User talk:Lifebaka/Archive 7

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.

Deleting of Page Whiffle The Bunny Rabbit

The article specified who Whiffle the Bunny Rabbit was. He was the american grand champion and is a symbol of peta and appeared in a news special on Red Door Animal Shelter. Default3000 (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Default3000

(talk page stalker)While I agree that neither A1 (lack of context) or A7 (failure to assert importance or significance) applied, your article had 2 problems. First, it was a coat rack article for the "Red Door Animal Shelter" ie it was more about the shelter then about the rabbit and second, it was a copyright violation as the second section was ripped off from this website. Your best bet is to start a fresh new article about the shelter (and in it you can mention the rabbit) but first you should read your first article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, upon second look this was not my best. I suppose I should put up a note somewhere saying that if any admin disagrees with one of my speedies, they should just restore it without discussion (after all, that'd make it not uncontroversial and not a good speedy candidate anyway). Thanks for catching the copyvio, Ron. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A Hope For Home

A Hope For Home has released 2 different albums on the record label Facedown Records http://facedownrecords.com/2009/11/02/a-hope-for-home/ as is stated in the eligibility requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewCJones (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. The Everlasting Man (A Hope For Home album) listed A Home For Hope as the band, which is (or was) a redlink. I've restored the album article and fixed the link in the infobox so it won't happen again.

As for the band itself, I'm not certain that Facedown Records is a major indie label, so releasing albums on it might not be enough to meet the notability guidelines for bands. It's not something I get to decide by myself, however, so we'll see. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Bulus.JPG

Hi, Lifebaka. I have seen that you have declined my F9 speedy deletion request on the above file. The file is clearly copied from 'nasria.com' as seen on the watermark on the picture itself. Also, the user who has uploaded the picture had a history of uploading a number of files that had no copyright information. The user has since been blocked for 2 days as a result of his/her actions. Sincerely,--Hallows AG^(talk) 07:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd still want to see an explicit source before I delete via F9 or G12. Which I don't think I'll ever get, since http://nasria.com/ "est fermé pour une durée indéterminée". I'm not sure why the slower tags on it aren't fast enough. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

“Bang banged Khabba, Khabba banged Bang”

Hi, we are in the process of creating an article named “Bang banged Khabba, Khabba banged Bang”. However, it was marked for speedy deletion and deleted, please consider that the page is still being added to and consider in this regard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instistud (talk • contribs) 16:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding to the page isn't going to change the fact that it should not have an article here. If you want free publicity for this event (or whatever it is), try your school newspaper. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Csr - maruti suzuki ltd.

CSR - MARUTI SUZUKI sir, i had added a new article about the CSR activities of the mentioned company, however it got deleted because a similar article was written about some music artist. this is not in the same context and i would like to continue writing about the same. -- Saumya.T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saumya.T (talk • contribs) 14:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not at all why the article was deleted. It was deleted because the article gave zero indication as to why the subject is important, it appeared to be advertising (and the only way to fix this was to remove all content and start over), and the information belongs at Maruti Suzuki instead of spun out into its own article. So, if you want to cover Suzuki's CSR activities, please do so in a neutral tone at the main article. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Planet dinosaur revision

Hi there, Im quite new to contributing to a wiki article so I probably overlooked a few things. However I recently added in an additional line on the "planet dinosaur" article. I cited the production company that created the 6part series aswell as provided a weblink to their production summary. However this edit was removed? I would like to know why exactly as it was probably the most verifiable information in the entire article (including an official credit list) It also neglects in my mind a crucial piece of information for those interested in the production. Sorry if this doesn't concern you in particular it most likely doesnt, I just found your name on the edit history and thought perhaps you could be of help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.77.140 (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of that information being removed. It was still the top revision when I looked at Planet Dinosaur's history. Probably the issue was one of two things:

1. References appear down wherever the {{reflist}} tag is placed. If you didn't look all the way down to the bottom of the article, you wouldn't have seen the reference.
2. Sometimes, even after saving a page, the server returns the old version of the page rather than the newer version. This can be fixed by purging the server cache and forcing the server to send the newest version of the page. Instructions on how to do this can be found here, but it most easily done by logged in users because they can get a tab up at the top of the page that does it for them.

Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Good enough for me!Cptnono (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint-Germain-des-Prés Café

As the revert and un-revert shows, I am not certain I really care for this, but I thought I'll ask anyway. Was the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint-Germain-des-Prés Café fair? Other than the original nominator, there was only one editor who thought delete was the best resort, and they did not give any justification other than "wikipedia is not discogs" which is a tautology. Two editors suggested a merge and a third said either option is fine. Your closing argument was "Arguments to merge the volumes into the main article, while noted, provide no good rationale for keeping the main article". Not a single comment was made in the discussion on whether the rational that was provided, three independent professional reviews and the series selling a million copes, is good or not. --Muhandes (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Point taken on the main article in there. I'm not certain what to do with the rest and am about to dash, so I'll think about it and change my close in a few hours. If you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If it closes as afdmerge I can do the actual merge tomorrow morning. --Muhandes (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And done, thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Jane Roskams

Where'd justification for removing delete tag on Jane Roskams page go? -Achapman2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achapman2009 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It can be found here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

So, it says "...as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request." Does that mean that whenever a proposed deletion is contested, it automatically isn't deleted? The person who contested it was the person who wrote the article, the article still reads like an advertisement for Jane Roskams, and even the justification is erroneous - it says "check rate my prof" and what rate my prof indicates is that Jane Roskams hasn't taught for half a decade and that when she did teach she was average (3.4/5).

