User talk:Lifebaka/Archive 3

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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Admin Assistance

LB (hope you don't mind the abbreviation). You helped to update an article a while back, User:1801270P/Painting_and_Decorating_Contractors_of_America. Thanks to your input and others the article is much better than what I could have created being a Wiki noob. However the original admin who protected the page is not responding to my requests to unprotect the page now that I've got a better supported version to put in place. Any assistance/guidance you can provide is appreciated. --1801270P (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There are still some things I think could use some work. Mostly that a good portion of the article is given over to long lists (Councils, Chapters, and Forums). I think the information is long, ugly, and not really useful to a reader's understanding of the subject, so I'm removing it. Other than that, it needs wikification—the addition of links to other Wikipedia articles. But there aren't any major issues in my mind left, so I'll go ahead and move it over. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 03:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Camp Calleva

I'm a little perturbed as to why you deleted my entry 'Camp Calleva'. It is equally as significant as any other summer camp in the Maryland/Virginia area, perhaps even more so since it is the largest outdoor education program in Central Maryland. Furthermore, I was not done writing the article when you deleted it. If you have problems with my establishment of notability I would rather talk about it then see my page obliterated. I hope we can reconcile this. Callevacamp (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It didn't assert importance, which means it was deleted under CSD A7. You are free to create it again in a form that does, but I suggest using the "Show Preview" button to view your work as you go rather than saving. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you have any tips (or just the location of some tips) for making sure that I establish the article's importance? Callevacamp (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the short (and not terrifically civil, sorry) is to tell people why they should give a damn. If it's the largest or first or best something that'd work, but you'll want to put it out loud and clear on the article so people see it. Anything that would establish notability at WP:CORP would also do. It might get tagged again, and might get deleted again, even if you do this, in which case the proper course of action would be to discuss with the deleting administrator. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am Back - Help Needed!

Hello Lifebaka. The "Gabriel Murphy" article has been nominated for deletion by someone that I believe has a personal vandetta against this article. Here is the link to the AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriel_Murphy_%283rd_nomination%29#Gabriel_Murphy. The user does not even point out that the article was reversed on a DR just 2 days ago. If you can chime in on this conversation I would appreciate it. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Much

Just wanted to say thank you so much for your help/advice/feedback with the "Gabriel Murphy" article. You have inspired me to get more involved with Wikipedia; to learn about Wikipedia and help others where I can. Best Wishes! LakeBoater (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too, you helped a lot with your comment concerning the "Protection"-rule of MTG. Thank you!--84.63.219.175 (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

My RfA

I hope the other kids at school play with me...

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.) Thanks for your detailed supporting statement! I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

deleting talk pages of redirects

I would like to know, which consensus there is that prevents talk pages of redirects that have no disscussions to be deleted. --Gman124 ^talk 17:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides that G8 doesn't say that they can be, there's a discussion here that at least shows there's no consensus for it. And it's always an easier solution to redirect them along with the article. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't the talk pages whose corresponding article does not exist, fall under speedy delete? So why keep them? I agree that we need to keep if there is a substantial disscussion, but why not delete the talk pages that only had project templates. --Gman124 ^talk 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Conceivably there could be incoming links, or particularly savvy newbies could try to navigate directly to it, and it'd help for them to end up where discussion should happen instead of at a non-existent talk page. Besides, redirects are cheap on server load and, when it comes down to it, having the page there or redirected isn't hurting anybody. There isn't any good reason to delete them, so we don't. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could agree. --Gman124 ^talk 17:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Userfying content of David Horne

Hello Lifebaka, Thanks for your feedback on the David Horne deletion review. I'm writing to you out of the three users that replied, as you clearly indicated that you could personally userfy the content for me (I guess that means or includes recovering it). I would like to have it as a starting point. Or should I address my request to someone from Category:Wikipedia_administrators_who_will_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles? Thanks,--Atavi (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Atavi (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I wondered what the process is for retrying the page. Do I just create it again and see if it is deleted or is there a process whereby what I have written in my user space can be reviewed and I can have some feedback? Thanks in advance--Atavi (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to go to the trouble you can have another DRV for it. But, usually, if both you and some other editors agree that it can go back in mainspace, you just move it back (using the move tab at the top of the page). First, however, you oughta' add some inline citations. If you need any help with it, feel free to ask. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First off, thanks for your answer. Second, sorry for the long post. Now, I'm afraid I only have new questions. Won't a new deletion review only judge the deleted material (and not what I've written in my user space)? How do I go about finding editors who will take a look at what I've written in my user space?

I do know how to use inline citations, but I usually use them for something controversial, where someone might come up and say "Where did you get that fact?". For example, say Iran-Contra affair. When I write a short biographical article about a musician, I find there's little that needs to be directly traced to a source, provided that there are actually sources in the article somewhere. For example, an exception would be when I wrote that Goffredo Petrassi "is considered one of the most influential Italian composers of the twentieth century", which is a judgement, so you know. Anyway, I'm rambling...

Back to the subject matter, I think David Horne is notable both as a composer and a performer. Any one of those would do, right? I also think that his notability is established in what I've currently written and I could argue about it if needed.

In the end the question is again, how do I find out that other people agree with me that the article establishes notability? Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? suggests discussing on how to develop the article in Wikipedia:Drawing board. That's not exactly what I'm looking for though. The article is pretty much developed right now. I'll try it all the same.

