaka++ 17:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you object to me reverting to the way it was before the SPAs moved in? Soxwon (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Just keep going with the discussion, there's no reason to rush it. lifebaka++ 17:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've started an RfC, though I think this is rather silly. Soxwon (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not willing to edit the article at all under these circumstances. Until there is some sort of administrative response to this abusive sock/meatpuppetry - and I'm talking about blocking the perpetrators - it's not a good use of time or energy and I'm not willing to be placed on an equal footing with this sort of egregiously abusive editing. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

C'mon man, settle down. If they are indeed meat-puppets then proper action will be taken. Becoming overly dramatic will only damage the process. Soxwon (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent, reply to MastCell) I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm fairly sure I know how this will turn out, I just haven't had my hand forced yet. Supposing that a better solution comes up, I plan on removing that stupid restriction. lifebaka++ 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And it appears I was wrong on that. The thread at SSP has evidence linking SonofFeanor to all the accounts now. Supposing that he gets blocked, you have my explicit permission to immediately revoke the 1RR restriction (which I suspect you'll have to use, as I don't believe I'll be online). Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the viewpoint that there is no deadline and hence time to systematically investigate the behavioral issue. But as an alternate perspective, it rapidly drains editorial goodwill and patience to deal with a festering situation like this. Sometimes there is a deadline - not in terms of producing a final draft of content, but in terms of preserving an environment where collaborative editing is possible. These sorts of behaviors polarize the article, they drain patience and interest, they scare away people who actually want to compromise/edit until all you have left are people who want to fight... I think there's a strong case to be made for expeditiously dealing with these sorts of editors in a time-sensitive fashion. But that's just my 2 cents - I'm admittedly on the "activist" side of the admin spectrum. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Takes both types to make the encyclopedia work properly, I think. I'll keep an eye out for a while, just in case, but this should be mostly sorted now. lifebaka++ 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? He's continued to edit as SonofFeanor, why did he create a new account? Soxwon (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer not to speculate, but I believe we both know the reason. lifebaka++ 18:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As you've now become involved, I've posted on AN/I to request a review to see if it passes the WP:DUCK test. Thanks for your help. Soxwon (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Posted location.

See my talk page. TrioRuleYou (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alive in Joburg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alive in Joburg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 213.21.98.80 (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Question re:Standstill

As the admin who closed the Bilateral standstill discussion, I wonder if you wouldn't mind weighing in on this AfD. This AfD was opened while the proposed standstill was being discussed but before you closed the discussion. It has been suggested that the standstill applies retroactively and that this AfD should be speedy closed with no action.

A little history: This is an article that I PRODed before the standstill discussion was started, the PROD tag was removed during the standstill discussion, I then AfDed the article, and then you closed the Standstill discussion. I fully support the standstill, having !voted for it during the debate. But my understanding was that AfDs already running when the standstill came into effect would be allowed to run their course. I guess the central question is: when did the standstill start--when you closed it, or at some earlier point? Yilloslime ^T_C 17:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've commented there. It probably wasn't a good idea to AfD the article, as you knew the standstill discussion had been going on, so let's just consider this your warning not to do it again, and leave it at that. Nitpicking isn't necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting/clearing things up. I still don't see that I've done anything that's a worth a warning, but in the interest of not nitpicking, I'll let the dogs sleep. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ted Schmidt

Hi. Strange one at Ted Schmidt. We've got permission for the text now, and I've noted the OTRS release at the talk. But I haven't restored the article, and I've written the editor to suggest that he may wish to speak with with the contributors at COIN or the Drawing Board prior to attempting to reestablish the article in that space. Since you had gotten involved, I thought to update you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If the semiprotection needs to be removed, feel free to do it. Otherwise, I was just responding to a notice on ANI (I think...), so I'm gonna' stay out of it if I can. Thanks for notifying me anyway, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Attributing work

Hi. I'm trying to figure out how I might give a proper attribution for work that was originally posted on a Wikia site (by me). This is in regards to the Beverly Hills, 90210 franchise article, which has adapted some material from its Wikia counterpart (though they are not exactly the same).

I've been reading over the WP:Plagiarism page and came across the link to planetary nomenclature. I've attempted to apply the method displayed there to the article in question. I'd just like to verify that it's been done the right way. If not, do you know how I might go about it? -- James26 (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It might look better to use a little box, sorta' like the ones we have for "Commmons has media pertaining to...". I think there's a template to do it, but I can't remember where it is, exactly. I think it's some title sorta' like {{wikia}}. Or, if there's really a problem, some mention of the authors of the Wikia article in an edit summary should be fine. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored a deleted article

Hello! I restored Robert Larsen when I found more information and sources for the subject. You were the deleting admin from this AFD and I wanted to notify you, ask for your input, etc.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

..and Mark W. Williams--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

They both look fine to me. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 22:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Just want to make sure I'm respectful of the AfD process and to you the deleting admin! Also found some good stuff on Steve Miller (football coach), former Division III coach of the year (a national award).--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

NICE interface modification: We need more users!

Hello. I am one of the developers of the NICE tool and the related study's contact person. I hope you have been finding the modification helpful so far. We have been gathering users for a little over a month now, but we haven't gotten as many users as we had hoped. We'd appreciate it if you would share the NICE tool with any editors that might find it useful. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor issue with another user

Hi. I was wondering if you could clear something up for BreakingDawn 90210, who has a habit of uploading replacement images for articles such as Blair Waldorf and Kelly Taylor (90210). The problem is that this person's uploads use the same file name as the preexisting image, but feature completely new pictures that the original copyright, source, and rationale info doesn't apply to. I've undone the uploads and attempted to inform this person a few times of why this is improper (in edit summaries and on their talk page now). Since I'm not sure I'm getting through, I'd appreciate it if you could put a word in, as perhaps you can explain it more clearly. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have terribly much experience in the realm of copyright here, especially with the recent switch. You'd be better off asking Moonriddengirl. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 13:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusation

You have been accused of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November. I thought this might happen! Papa November (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed. *sigh* I really wish he hadn't. lifebaka++ 18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete pages while people try to correct them

Thanks for deleting the page when i was trying to fix it, i added the correct tags but you delete it anyway. This is disrespect for peoples work!

//Martin Fafners (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the {{hangon}} tag does not guarantee that your work will not be deleted. I'd be happy to userfy the content for you to continue working on in your userspace. lifebaka++ 14:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok please do that Fafners (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. They're at User:Fafners/Leif Fredriksson and User:Fafners/Trio (band2). Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Saved me some work there :)Fafners (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything you can do about this?

[13] Thanks. --Kbdank71 16:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a comment on the DRV, but I don't believe that starting an edit war there is wise. There's now at least a record explicitly down of what happened. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably not. I think your edit summary ("blarg") says it all. --Kbdank71 20:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Offer to restore article

Thank you for your offer to usify the article Telepathy and war. I would like the article restored to a user page of mine. It might pay to wait a few days though, other users have disputed the content and I am likely to be busy elsewhere (away from Wikipedia) for a short while. I would like to return to work on the article when I have time. Frei Hans (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything you need that's not in the history of User:Frei Hans/Telepathy and war? lifebaka++ 14:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Youth United

Thank you for moving my article to the mainspace. I shall always try to edit this or any other article as per Wikipedia Policies. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Youth United

Can u please add the categorize the article after adding the title in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Youth_organisations_based_in_India, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Organisations_based_in_India, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Non-profit_organizations&from=VietAbroader Alternatively, u can help me out doing that. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)