Is this how wikipedia works? If I write an article and somebody proposes it to be deleted, all I have to do is contest that deletion and it won't be deleted? Achapman2009 —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC).

Only for the proposed deletion process, because it's only supposed to be used in completely uncontroversial cases. If an article has been deleted through discussion, then simply contesting it won't do much good. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For showing humility even when you are dead right, I award you the admin's barnstar. causa sui (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Split section

Was [1] discussed somewhere? It breaks all section links in existing uses of the parameter, for example at Hosni Mubarak#Trial. And it's inconsistent with other split templates and all other templates with a discuss parameter I can remember. I haven't gone through all 236 transclusions to look for examples but I can think of hypothetical reasons to have the discussion elsewhere, for example a common discussion for similar sections in similar articles. That would probably have been a good idea for Symphony No. 1 (Shostakovich)#Notable Recordings, Symphony No. 2 (Shostakovich)#Notable Recordings, Symphony No. 3 (Shostakovich)#Notable Recordings, Symphony No. 4 (Shostakovich)#Notable Recordings, Symphony No. 5 (Shostakovich)#Notable Recordings, but they don't actually do it currently. Another possibility would be if a discussion has already started elsewhere before the template is added, for example at a WikiProject. Whether it's currently used or not, for flexibility and consistency with other templates I think a discuss parameter should include page name. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, no. I ran into it from cleaning up something else.

If I broke any current transclusions, do feel free to revert, as my opinions on how the template should be used don't override how it is actually used. I can fix the problem I was trying to address another way, if necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have reverted. The section discuss links at Hosni Mubarak#Trial and elsewhere work again now. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll likely be making some other changes, but I'll make sure they don't break current usage first. Don't hesitate to revert if I inadvertently mess something up again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive fix

Thanks for that. For some reason I thought that only sinebot edited the page after the last new section. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting Serer people

Just to say thank you for correcting the Serer people article. Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Chiropractic/Admin_log

(N.B. I also posted this to admin User:Mbisanz earlier today)
Hello there, you are listed as an interested admin on Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log. Firstly, a declaration of interest: I proposed deletion of the page here (which was unsuccessful), and my name appears on the page as an editor that has been warned of sanctions.
The page is stale. If this page is to remain I think it should be maintained. As such, could you please either:

1. Remove your name from the "uninvolved admin" list, if you do not want to maintain the page

or

1. Update or delete the "Other recent editors" section. I would suggest deleting it, and
2. Delete the "No action by admins" section by User:QuackGuru. This editor has been topic banned for one year, and that section was disruption by him, and
3. Remove "Shell Kinney" from the list of uninvolved admins. I believe she has retired from Wikipedia, and
4. Include a wikilink for each warning given in the "Editors notified of restrictions" section with the date the notification was given.

Many thanks, --Surturz (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even know I was still there... It never was a bright idea to try to get involved in that. I've removed myself and Shell Kinney. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - unacceptable attacks on other editors

I suggest that you read this section here and that you then take action against [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]. His attacks against Editors are getting out of hand. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Article or topic ban for two users

This topic was automatically archived ([2]). The last comment on the topic was yours: "Consensus seems to be fairly clear to topic ban Deepdish under WP:DIGWUREN, above. Although the discretionary sanctions don't say anything about the length of topic bans implemented, I'd suggest that one year is a good starting point, to mirror the block length the sanctions allow. Unless there are any objections, we might as well close this and implement the topic ban." Can you please unarchive it and take whatever action you deem appropriate?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, I meant to actually do that before it got archived, but I wanted to give people as much time as possible to respond. I'll read back over the thread once to remind myself what I'm doing and then leave Deepdish a note. I don't think the thread needs to be unarchived unless there is something else that needs saying (so anyone should feel free to unarchive it). Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind the not unarchiving bit. I've opted to indef Deepdish rather than topic ban him, because it's far easier to enforce, deals with his inability to grasp edit warring more generally, and is easier to remove if/when he understands what he's doing wrong. I'll add a note when I unarchive. lifebaka++ 21:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you unarchived it and explained your action.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Berezovsky

Lifebaka, can you please look at this -- Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Use_of_libel_tourism.2Fterrorism. Also, can you please deal with the harrassment by User:Off2riorob. Refer to User:Off2riorob#User:Russavia_and_WP:Digwaren and then the history of my talk page, where he refuses to stay away from my talk page. He is also plastering sockpuppet notices on my userpage. Again, I am not going to be WP:HARRASSed by these editors.

As to the Berezovsky article, I've posted some notices on relevant wikiprojects, and also on BLPN and RSN, and also an RFC. I'd like you to take a look to see what is happening here.