I hope I've not tired you too much. If you have an answer to any of my questions, I'm all ears. Cheers,--Atavi (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I perfectly agree with you that the guy appears notable, but you need to source the hell out of that thing. WP:BLP allows for the removal of any unsourced and possibly contentious matterial from this sort of article, and there are people around who will remove pretty much everything that isn't sourced; and it's a blockable offence to readd that information without sourcing it (assuming you do it multiple times...). Citations are all it really needs, and the external links look promising for that. Drop me a line if you need help with any of it, but I'll warn you ahead of time that I suck at writing content. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, Thanks for all your help. I'll try to improve the article with some inline citations. I'll get back to you if I need any help. Cheers,--Atavi (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

MTG infobox

Hello friend, I wanted to let you know that I made a lot of progress on my new MTG infobox, viewable in my sandbox. Let me know what you think. I think the Tnavbar isn't working right, but that's got me stumped. It's not essential, but it seems like good Wiki-maintenance. Other than that, it's at a point where I'm pretty comfortable putting it up for public debate. Can you tell me how to go about doing that? There's some more info on my sandbox page that will hopefully allow you understand some of my methods and thinking. Cheers! JamesLucas (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tnavbar is good now.JamesLucas (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's some great work you've done on that. Sorry it took me so long to respond, but I've had a busy weekend thus far. Anyway, I only have a few issues with the way you're doing things, and most of them are just naming the parameters. I've got another example of what fixes I think need doing at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/MTG infobox2, and a test at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox#Test showing what it'd look like with the current specified parameters for Time Spiral. Besides renaming parameters to match the current {{Infobox mtgset}} (so we won't have to go fix all of them) I removed the |Set position= parameter and added in some {{#ifeq: parsers to take care of it (for the same reason, so we won't have to go fix the template usage everywhere it's currently being used) and made the |Block size= parameter default to 3 (so we'll only have to change Lorwyn, Morningtide, Shadowmoor, and Eventide). I'm also thinking it'd be nice to spell out those numbers (one instead of 1, etc.) just to make things look nicer, but that's a pretty trivial change. On the template I've got up I changed the way the |Expansion Sybol= parameter works to the way it currently does on {{Infobox mtgset}} to prevent us having to go fix it, but I like the way you had it working better overall, especially with the suggested addition of images to the block navigation at the bottom. Let me know what you think of my changes, and go ahead if you want to incorporate any changes I made into {{Infobox mtgset2008}}. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As much as I hate our current Naming Parameters, I guess I don't hate them enough to go fix all (500?) of them, so I adjusted capitalization accordingly. Good call. I also found that you were right about the Block Size parameter being a waste, so that is gone. But I think keeping the Set Position parameter is going to be worth the hassle. Integrating the images for the block index at the bottom would otherwise require their own fields, and it didn't seem as neat and clean. Additionally, I'm concerned that if we try to use #ifeq to collate the Expansion Name with a First/Second/Third Set, it will cause glitches when editors don't align the exact italics and bold settings for the various fields (not to mention the older sets with simple names like "Tempest," which require (Magic: The Gathering) appended to their Wikipedia pages. With that many variables, people with botch things up, and we can only try to cushion the blow where we can. And I do like saying "First" instead of "1 of." Nice idea. And I love the arrows at the top! I wanted them to begin with, but I couldn't find them in the Insert: list. I guess I didn't look very well, because I see them now. Also, I integrated an #if condition to kill the whole Block index section for sets that don't have blocks. Maybe someday we can work out something for pseudo-blocks like Portal and Un-, but that'll require too much work for the community to swallow at once. So: Where do I/we go from here (assuming that we're close to agreeing on the fine points of the template ourselves)? Do we need to offer this up for public debate? Or is this a time to be bold, as they say here? I've never worked on anything like this before, but I'm assuming you'll have some admin wisdom to share. Cheers, JamesLucas (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm... Could always code in an #if for the |Set position= parameter so that the ones that don't have it can default to the #ifeq code. It should work all the time, given how I've seen {{Infobox mtgset}} used, but I'll go check all the set articles after we move it over to make sure nothing broke. I've updated the way I'd do it at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/MTG infobox2, and reproduced below:

{{#if:{{{Set position|}}}|{{{Set position}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{Expansion Name}}}|{{{First Set|}}}|First|{{#ifeq:{{{Expansion Name}}}|{{{Second Set|}}}|Second|Third}}}}}}

This should make it work for all the current usages and allow customization if the parameter is used. It's also a bit easier to just have people put in "First", "Second", or "Third" on their own rather than having the template put it in for them.

I don't think the other issues you thought of with the code I put in to remove the |Set position= parameter would come into play. The reason we need the |Expansion Name= parameter is exactly because of that, some sets are at "<Set> (Magic: The Gathering)" instead of "<Set>", but they wouldn't link to the set lower down instead of putting in '''''<Set>'''''.

I'll go drop a message on WT:MTG, but it's kinda' dead these days. What I'd personally favor is a history merge between the two, so that the suggested changes end up on top (not quite the same thing that essay's about, but I think the idea applies here). When we wanna' move it I'll go ahead and do that.

I'm also gonna' let you in on a little secret (which, like everything else on Wikipedia, is only a secret because people don't care to read it): Being an admin doesn't give me any special say in any debates or lend weight to my opinions. It just gives me some extra buttons. But anyway, I feel progress is being made, mostly by you. Great work. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I like your thinking. I've incorporated the new line.