But first and foremost, I'd like this harrassment dealt with. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and stalking

Lifebaka, you will notice that Bbb23 has broken 3RR on the Berezovsky article. I am also having to deal with stalking of my edits by Off2riorob. I posted a message at WikiProject Law with an article expansion/creation request, and the only way Off2riorob could have found it was to have stalked my edits. I have requested outside, uninvolved comments at WP:RUSSIA and WP:BIO - both relevant wikiprojects, and also at BLPN and RSN. This is standard practice in trying to gain uninvolved opinion, as is the RFC I started. But the stalking, and harrassment by Off2riorob by accusing me of being a sock, failing to leave my talk page alone, and then harrassing further by placing a sock notice on my talk page. He is now acting disruptively over at Libel tourism, look at this edit for example.

I have had experience in dealing with editors like this in the past, except admins would refuse to look at it, because it's just too much trouble. As per your notice on the ANI, I'd like you to look at this harrassment. Thanks, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Continued edit warring

I have also lodged a report at 3RR noticeboard detailing the reverting of edits by all editors by both bbb23 and off2riorob. I am placing a notation on the report that you are familiar with this, as per the ANI, so any admin could probably check with you for additional info. Thanks, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that BlackKite has already reprotected the article, so no further action is necessary. And, honestly, you were all edit warring, so it's preferable to blocking all parties.

As to your issues with Off2riorob, I'd assume that the best way to deal with that issue is to simply not deal with him. Unless one of you disengages, problems will continue, and I'd hate to think that an interaction ban is the only way to stop them. I'll mention as much to him.

As to Off2riorob following you to an unrelated article, it looks as though he simply cleaned it up and moved things around (in the end). There's nothing actionable there. lifebaka++ 23:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lifebaka, thanks for the comments. In relation to stalking, I was actually talking about my posting at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Article_expansion.2Fcreation_request which he obviously "stalked" me to, and brought it up here, as evidence of what, I'm not exactly sure. It's a simple request for someone from WP Law to expand and create an article - given the topic, many of them will likely have access to law libraries and the like.

In relation to both bbb23 and Off2riorob, I feel that we are dealing with 2 editors who are either inexperienced in, or are misinterpreting, BLP policies. I can understand the need to protect BLP articles...I have had to deal with such issues in the past myself in removing BLP violations and/or rewording them so that they aren't BLP violating. Of course, any information on a BLP which is poorly sourced, or unsourced, should be nuked on sight. It's a different story when material presented in an NPOV way, and sourced to highest quality sources (i.e. law journals, academic press); such information should not be nuked on sight, and IMO as an editor, should be left in the article unless there is some extreme reason it should be removed. i.e. it doesn't make sense to me as an editor that in an encyclopaedia, media reports from the time of the event are kept, but long-term scholarly review and analysis is deemed unfit. In this instance, it is the precedent that was set with Berezovsky's libel tourism, that led to the call for changes to UK laws. Of course it is all highly relevant.

It is better to assume that editors are either inexperienced or misinterpreting BLP policies, because the only other alternative is that they are actively misusing policies (i.e. WP:GAME) to gain the upperhand to whitewash articles.

I am more than happy to collaborate with all editors so long as they focus themselves on the content. As you noted, the post on my talk page, and then one my actual user page, are personal attacks and harrassment, and doesn't make for collaborative environment. And I made Off2riorob aware of that on his talk page.

Could I ask that you glance at discussions on the talk page over the coming days and see if there is anything that may need to be looked at. And if it means that I deserve to be blocked from editing the article, then so be it. But that was of course the entire point of posting at WP:RUSSIA, WP:BIO, WP:BLPN and WP:RSN, in addition to the RFC, in order to get some sort of uninvolved opinion.

Other than that, thank you for your attention to this, it's appreciated. Cheers, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 00:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the sensible discussion close

Others may disagree, but I think closing the discussion was the first step toward actually addressing whatever concerns were expressed. To my eyes, the discussion was becoming a mud in which enthusiastic editors could spin their wheels and spatter others, intentionally or otherwise. Thanks for the sensible closing statement summarizing valid points raised in discussion. BusterD (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Berkhout

Thank you for getting rid of the article name with the typo. Could you also move back Berkhout, North Holland to Berkhout? It should never have been moved away. gidonb (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Done. I've also added a hatnote to the article directing them to the disambiguation. You might want to go through the links to Berkhout to make sure they all mean the town, rather than something else. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

umm why did you do that Berkhout is at least 2 towns and a fairly common surname..I changed it to disambiguate it. Now all the other Berkhouts are more or less frozen out. Williamb (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW this Berkhout is actually a fairly insignificant village of less than a thousand. Williamb (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Lifebaka. The links refer to the town. Williamb, can you substantiate your claims? According to the Dutch Wikipedia, which has the same setup, there is only one such town. A Google Map search for Berkhout, Netherlands gives the same results. To cover all possibilities I have done the same search also for other countries where Dutch is spoken. Also you never included this hypothetical other Berkhout on the disambig page, only people with the surname. gidonb (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That Rebecca Black image

If the management wants to supply an image, this set of instructions is usually easy to understand for Wikipedia-neophytes...

To use a picture on Wikipedia, we need permission from whoever owns it.

• If it is your OWN picture - then you can just upload it yourself, at "Commons", saying "It is entirely my own work" - at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Upload .
• If it is NOT YOURS, then the owner can give permission in two ways;

A) They could put it on a website (flickr, or their own site) with an appropriate licence, such as "Public Domain" or "Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike" (that is an option in flickr)

B) They could email us permission. You could ask them to do that, by sending them an email saying something like:

"Hi, I've written a page on Wikipedia, and I'd really like to add a picture - but as Wikipedia is FREE, we can only use freely-licenced pictures. If you have any which you can give permission for, please send me an email back with the text below, and the picture(s) attached."

-Then add a copy of this: http://enwp.org/user:chzz/help/myboilerplate (having filled the form out)

-And send the email (attached picture file + completed form) to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

If any of your questions about how to insert images into an article aren't answered in these instructions, please refer to Help:Files and to Help:Contents/Images and media for a master-listing of all pertinent image-use links.

I thought that the album cover could be used to illustrate the "Friday" ARK album itself (part of her main claim to notability), but I guess not. (I thought I had seen movie-posters used to illustrate an actor's career/portions of actors' articles, but that usage would be in error as well?). Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong about it violating the NFCC, but I'd prefer to be very conservative about it. If you do decide to readd it, you will need to add another non-free use rationale to the image description page, as that is required. As the section is not primarily about Friday and as the image doesn't really enhance a reader's understanding of the section, it's easiest to just leave it out. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For a particularly thoughtful and well put close to a RfC. NickCT (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My attempt to take some heat out of the HiH/Gilgamesh/Silverberg disputes with H. Wolfowitz

Please go here User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#Careful (in the "Careful" section) and see my attempt to defuse the anger and frustration involved in the Morris/Heroes in Hell/Gilgamesh in the Outback disputes. I don't know if it will do any good, but I'm hoping it may make an impression on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and change the tone of these discussions. Keeping my fingers crossed, Hulcys930 (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Changed link above. The URL was actually taking me to edit the page, and loading 600k of text takes a bit too long. Browsers handle loading the actual page better. lifebaka++ 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

The funny thing is that I was just perusing Wikipedia:Perennial proposals and saw that one of these proposals is to use a bot to welcome new users. It only then occurred to me (with no hard feelings at all) that my talk page was still a red link. Then lo and behold, the next day there is a welcome note there - I must say I was quite chuffed. Anyway, I certainly have been enjoying my time here, and seem to be very slowly ramping up my activity over the past couple years. Who knows where that will end up. Cheers! Sir Tobek (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

LTA needs cleanup

I am looking for an admin to delete this mistaken LTA report. I noticed that the creator (Clarrisani (talk · contribs)) had misunderstood the purpose of WP:LTA and had added a user who has 24,600 edits and has never been blocked. I convinced Clarrisani (see User talk:Clarrisani#LTA addition) to remove the entries at LTA full and LTA list, but the actual report page also needs to be deleted. I have just done a quick look for an underlying dispute and cannot see one—it looks the word "moron" is occasionally used in edit summaries (not directed at a particular editor), and there was an edit war incident last June (where the other participant is now very close to an indefinite block concerning other issues). Accordingly, I'm hoping you will find a CSD or IAR reason to just delete the LTA report to avoid unwarranted drama (and, to avoid drama as I'm confident this is just a misunderstanding, I have not notified anyone else). Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not what LTA is for. I've deleted the page and let Clarrisani know that I did. I've also taken the liberty of emailing Clarrisani the content, since I assume that he wants to keep it. I'll take a look into underlying issues in the morning, to see if anything needs to be done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Although there is some intersection between the users' contributions, I can't find any recent disputes involving both of them on any of the pages where their contributions intersect. In fact, except a single reply to a reply in January, I can't even find direct interaction that's younger than a year old. I'll keep an eye on things, in case it tries to blow up, but this looks to be nothing. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My guess was that one editor is disagreeing with the edits of another editor, but has not engaged in the issues themselves. There are worse problems... Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I just added a report to ANI about an unrelated issue, and doing that caused me to read the instructions at the top. The confusion discussed above is actually very understandable because WP:ANI says:

To report long time edit warring/abuse, see long-term abuse.

I guess instructions can never be perfected so it might not be worth doing anything, but the above line is not helpful because a user who had not heard of LTA would easily be misled into thinking that is where they should report a case. In practice, of course, if a user is not familiar with LTA they should not be adding cases to it! Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

MTG Categories

I was curious if you had any thoughts on diffusing the MTG set categories? I would just be bold and do it but it's going to involve over 100 edits so I'd like a little more input. I don't really know if I need to take it to a CfD but I'd like at least some support before I make all those changes. Thank you for your time. Crazynas ^t 09:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Templates

I see you tinkered with a couple of templates I created. The {{Scissors}} was my first attempt, created by modifying another. If you think it can be simpler feel free to do so. (I'm still learning). Wee Curry Monster (talk) 08:12, October 5, 2011‎

I noticed that the code was taken very directly from {{facepalm}} later. I'm not sure why {{facepalm}} has the option for a supreme facepalm, as I've never seen it used, but it's not really a big deal either way. If you don't think that the supreme version of {{scissors}} is likely to be used, removing it would simplify the text, but it's not at all a big deal unless the template is substituted. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm....

Great minds think alike? [3] causa sui (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorta'. I just thought you'd missed it, and I know that the edit warring's been going on there too. I'll see what I can do to step in and nip it in the bud before protection expires again. lifebaka++ 00:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Mike Ploog

Hi. I'm always glad to see someone who understand the scales better than me coming in to contribute on WikiProject Comics articles. Re: Mike Ploog, do you really think the article hasn't a defined structure, isn't reasonably well-written, or presents its contents understandably? Where in those respects is it falling short and could be improved?