I'm aware that being an admin is "no big deal," but I tend to assume (and hope) that admins know the way of things better than most of us casual editors. I'll have to read the history merge article when I have some time. Is there anything else I should be doing to keep momentum going? I feel like I'm going to be a little bewildered by the merge process, so I'm not sure if there's anything else left for me to do. JamesLucas (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I like the way it looks now. It looks like it will work. I've put a message on WT:MTG, and if no one opposes in a few days I'll go ahead and make the history merge. I'll try to make sure I do it when we're both on, just in case anything goes wrong, but right now I think all we're gonna' do is wait a little. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Great to hear. Just so you know, you're very welcome to email/IM me at my username at gmail.com to get my attention. My schedule's pretty flexible generally. I'm an architect, so I'm usually at a computer, even on beautiful days. [sigh] JamesLucas (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd highly recommend removing the nav images for next/previous set. They're misleading for clicking (they'll take you to the image page, not the set page) and aren't proper use of non-free images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, true. It'd be a pain to write the extra fair-use rationales, and I don't think it'd pass the non-free content criteria. But, on a technical note, I think we could use an <imagemap> to link it to the right place, but it would be a horrible pain to make it work right. Overall I think not worth the time and effort it'd take. I'll go remove the suggestion, but it doesn't change the functionality. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Nice to see ya' around, AMIB. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was guessing that A Man In Black might come rain on my parade for all the right reasons. I know there was a long debate about symbols on the set page, and I (sort of) understand the reason why they can't be there. It seems to me, however, that we could use symbols within blocks, on account of the pre-con decks. Time Spiral symbols are part of Planar Chaos products, for instance. Is my logic errant? I could use some help understanding the nuances of fair-use in this case. As for the click-confusion, it doesn't bother me more than most things on Wikipedia. One of the things you learn here is that images aren't links, for better or for worse. Anyway, I'm very glad to have some feedback! JamesLucas (Talk - Contribs 14:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, specifically I think this use would fail WP:NFCC#3 (both parts) and WP:NFCC#8. It's not exactly as minimal as possible, and it doesn't significantly help understanding on the articles for the other sets in the block. We could do it, and if no one complains just leave it that way, but I've got a feeling that someone would take issue with it after a while. I'm not exactly willing to put in the effort to do it without having a better reason to include them than "it looks good" (which it does, really, but it's just not a very good reason). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I would love to use expansion symbols more, since that's a major way that new players (of which I was one not long ago) get a handle on old cards, but I can certainly see how it's far from necessary since WotC posts up-to-date lists already. Thanks for taking care of the template edit. JamesLucas (" " - +) 00:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Think it's been long enough? If the Eventide prerelease hasn't woken people up, I'm not hopeful that we'll get much more feedback. This week is also good for me to spend a little time fixing the things that will break, such as image size and a couple of the tags that are improving. Best, JamesLucas (" " or +) 17:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got some real life stuff in a little less than an hour, so how about around 0:00 UTC tomorrow? That comes out to around 8:00 PM eastern, for reference, and I should be back not much later than that. Or I could do it now, but I won't be able to do much of the checking and fixing part for an hour or two. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I stupidly burned my hand taking bread out of the oven this afternoon, so I'm hunt-and-peck typing tonight; I expect I'll be good to go tomorrow at 20:00 EDT. Thanks, lifebaka. JamesLucas (" " or +) 00:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be on around then. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Aardvark (font)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Aardvark (font), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Myungbaksanseong

The WP:DRV is peacefully closed without action on the deleted one, but I still need the content to insert to US beef imports in South Korea and Lee Myung-bak articles. The article is deleted for its neologism, but the content is useful to expand those articles. please paste it to my talk page. Thanks --Caspian blue (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can't merge the content without undeleting, so I've undeleted Myungbaksanseong and redirected it to US beef imports in South Korea. You may merge at your leisure. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank, so the redirect page can remain after this restoration? --Caspian blue (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It should stay a redirect, yeah. Consensus says we don't want an article there. But the GFDL says we need the history if we keep the content, so a redirect is the only option. If anyone deletes the redirect, point out to them that you merged the content elsewhere, and you might wanna' make a note on the talk page of the redirect. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for the kind answer. :) --Caspian blue (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Customs House, South Shields

Hi, you just declined a speedy that I proposed and you're completely right, the link given seems to bedead. I based myself on this, perhaps I was too fast. However, the second link that this Google search turns up is live and also contains some text that can be found literally in this article. Not sure how to handle this and be happy to leave this matter to you if you are willing. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: there also seem to be some WP:COI issues here.

Whew, that was fun. I just removed the parts I identified as copyvios and tagged it for necessary cleanup. As is the article kinda' bites, but I don't think it qualifies for any of the speedy criteria anymore. If there's anything else you can do to the article, that'd be great; if not, you can just leave it now. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WT:AFD

Thanks! Protonk (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected

The thing is I have to test things as I write code. I can't test them 'cause I can't edit the page, so I don't know what exactly I will write. User:PeterSymonds semi protected the page for a few days (I would require about 2 this time I would say) to allow me to edit the page, and that worked really well. I was hoping for something similar this time. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha'. Done, then. Can't be moved, but I don't think you'd need to. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Waterman Movie deletion.

Please don't delete articles without discussion. Mrx9898 (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It was an expired PROD. The nature of that process is that it lacks discussion, since it is only supposed to be used for uncontroversial deletions. If no one objects to it, by which I mean removing the tag, five days after tagging an admin may delete it without further notification. If you do object, I'll be happy to restore it for you, since all you'd have to do is take it to deletion review to get the same effect. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Universal Church Of Metaphysics 501(c)3

Thank you for protecting my page from unreasonable deletion and attack. I appreciate you looking into this matter. The users deleted conversations and the article over and over again no matter what I did to change the article or revise it as per their concerns. Thank you for being the reasonable person who will look into this. I look forward to your input and advice if I need to do something different. Blessings (SpiritBeing (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)

Actually, I protected it from recreation, so now you can't recreate it. Usually if every time you create the page it gets deleted, you shouldn't create the page more. Chances are very good it doesn't meet one of our various inclusion criteria, or else does meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please take some time to read the general notability guideline and make sure you have reliable sources to verify the information you wish to put up, then you can recreate the page after the protection wears off in about ten days. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am somewhat unclear about how to go about the process of deletion review for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Church_Of_Metaphysics_501%28c%293&action=edit This page has been repeatedly attacked before I can even finish my explanations, revise the article with references and proof of its notability, and it has been unfairly targeted by people who I believe might simply not care for the subject matter. So what do I do? I am new to wikipedia and I have intended to make a lot of contributions to wikipedia, but so far everything I try to put up, no matter how dry and factual and encyclopedic I make it, it gets attacked. Please tell me how to do a deletion review. It doesn't really give directins at the deletion review page how to do it, it just talks about it. Thank ou for protecting my page from further tampering, I appreciate that, I am assuming you are the one who stepped in to protect my article until a resolution can be reached. Thanks (SpiritBeing (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)

Well... The process for making one isn't that difficult. You go to the current log page and create a review at the top using the {{newdelrev}} template. However, it is highly suggested that you try to work out the problems with the deleting administrators, who can all be found here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Marionette Records

I saw where you just deleted this article that I had tagged. Could you possibly user-fy the content to the author's user page? I offered to work with him to improve it, possibly in a Sandbox setting. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 18:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, it's at User:Djtheblade/Marionette records. I'll go notify him as well. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete Mismatched Sox Day on July 16th

Although I despise chain mails I love my son, so I thought I would pass this email along on his behalf and perhaps you could also pass it along too. Please note: I’m not asking you to move your name to the bottom of the list for $1  :)

My son came up with a new holiday, Mismatched Sox Day, to be celebrated annually on July 16th. Finally a day where you can put your sox on without spending 15 minutes hunting for a mate. On this day, you are encouraged and welcomed to wear a pair of socks that do not match. The more they do not match, the more obvious it is that you are celebrating this day. You will not be fired by your employer for doing so (although I take no responsibility for it if you do). Good will and fortune may come to you, or it may not, but at least you won't have to throw out those single sox without a match.

Happy Mismatched Sox Day!

Sincerely,

Brett Emery —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bemerywiki (talk • contribs) 19:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, chain e-mails on my talk page is really not cool. That aside, Wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day, so please don't recreate the article. It will just be deleted again. The "holiday" is not notable. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Can I just say how funny "Mismatched Sox" day really is ... especially with the spelling of socks? My God, can I create silly holidays too? Maybe "Colourful Liquid Soap Dispenser Day"?? BMW(drive) 16:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as you don't write articles about them, I promise I won't delete them... From Wikipedia. If I find out how, I might delete the actual holidays, though. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Joss Stone

Thanks for locking it. I am just now starting a sock puppet case against Funk Junkie. If you read the talk page you will see where i accussed him. Then if you go to both mine and his talkpage. You will see where I gave him a chance to admit it was him and stop. Then on my page you will see where he admits doing it, asks me to not pursue a sock puppet case against him, and asks if i will forget about him doing it. That is until he returned and did it again. Here is where I am starting the case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Funk Junkie Swampfire (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am not going to get myself involved in that. You two really need to seek some resolution for your disputes, and I'm pretty sure that a sock case is not going to help that. Me protecting the article was not an invitation to take the dispute elsewhere. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not start the sock puppet case because you locked the page. I had already warned him about using a sock puppet. He had already admitted to it. Then I had started the process today after he went back and did it again using the sock. I was thanking you because I had saw you had locked it. Swampfire (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ACC

Hi there, Lifebaka. Someone - probably you - put in a request to gain access for this tool. Could you please confirm this request by replying to this message? Thanks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that was me. Huzzah for being completely wrong about the admin work I'm doing, I guess. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? I have to ask you, lol. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know, I was just thinking about my answer to Q1 here. Although, I was mostly right since I do the DRV and CSD stuffs; other things are just interesting too. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Thanks for the help! You're a speedy helper! Tyciol (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Only sometimes, I swear. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 23:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of redirect

Hi there, with regards to your decline on the speedy deletion of this redirect [1]. The wikimedia software will find the article with any capitalisation. The removal of this redirect would mean that the software needs to make one less hop, not that the article wouldn't be found. --Deadly∀ssassin 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The side-bar search, sure, but not the search page search. Dunno' why, but it's always more finicky. Also, G6 doesn't apply to those sorts of things. The only CSD that would is R3, but it'd be a stretch to say that miscapitalization is an "implausible typo". Pretty much, no matter how it's cut, there's no way to properly speedy it. If you still want it deleted, I suggest WP:RFD. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 00:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A7 and notability

How does A7 not concern notability? The template itself states:

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.