I certainly understand it needs a photo of the artist in order to have an appropriate range of supporting materials; otherwise, it already has two non-free images under fair use, and it's doubtful any more non-free images would be allowed. Thanks for any help / advice!--Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, would you really consider Val Mayerik Start class, some hallmarks of which are "Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent", rather than C class? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I was actually running through Category:Unassessed Magic: The Gathering articles and scoring them. For quite a few I just inherited them all to the highest rating that was already there, so don't take my ratings as at all definitive and feel free to update them as necessary. I plan on running over all of our articles and re-rating them, so I'll repair these when I run into them on my second pass, which I'll probably start with Category:Stub-Class Magic: The Gathering articles early next week. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Gilgamesh in the Outback

I've made the one comment and only comment I'm going to make on the discussion page. However I'm going on the record here as saying that the merge that was started should be completed, and that Gilgamesh in the Outback should be merged into the Heroes in Hell series page, as per the consensus. If the merge is not completed, then I will exercise my rights to split the articles, since the consensus means nothing. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Arriving at that from this is a bit of a non sequitur, but okay. I really don't think this is a good idea, it just looks like pointed behavior to dispute something unrelated. And yes, merging the articles about the books in Heroes in Hell into the main article is unrelated. Nor do I believe I've seen any consensus that Gilgamesh in the Outback should also be merged, so please point it out to me if it exists. I suggest you discuss this rather than take any action, as discussion is always the best way forward. lifebaka++ 02:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but the following post on the Heroes in Hell series page became necessary within a short time after the page was edited to follow your guidance:

I have once again had to revert the non-NPOV edits made by H.Wolfowitz that do not follow the guidance of the administrator above. Removed instances of "originally published" in several places and added back the publishing history for various volumes, which had been removed by H.Wolfowitz; removed insistence that a "bonus feature" included in the back of a completely unrelated book by the same publisher constitutes "publication." Hulcys930 (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 (talk • contribs)

File:Columbian Low Viz 888.svg

Please undelete this image; I'd just declined deletion an hour before you found it, and it was tagged because the nominator didn't care and renominated it. The image has had substantial edits since it was uploaded, and anyway it looks like it would be a useful image, despite the nominator's protests to the contrary.

FYI, I undeleted the image momentarily to remind myself what it was (I have no program that can view SVG files, so I had to undelete so that the server would render it as a PNG), but I redeleted because I have no good reason to keep it undeleted. Please ignore my undeletion and redeletion, since those were done purely as a rudimentary way of viewing the deleted history. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I must've missed that in the history. Done. I don't really agree that the edits to the file were substantial, as they were just turning whitespace not meant to be part of the image into transparency, but disagreement on the matter still makes it not suitable for speedy deletion. I've also got no idea what the image would be used for, so I'll take your word on it. Anyway, cheers. lifebaka++ 04:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted images

I wanted to get advice about two images you deleted, File:Gordon Mathison.jpg and File:Sydney patterson.jpg, because of "Media file with improper license". When uploading the pictures I was not sure about the appropriate permission category. The photos are around 100 and 85 years old, respectively, and I have the permission of the images' owner (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute) to use them; in both cases the photographer is unknown. Could you advise which permission is appropriate? Thanks! Vsolomon (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've linked the images in your post for ease of reference. I hope you don't mind.

First, let me deal with the issue generally: I know that this is going to sound kind of counter-intuitive, but Wikipedia can't use images that are specifically allowed on Wikipedia. It has to do with how Wikipedia is licensed. Content on Wikipedia is assumed to be available under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 License and the GNU Free Documentation License. This means that others can remix, redistribute, and repackage Wikipedia's content however they like, as long as they attribute those who wrote or made the content and release any new content under a compatible license. This applies to all Wikipedia content, including pictures. So even if Wikipedia is allowed to use the image, we still can't unless everyone is allowed to use the image, because of our own license.

However, Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia, so we do make some exceptions and make fair use claims on some non-free images. We have a whole policy devoted to it, if you're interested in reading it, but whether or not we have permission to use the file ourselves never really figures into our decision to use it.

For these images specifically, it's possible that one or both are old enough to be in the public domain, in which case you could simply upload them as such (I'd suggest to Commons, where they can be used by all Wikimedia projects). Failing that, since the subjects of these images have articles, you could upload them (here, not at Commons) with a claim of fair use, under our non-free content criteria, and add them to the articles. If you chose to do this, please let me know, so that I can double check that you did everything right; it'd be a shame to see them deleted again over another innocent mistake. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. I have re-uploaded the files in Wikimedia commons (same file names) and connected them to the articles Sydney Patterson and Gordon Mathison. Please let me know if I need to change anything. Vsolomon (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Preventing Edit War

I don't know exactly what to do to prevent another "edit war" on the "Gilgamesh in the Outback" page, as well as the Heroes in Hell pages. No matter how neutral the edits are, Hullabaloo Wolfowitz insists on reverting every single one, reinserting the "originally published" wording and changing the page to reflect the inaccurate information regarding the history of "Gilgamesh" to infer that the story was NOT written for the Heroes in Hell series. Any suggestions? No one wants to just give up and let him vandalize the pages to read the way he wishes reality was, but I, for one, am tired of being accused of every WP "crime" in recorded history in the edit comments.Hulcys930 (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review these blocks

There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.