I mean, I'm not confronting with you, I just want to make sure I'm not confused on the matter. Thanks. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say notability there, it says "importance or significance". They're similar, but not the same. The ways I like to think of it are that anything that would establish notability if true and sources assert importance, and any time you'd want to do a Gsearch or other research to be sure A7 shouldn't be used. I won't argue that it isn't notable, but it's outside of speedy-able territory at least. I at least won't oppose a PROD or AfD, though I can't say anything about the article's creator. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

DRV

I'm departing on vacation soon. Please keep an eye on the daily log pages, and make sure today's and tomorrow's are always ready. If a day is not yet created, there will be a small "Click to create" link directly above WP:DRV#Active discussions. If they exist, that link won't be there. The links prefill with the requisite header via some template magic that TrialsandErrors set up months ago. GRBerry 02:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha', I'll make sure it gets done. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As it happens I'm goin' on a short vacation too, so I just went ahead and created all the logs 'til when I get back. If you get back before me, saves you some work, I guess. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert K. Hall

I am no Wiki expert, but I thought that I was getting more time. I had corresponded with "Gwen" when she declined speedy deletion, and thought that as long as I was adding refs, I would get a break, and perhaps some help from other posters as info on Robert K. Hall (national guard officer) filled out. I have no pers ax to grind here. He is not related or known to me except for what little I have been able to find in primary sources. I only got started on this because, my hero, Chesty Puller gets pages, yet the General himself said that but for (then) LTC Hall's action (then) LtCol Puller would have died at Henderson Field. Marines love to sneer at the National Guard, (and all other services for that matter), but 3/164th was special, and I think (and I am trying to get PRIMARY sources here)that Bob Hall was the reason. Best regards ToddJtmilesmmr (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted as an expired WP:PROD, so all you have to do is ask to get it undeleted. However, I'm not sure it'd survive a deletion discussion. What it could really use is some secondary sources to help prove the notability of the guy (and please do read those pages, notability doesn't mean the same thing here as it does in real life). Without those sorts of sources, a deletion discussion would end with the same result, only it would be much harder to recreate the article after that (we've got a criterion for speedy deletion that deletes those sorts of recreations). If you would prefer, I could set up the article in your userspace to work on before moving back into mainspace. Also, for future reference, you can dispute {{prod}} tags by simply removing them. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right of course. I could have done a better job. The guy is long dead , and I can't even find birth/death dates, with perhaps, 10 manhours into the project. I have a call into a college professor who is doing a book on the 164th,(he is on vaca) and am trying to fit the very limited hours of the Worcester, Ma. Americal archives into my sched. (other archives are in ND, I will not get there). I could have done a better job, but I have little doubt that he could withstand a deletion discussion with better writing and a little more info, but this is not about me,,,,,,,,,,,it is about Robert. K. Hall. Another Wikipedian who is an expert on the Battle for Henderson Field has already told me that it should not have been deleted, and that if he had known the page existed, he would have helped. I have started lots of subjects that have been improved by others, and I never consider my version to be the final or best. Setting it up in my user space will not be a big help, because except for the museum and prof Shoptauge, I have exhaused my resources. Even though my piece is lacking, it is more info than one can find in any other single place. I would appreciate a discussion among Guadalcanal experts as to the value of having Robert K. Hall in Wikipedia, along with good links to his name in the Gualalcanal story. Best regards!! ToddJtmilesmmr (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm going to have to take that as disputing it. It'll be back up in a minute. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to make you aware

of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, figures. It's mostly quiet now, at least. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Company Page

Hi,

I am working on a Wikipedia page to describe a company and I want it to sound neutral and I don't have experience writing encyclopedia articles and was wondering if you would be able to go to it in my sandbox and preempt people from accusing me of spamming?

Thanks, Andy.W.Ellis (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't have issues with people calling that spam, because it isn't, but it doesn't look (from the current state of the article) like the company is notable. I suggest you take a look at WP:CORP to make sure it fits some of the criteria there; if it does, source it and move it to mainspace. Let me know if you need any technical help, but be aware that I suck at content writing. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgott Password

Estracted from the Wikipedia:Helpdesk--85.180.131.51 (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

I am User:Goiken and predominantly active on other Wikimediaprojekts and forgott my en:wp-Password. My morer recent activities here i did as different IPs. Using now GWatch i'd need again access to my en:wp account. Unfortunately while registrating i didnt provide an email. Is there any way i can reobtain my account or do i need to create another global one. For a Proof, of ID i could Provide my e-Mail or you can considder, that the Methylmalonic acid I edited in en:wp was also created by goiken in es:wp.--85.180.131.51 (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're English Wikipedia account is part of your global account, it should have the same password as all your other accounts. If not, it's more complicated (we can't just figure out your password and tell you) Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Eventhough it should it doesn't have the same PW for some reason unknown to me. Would it be possible for a high-level-admin to deleate me so that i'll be able to recreate goiken in en:wp and later merge with global goiken?

Can't I be deleated by a special procedure u usually use when fighting vandalism and then be recreated?

Is there a way for anybody to disable The Anti-Autocracking on users so that the Acc can be opened by a brute-force-Bot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.131.51 (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the CAPTCHA will stay... I suppose it could be disabled for bots, but we don't discuss things like that here: that's our Village Pump's job... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 20:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Any other suggestions?--85.180.131.51 (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest talking to a steward about it. They'd be at meta:Stewards. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers.--Tom Bradschetl (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Misssing entries in deletion log

See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Misssing_entry_in_deletion_log. And congrats!--Tikiwont (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer Armageddon and Dark Angels articles

Could you userfy those? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, they're at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Armageddon (Warhammer 40,000) and User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000). Cheers! --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a big deal, but I think those closures were probably a little bit hasty (only having been open for two days). I see you've userfied them though. Probably the best outcome among the list of available options anyway. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would've waited, but I feel that consensus is massively obvious in this regard, both at the DRVs themselves and at WT:AFD#Various suggestions, where Le Grand Roi has brought up a similar argument previously (it's number 8, and while I was the first to directly oppose it no one spoke up for it and another user, much further down, pointed out the same issue). I'd be happy to revert and make a !vote instead, but I don't think it's necessary here. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Haile Selassie

Hi there! I'm the IP mentioned here. I cant edit the ANI page so I'll leave a comment here instead, as much as I hate to drag you into this. I tried to talk to user Eulenspiegel but he simply removed my message from his talk page, that was before my last revert. He branded my post harrassment and is now calling me a vandal. See here [2]. I feel strongly about this issue because the comment was removed by the user it was directed at, and in its place the user left a note calling it trolling which it clearly was not. Assuming that he continues to ignomre as he did last time what course of action do I have? I do not wish to continue reverting, although I see that he has reverted yet again. 189.104.40.157 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are the same person (I assume this is true) you've got a dynamic IP and it's changed. I suggest you just let it all drop, leave the talk page in whatever form it's currently in, and go do something else. You violated 3RR as much as Til Eulenspiegel has and further edit warring will just get you and him in trouble (as well as probably start stupid things like a WP:SSP....). No moar drahmahz. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'm the same person. I'm too involved now to just let it drop, but I'll settle for this: An independent admin, can be you or ony other, reviews the situation and decides if it should indeed have been removed or not. I'll abide by whathever they decide. how does that sound? (I know this whole thing prob seems silly to you, but it has a greater importance to me: I've edited as an IP for a while and frequently I've seen that when users disgree whith IPs theyre fast to call them vandals even when theyre not, so I decided to make a stadn on this issue) 189.104.40.157 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I highly suggest you create an account, simply because your IP doesn't seems stable, but that's neither here nor there for this particular dispute. Copying the above three posts over. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. your warning

who are you, anyway? Why should I care?!

Docmartincohen (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You started an ANI thread. It was kinda' bogus. There was a history there. People read ANI, often. That about sums it up, yeah. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 22:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

About your comments regarding User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese

Thank you for pointing out that the user name is too long. Unfortunately, I disagree with your claim that 'there is nothing wrong with this username in theory'. In fact, the name itself is jingoistic as it demonstrates all the hallmarks of ultra-nationalism. So the name is threatening to some editors; in particular, it appears to have been selected to insult people of Vietnamese background.
I will be reporting the user shortly to the administrators for various forms of abuse that have been occurring. David873 (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It was originally at WP:UAA, and it's not a blatant violation of the username policy. If the account is being used abusively, we block it for that, but a block for violating the username policy would be improper. That was all I meant. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 00:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse the abruptness, but the username has just been deemed inappropriate and has been indefinitely blocked. Sorry. David873 (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Still disagree, but it's not worth my (or anyone else's) time to try to get disruptive editors unblocked. At the time I declined the UAA request the user was not disruptive, I would like to note. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 00:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

excuse me, this is the account that was just blocked but i am continually getting warned by david for so called "nationalistic ranting", and soapboxing. but as i read in the soapbox article, it does NOT describe what i am doing, and what i say in my statement, has information contained in other wikipedia articles THAT HAVE SOURCES, and david is comeing INTO my new user page and deleting information, which i am not broadcasting to the world, he also dleted from my talk page, but arnt talk pages also places for opinions?Nefbmn (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion reviews

Both I and GRC are responsible eds in good standing, and I object to early snow closes of deletion reviews when both of us differ from the majority--our arguements have sometimes , after all, been known to be able to persuade others when they come to see the arguments over time. DGG (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly which DRV you're talking about here, as the only one I've closed recently Le Grand Roi commented in are the two above, for Armageddon (Warhammer 40,000) and Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000), which he didn't seem to heavily object to, and you hadn't commented in either. I'm sorry if I closed it before you did comment, but I already stated above that I'm willing to reopen if people strongly object to the early closure. If we're talking about a different DRV here, then I'm just very confused. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have signed with five tildes, giving only the date. My carelessness. But perhaps this needs to be reopened as a more general question of what to do with these articles--and I am going to have to let GRDC carry the burden of this, as i am quite frankly afraid of making errors in this field due to ignorance. DGG (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to allowing the discussions to resume; however, I read off-wiki (not sure if we can link to certain sites) that apparently a few editors (even an admin!) are deliberately going to DRVs I started just to disrupt them because I started them and so I am now concerned about what consensus we're actually getting in my DRVs. As pertains to the particular articles under discussion, while I still would like to see if I can accomplish anything in userspace, I am wondering if we could not at least restore the edit histories and redirect Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) to Dark Angel and Armageddon (Warhammer 40,000) to Armageddon (disambiguation) or soft redirect to a Warhammer wiki? My main feeling was that a short referenced paragraph on the Warhammer ones could be at least mentioned in some larger Warhammer article, on a disambiguation page likes those listed above, or in an article on the topics in popular culture (which is what I was going to try working on). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's more than enough on-wiki consensus that your DRVs for 40k fancruft are a waste of time, Roi. Given that you're already collecting userspace rescues faster than Ash Ketchum, perhaps you might consider demonstrating why userfying these articles is productive by actually improving one of your existing ones to the level of a notable article to show us how it's done? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am increasingly finding it a waste of time replying to your increasinly unconstructive comments, especially as no one in making you or anyone else comment in any given comments-are-volunteer/optional DRV (you're more than welcome to make use of your time elsewhere), but anyway, see here, here, here, and here, for example. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm obviously talking specifically about the 40k ones, i.e. the ones I personally believed were worth deleting. I don't doubt that you've had successes in the past, but to extrapolate that to cover the kind of things you've been protecting in the 40k domain recently is folly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am focusing on other ones first as we have much more leeway with userpsace time than in mainspace. I don't see any kind of rush to immediately focus on these particular articles, as I am also working on a dissertation and teaching college history courses (yes, even in the summer) and taking care of my more or less dying dog. I can only devote so much time to Wikipedia, but eventually I and others (as seen here) will get to the various articles in userspace and I absolutely have every intention to do so with these ones when I have a chance. It may be several days or more, but it will happen barring unexpected real-world catastrophe. I am currently trying to think of how best to make use of them as indicated by a couple different ideas expressed above and will proceed from there. Finally, I'm not asking for every single Allemantando AfD to be overturned or userfied, i.e. I have no plans to do anything with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene-seed, for example. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(@ Le Grand Roi's first comment) I'd personally prefer to wait until better redirect targets are found, since the terms don't seem likely to be searched. Then I'd be happy to. As far as reopening the discussions goes, I haven't seen what I deem to be someone really asking me to do it, but that could just be me not wanting to a little bit. Anyone has my express permission to do so if they want to, though I do ask that they make a note of it.
Also, Le Grand Roi, I'd be more than happy to help you with anything else you need/want/etc., as long as you're aware that I'm pretty crappy at content writting. Cheers, everyone. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Block