1. John low iq (talk · block log · block user) by Lifebaka at 2011-10-05T04:02:12Z, expires infinity: [[WP:Long term abuse|Long term abuse]]
2. Wikipediancabal (talk · block log · block user) by Lifebaka at 2011-10-07T16:05:45Z, expires infinity:

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

H.Wolfowitz vandalizing another Janet Morris page/obvious retaliation

This is the edit history for the last couple of hours of editing by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz of The Sacred Band of Stepsons page. This page has stood unmolested since the Spring of 2010 and now Mr. Wolfowitz is trying to dismantle it since he was overruled in vandalizing the Gilgamesh in the Outback page. Is there some speedy process to have him blocked from vandalizing any more of Ms. Morris' pages?Hulcys930 (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(→Evolution of the fictional Sacred Band of Stepsons: dubious, subjective, inadequately sourced) (undo)

1. (cur | prev) 20:32, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (15,861 bytes) (→History, myth, and philosophy meet fantasy: or/subjective/synthesis, unsourced) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 20:31, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (16,353 bytes) (→The ancient viewpoint: OR/subjective/synthesis, unsourced) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 20:30, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (17,325 bytes) (→Evolution of the fictional Sacred Band of Stepsons: ce) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 20:29, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (17,452 bytes) (→Evolution of the fictional Sacred Band of Stepsons: fix typo) (undo)
5. (cur | prev) 20:01, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (17,453 bytes) (→Reception: add review) (undo)
6. (cur | prev) 19:56, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (17,190 bytes) (→Lovers and brothers and friends: pair-bonded characters driving the fiction: more obviously promotional text) (undo)
7. (cur | prev) 19:55, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (18,383 bytes) (nfcc violation, multiple nonfree images without image-relevant discussion in text) (undo)
8. (cur | prev) 19:52, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (18,461 bytes) (→Evolution of the fictional Sacred Band of Stepsons: wretchedly excessive promotional text) (undo)
9. (cur | prev) 14:46, 17 October 2011‎ Orangemike (talk | contribs)‎ (20,081 bytes) (it's a copyright violation; we don't continue a copyright violation while some nebulous process is taking place) (undo)
10. (cur | prev) 22:22, 16 October 2011‎ Marcus Qwertyus (talk | contribs)‎ (20,174 bytes) (Let this go through the process first.) (undo)

Please see if there is an emergency procedure to stop this vandalism as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I do beg your pardon. I have received notice that what the editor is doing is not considered "vandalism" and I was not aware that such radical edits within a very short period of time would not be considered vandalism, especially when there had no major edits in approximately one and one-half years. Exactly what procedure does WP consider "appropriate" in an instance where there is a heated history of edit-warring involving an editor who then begins to edit another unrelated page about another series by the same author? Please note that I do not have 7 years of experience and 43,000 edits under my belt and I will need some help to file a dispute properly. Thank you.Hulcys930 (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article, but at a glance it seems that Hullaballoo's initial edits were fine. The minor edit warring occurring after them was not. Unfortunately, it looks increasingly unlikely that anything I or others do is likely to resolve the disputes around Morris's work, short of indefinitely blocking one whole side of the dispute (or both). Of course, blocking one side would be de facto determining who is right and who is wrong, so we're not going to do that on the basis of the edits themselves. This isn't to say that other factors can't lead to blocks, of course.

Now, I see Drmies has already warned you about this, but accusations of vandalism are taken extremely seriously here, especially when you are accusing someone of vandalism when they haven't committed it. This is not acceptable. Nor are repeated assertions that a user has a conflict of interest regarding certain subjects, as Urban Terrorist has asserted Hullaballoo has and Hullaballoo has asserted you and others have. Nor is long-term, slow edit warring, as has occurred on Heroes in Hell, Heroes in Hell (book), and Gilgamesh in the Outback. I'm not sure how to resolve these issues, because my initial inclination is to simply indefinitely block all of you. In the short term, however, I'm fully prepared to reprotect the articles as soon as I see any more edit warring, by any party, for any reason. None of you are using the talk pages except for side attacks to try to "win" the dispute, and this isn't helping the encyclopedia. lifebaka++ 15:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, Hullaballoo is a side of one. He also holds a grudge. I noticed that he was showing up on pages that I'd edited, so I did some thinking. Then I looked at his User Contributions. I compared some of the pages where I had noticed him popping up after I had made an edit against pages he had edited. Consider Usage share of operating systems where he reverted an edit, this is the only edit he has made on this article and he has never edited the discussion page. My suspicion is that he has been monitoring my Contributions page, and following me around. Mind you, it is a suspicion only, I can't prove anything. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	here Santcruz (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Lifebaka/Archive 7! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Timestampt for Miszabot. lifebaka++ 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Archiving at RFPP

Hello Lifebaka. I happened to see your comment about reordering your sentences to make archiving happen. From a perusal of User:Rami R/rfppClerk.js I think it is sufficient that a request contain the string {{rfpp| anywhere in the text. So the script would do the right thing even if you didn't reorder the closing statements. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I guess I'll not worry about it, then. Thanks for the heads up. lifebaka++ 05:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Nominating articles with unreliable sources for BLPPROD