I just don't want emails from him. You may change the block, and I won't object. If you prefer, I could do it. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and nice, and changed the block. You may note on the creation log that it is 100 % for certain a sock, which has been indef blocked. I just wanted to avoid more trolling. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering. I doubt we'd get anything but possible abuse from it too, but in the absence of a good reason it's probably better to just leave it. Thanks for the response. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the IP, too. Res ipsa loquitur. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Music group article

Hi Lifebaka, I created a username for a music group Called October Sky. I was blocked because I used a promotional USER NAME for the article which is not allowed by wikipedia. I also got Speedy Deletion for the article.

So here I am with my personal account (Yanik Rouleau). I really want to have a page on wikipedia for my band October Sky. Since I did get deleted, I want to make sure that my article is legit for wiki's criteria.

Would you help me with the article? I have already done ALL the coding of the article, I just need someone like you to go over it so I meet all criteria for wikipedia. (ref, external link, etc)

Thank you very much, you can contact me here, or my personal e-mail yanik.rouleau@octobersky.ca

Have a wonderful day Yanik Rouleau —Preceding unsigned comment added by YanikRouleau (talk • contribs) 18:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. My e-mail is right up at the top of the page, so you can feel free to e-mail me there. Or, you can put the text you want to use at either User:YanikRouleau/October Sky or User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/October Sky so we can work it on-wiki (I prefer this, as it makes checking if things work easier; it also preserves article history). I will warn you, though, that I really suck at actual content writing, so I won't be of much help in that regard. Cheers! --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Vbuzzer

An article that you have been involved in editing, Vbuzzer, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vbuzzer. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Amulet of Yendor - speedy deletion

Hi Lifebaka. First time I have requested this so I apologize if I have erred in judgement but you have correctly surmised that amulet of yendor was merged with roguelike article however that content has been deleted over time and does not exist anymore. I was going to redirect it to Rogue (computer game) but feel it is unecessary considering the amulet is just an object in the game. (there are many objects and the amulet is necessary to win but is page with redirect required?) All in all it was a page that should apparently have been deleted but instead was merged and deleted over time. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycompugeek (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I just redirected it there, thanks. It could've just as easily been deleted, in light that the content isn't anywhere anymore, but I decided not to since the net gain is very low. Leaving the history in place allows for later merges without needing to undelete, and deleting wouldn't do anything except put another log entry on the servers (and make the content itself harder to get at), so just leaving it is the simplest and best way to go. Feel free to make any changes to the target--I'm no expert in the area--but I don't feel that there's any good reason to delete it. Cheers! --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

{{football kit}} edit

Hi,

Thanks for the editprotected - I think we can just omit those lines entirely though. If we need extra padding we can do it with CSS rather than with blank lines. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha'. I probably shoulda' asked first, but figured with all else equal as little change as possible was good.  Done now. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Open Web Foundation

The criteria for speedy deletion states: "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate. Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete".

The article was nominated for speedy deletion just minutes after its creation. I believe this is speedy nomination and that specifically no effort was made to consider if it could be improved in a way to not meet the speedy deletion criteria.