Hi Lifebaka. Thank you for assessing the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Nominating articles with unreliable sources for BLPPROD. Best, Cunard (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Jenkins (fighter)

Hello, we haven't talked or interacted on the same pages before, however, there is a page you voted for deletion a few years back, and I believe that it was a mistake to delete it. I saw the reason you deleted him, however, I must disagree with you. By looking at the criteria at the fighters section of WP:MMANOT, he clearly meets the criteria to keep him, which is -

• Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations

• Fought for the highest title of a top tier MMA organization

• Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations

Paul Jenkins has fought for four notable organisations, which are Cage Rage, Cage Warriors, Shooto and World Extreme Cagefighting. Here is the criteria these organisations meet through MMANOT -

• Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage.

• Promotes a large number of events annually--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable.

• Has actively been in business for several years - the longer the organization has been around, the more notable.

• Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters.

He has also fought many, many notable fighters within his 95 MMA fights, and there are many articles that talks about him and his fights, which covers WP:GNG. He has also won the Cage Rage World Middleweight Championship and the Cage Rage World Welterweight Championship. It is because of all this that I ask of you to please reinstall the page that already existed before it was deleted. I would of created a whole new page for him, though it would take ages to do and at least with the fight record, it would be easier to just have the old page back, and just update that. Please take all this into consideration before reply, and I hope we can agree that the page can be reinstated soon. BigzMMA (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The page was deleted through the proposed deletion process, so all you have to do is request that it be restored. I'm going to assume that you're doing that here, and will be restoring it momentarily. You'll have to excuse me for not responding to the rest of your comment, as I am not terribly knowledgeable or interested in MMA myself and am not qualified to make such judgments; I was merely acting in my capacity as an admin to perform a requested action. Since the page has been deleted for several years, it will need some work after restoration, even if only to bring it in line with current template usage and the like. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, I can see why you requested it deletion from the way it is displayed, but I will update it so it matches all other MMA fighter's Wiki pages, thus making it tidier, and add in the links to back it up in any future deletion proposals. That is fine, I understand where you come from, and not to worry, I will get on with it right away. BigzMMA (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Undelete request

Hi, Lifebaks! I would like to restore my previously deleted userpage, User:SteveStrummer/Sandbox4 The page was stamped as: 20:27, 6 March 2011 Lifebaka (talk | contribs) deleted "User:SteveStrummer/Sandbox4" ‎ (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace). If it's possible, and at your own convenience, would you undelete it for me please? SteveStrummer (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

TYVM! SteveStrummer (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ultimate Challenge MMA

Hello again, I have come to ask if you could undelete UCMMA. It is a notable organisation, there are many articles on them, they have a TV deal with Sky Sports, which is the biggest sporting channel in the UK, and they have very notable fighters compete for them. Even the page was a bit of a mess before it was deleted, I took the liberty of putting it in my sandbox, and have edited and updated it since. Here is the link for you here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigzMMA/sandbox if you feel that it is still missing some things please let me know what it is and I can verify and add that to it. Again I hope we can come to the agreement that the page can be returned on Wikipedia, just like how we agreed to get Paul Jenkins (fighter) back on here, where I was able to update the page and it now looks a lot better and it has more references to prove what he has done. Thank You. BigzMMA (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've given your sandbox a quick glance, and I don't see that much has changed since the AfD. I assume I'm missing something, so could you break it down for me?

This case isn't like the one with Jenkins, above, because of the processes involved. The proposed deletion process assumes that all deletions made through it are non-controversial; that is, that no one objects. So, if someone objects to a proposed deletion after-the-fact, this means that the deletion was not actually non-controversial, and we therefore restore. Deletion discussions, like articles for deletion, don't work this way. They are a section of the community getting together to decide the fate of an article, rather than just one nominator and one admin. It is not in my power, as a single user, to overturn what the community has decided unless it's pretty obvious that the community's reasoning no longer applies, and a brief glance seems to indicate it does, which is why I could use an explicit rundown of what's changed.

I also notice that the content between the old, deleted article and your new draft is very similar. Did you copy and paste the article before it was deleted? If so, I'll need to do a little bit of admin-y magic to stick the old history underneath your draft, to avoid copyright concerns. But don't worry, I don't plan on deleting your sandbox. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have copied and pasted the old one in my sandbox, and have been working on it since, I have changed some of the refs, took away some of the unnecessary ones and addeding in some from reliable websites that have been proven to be good sources that meets GNG and are accepted with other MMA related pages such as MMAjunkie, Sherdog, Bloody Elbows etc. There is plenty of sources out there on the promotion I most welcome you to find, some of the best Google search names includes (and this includes the "" outside the word/s for more accurate results) "UCMMA", "Cage Rage UK", "Ultimate Challenge MMA" and "Ultimate Challenge UK". My point is that the users who voted delete did so as they couldn't find the sources which meant in their eyes it didn't meet GNG, but it is clear as day that it does, even before it was deleted. I have made the improvements/updates to the page in my sandbox and all I think it needs is the verification that the references are from reliable sources, which I have stated are. BigzMMA (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that the Cage Warriors page isn't as well written out, nor has it much more notable sources as UCMMA, yet it remains untouched on here, so hopefully we can sort something out soon where it can come back on here

dry the river

Hello. I noticed you deleted a page about the band Dry the River. I would like to create this page with information about the band, the members and music releases. Am i allowed if I do this in the same way as other bands on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.226.170.11 (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to events: bot, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the Chennai event in March, the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, or any other of our events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- we want you to come!

Best wishes!

- Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org (User:Sumanah).

Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 00:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

M:TG set symbols

Hi, I was thinking about adding M:TG set symbols to some of the pages. It looks like the majority of them use the .svg expansion, which is not from Photoshop. Could you instruct me on how to create a set symbol using this extension? Thanks! Leitmotiv (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Lifebaka,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 03:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Duško Sakan

Hey, just to let you know that I recreated this article that you deleted in May 2011 because in the meantime the footballer moved to a professional league where he got already 4 appereances beside having made his debut in the national team as well, so either one of this two aspects make him now pass notability (the sources are in the article). It was easier to me to make it new than easking you to reacreate it. Let me know if you find anything wrong. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Admin

When your account was made is missing from the list of Admins at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers/sysop&limit=2000 and I was wondering if you could take the time to fix it. My thanks. CHCSPrefect (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Exp sym arabiannights.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Exp sym arabiannights.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MBisanz ^talk 05:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Request - Undelete Article - "Stamp!"

Hey Lifebaka, I'm starting work on a new Wiki article about the ItaloBrothers, it's still only a drafted version but will have plenty of sourced info once finished. As part of the Wiki I would like to make an article about their album, and it told me to contact you about undeleting it so I can work on it. Thanks, twillymy.

(20:09, 26 January 2011 Lifebaka (talk | contribs) deleted page Stamp! (A9: Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article))

--Twillymy (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox temp

A tag has been placed on User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox temp, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Camyoung54 talk 15:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Renewal of page Wan Kam Leung

I would like to renew the page for Wan Kam Leung. The reason for deletion states "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". I have information that clearly states the relevance of the person to his field (Chinese kung fu) and would like to recreate the article with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echirlin (talk • contribs) 14:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Joseph Neibich

I while back you deleted the page that I created of comedian Joseph Neibich. I was would like to be send a copy of the page that was deleted so I can make changes based on your comments and then repost.

Thanks

PS: The reason i'm contacting you know some time since the deletion is because I was just made aware of the possibility that I could receive such.

Nerdypunkkid (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

closedrv.js

Hi. I'm trying to get your closedrv.js script working. I've added it to User:RoySmith/monobook.js, but don't see any new tabs when I edit a section (for example, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_8&action=edit&section=T-2). I'm using Chrome. I've emptied my cache and restarted the browser. Tried it in an incognito window too. Any ideas what I might be doing wrong? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Duh, PEBKAC. I'm not running monobook. I had to add it to vector.js :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, So I closed one DRV [4], but your script appears to have found and closed TWO DRV discussions that were on the same day. I had only intended to close Indiggo, but it also closed SnarXiv at the same time (without my being aware of it). I don't grok the details of the formatting well enough to attempt a manual fix. Your assistance would be appreciated. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been active for a few years and the formatting of something has probably changed and made the script nonfunctional. I'll take a look. lifebaka++ 16:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I think I may have figured out the problem. The script is supposed to be used when editing only the section with the specific DRV you're looking to close. I have some code written in so that the close tab only displays when editing a section of a DRV log page to try to prevent situations like this from happening, but if you were editing a larger section (such as after the heading at the very top of the page), it would still display the tab... So it still works (woo!), but I really ought to write some documentation for the script. If you still want to use the script, it should work fine as long as you only edit the specific section for the specific DRV you're closing. lifebaka++ 17:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note (and the heads-up on my talk page). Yeah, I think your analysis is correct. I've since made sure I'm editing just the one section, and things seem to be working fine. Another problem I've noticed is that your search pattern doesn't allow for any whitespace between the ==== and the [[. Some people stick some extra whitespace in there, which breaks the script. I think what you want is a regex search for ==== *[[ -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how extra whitespace would get in there, actually... {{drv2}} doesn't add any into the title, even if you stick a lot of whitespace before the first parameter.

Anyway, I've gotten a working version of that regex going (exactly what you suggested) and updated it to work on both sides of the {{drt}} addition in the script. Just in case. It still won't match if there's anything other than whitespace in there, so you might have to add the template manually sometimes, but my bumbling has convinced me that I don't want it to. (Or else it'll match too many things. Like probably most of the nomination statement...) Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know how the whitespace got in there, but here's the edit where I fixed up the example I found. Maybe somebody created the entry manually? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zendikar expsym.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zendikar expsym.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Current events pages. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Thought eater for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thought eater is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thought eater until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Inactive page blanked

Hello, I'm BrownHairedGirl. I wanted to let you know that I've blanked one of your drafts (User:Lifebaka/sandbox/donothing.js) due to your inactivity. If you decide to come back and start editing again, don't fret as the previous contents of the article are still available in the page history. Just click the "Undo" button next to my edit and everything will be back to like it was. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC).

PS: I blanked the page because it was generating non-existent categories which clutter up Special:WantedCategories, where editors are busy trying to clear a huge backlog. If you restore the page, please can ensure that it doesn't do that? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)