Please consider removing the speedy deletion tag as fast as it was improperly added. Uiteoi (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, but chances are that a foundation started yesterday isn't important yet. Wait at least a few months before creating an article about it. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you looked into it, you would know that it is already a very important organization for the world-wide web, founded by well known individuals and supported by large and established players in the field. Even if this organization lasted a month, it would still be notable. But wikipedia has become all about deletion and slamming contributors. --Uiteoi (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing evidence that it's notable. You're welcome to keep working on it, however. Also, you might find that insulting the site doesn't get you very far with most people here—we tend to be rather involved. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dracos

Why don't you think this is blatant enough for G3? The maps show that's actually a whole 'nother island, and there's no proof that the company mentioned in the article even exists. I'd say that's blatant enough for G3, so I've re-added the tag. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 02:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't diagree that it's a hoax, but G3 isn't really designed to handle hoaxes. There was a discussion over at WT:CSD a while back, and too many true-but-unbelievable things were deleted using it—a Bad Thing ^TM—so hoaxes were removed from being explicitely G3-able (though of course ridiculously obivously false things still make G3). I declined it because I'd want to do a search just to make sure, and I'm of the opinion that puts it outside of G3-hoax territory. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

6 Sick Hipsters

Thanks, Lifebaka. I'm going to edit this entry and better source it.--Grudgefull (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:SLJCOAAATR 1 hasn't stopped

He's still been rude since the note you left on his talk page. I figured he would ignore it, as he seems to do that everytime someone tells him to calm down. I'm getting very frustrated here. He wont stop his accustations, rude behavior and just general uncivility towards me. He needs to just calm down, instead of being so rude and angry. If you have time, see the section at the notice board. I posted several new links, which show he is still harassing me and being uncivil. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wavell State High School

I suppose you were conceivably right not to delete for copyvio, although 95% or so of the article was copied from the page specified or other obvious parts of the site.. There was an apparently non-copyvio lede sentence, so I deleted everything else as copyvio. Shouldnt you have done so yourself? DGG (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked other parts, and I didn't think they were. I must've missed it. Had I noticed (smack me for not), I would have. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good old MascotGuy...

Looks as if he's taken several whacks under various socks to create that page about Smucker's "Goober" PB&J combination. Not much history out there beyond Smucker's own archives, but I think it mught be worth recreating. If I do so right now, MascotGuy won't be in the edit history. Would that be OK with you? I'll go ahead on the assumption that you're OK with it. If not, please feel free to delete it. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Do make sure it doesn't make any other speedy criteria, though. It's always a shame to delete things (well, usually at least). Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Done and done. Most of the history (such as it is) is on Smucker's own website. It's a bit stubbish, but it should do OK for now. I've seen a store brand variation of the stuff; if I can verify it online, I'll add it. That way, I won't get the dreaded "citation needed" notice. BTW, I fixed the "Goober" disambig, wikied it on the J.M. Smucker article and added a reference to the peanut butter and jelly article. Lot o' work for a stub.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool stuff. Let me know if you need any help with it. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You bet. Thanks for the offer. I went ahead and added the Kroger/Ralphs variant, but I can't remember the name they gave it. I've actually bought it before. I need to swing by the store anyway. I'll get the name and post it to the article later on. If you're near a Ralphs, Kroger, Food-4-Less or what have you, feel free to beat me to it.  :) I can't offer you any peanut butter, but perhaps a cookie...? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wish I could, but I'm at work right now. "Doing my job". But a trip to Kroger this evening is in order, I think. And thanks for the cookie *nom nom*. :D lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jonty Haywood

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jonty Haywood. 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. MickMacNee (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

New York move

Someone has raised a concern at my talk page about the New York move... Was this listed at WP:RM? –xeno (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, no. There was an {{editprotected}} on the talk page. Feel free to revert it; those're only supposed to happen when consensus is already for it anyways. If you need help (or want me to do it), let me know. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be considered a fairly controversial move, it should've probably been listed at WP:RM....... No? and it would probably be best if you did the reversal since I'm not sure where everything is supposed to go, being a canuck and all. –xeno (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, according to them Yanks I'd be a redneck so we're both in the hole on this one. Regardless, I've reverted it and will be stepping out of it all now. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's probably best, to avoid the blowback. Might wanna leave a note for them that this needs to be listed at WP:RM for at least 7 days before it can be accepted, and probably would be in good faith to leave a note on the new york wikiproject, etc, etc. –xeno (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! (Like a steak.) lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

cheers mate =) –xeno (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sally protection

On the Princess Sally Acorn I frankly don't believe that there is any serious chance of consensus being reached. AMiB is clearly in the minority on the page discussion, but continues to revert without any kind of serious discussion. I tried to mediate (though I'm an inclusionist and thus biased perhaps), but he refuses to use anything but his own work as a starting point and doesn't actively engage. I feel that locking the page with his version active will make this discussion very difficult to have (not to mention rewarding all the reverts he's done). I understand your page protection isn't an enforcement of content, but I suspect that page won't be unblocked anytime soon. For the record, I think a lot of what he did to that page was to the good, but he won't engage in meaningful discussion and reverts things he doesn't like. In any case, I'll be unwatching the page and let others deal with this. Hobit (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I get the same feeling this that could take a while. If necessary, the parties could go to dispute resolution, but I at least will not be getting involved with the content dispute itself. And I was already well aware that I protected The Wrong Version^TM, so don't worry about that. I don't think AMiB will be any happier with this arrangement than anyone else, because he also can't edit the page or else risk facing much worse consequences. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hobit (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

PB&J

Good old Disney. IF there's a buck to be made, they find the way to make it! Good catch and definitely worth mentioning. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

First of all, I'd just like to thank you for protecting the Princess Sally Acorn article, a few editors had obviously forgotten the etiquette that we on Wikipedia are held up to. Anyway, I thought that you may want to add a tag to the top of the article explaining the status of the article. By this I mean a tag similar to the one currently on the Burma article of Wikipedia, but rather, involving edits. A tag like this could help newcomers to the article understand the situation, and voice their opinions if they so wish. Kuro ♪ 19:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I put it on, but small. If you'd like I can make it big in a jiffy. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be nice, it's a litle hard to notice, not to metion that a larger one allows for more of an explanation. Kuro ♪ 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done! Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7