User talk:Livitup/Archive 5

R v Peacock
Thanks for the information.

QRG! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotoriousQRG (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

dude remove this quote plz
The Type 81-1 is similar to the Type 81 but has a foldable stock. The Type 81 squad machine gun is heavier (5.15 kg), has a longer barrel, slightly higher rate of fire (700 rounds per minute), and fires from either the standard 30 round magazine or a 75 round drum. From field and combat results, the feedback from PLA and foreign users, the accuracy of the Type 81 is better than that of the license produced AK-47 and is closer to that of the American M-16, but still retaining equal reliability. The Type 81 has been exported to various countries, primarily Asian and African.The Type 81-1 is similar to the Type 81 but has a foldable stock. The Type 81 squad machine gun is heavier (5.15 kg), has a longer barrel, slightly higher rate of fire (700 rounds per minute), and fires from either the standard 30 round magazine or a 75 round drum. From field and combat results, the feedback from PLA and foreign users, the accuracy of the Type 81 is better than that of the license produced AK-47 and is closer to that of the American M-16, but still retaining equal reliability. The Type 81 has been exported to various countries, primarily Asian and African.The Type 81-1 is similar to the Type 81 but has a foldable stock. The Type 81 squad machine gun is heavier (5.15 kg), has a longer barrel, slightly higher rate of fire (700 rounds per minute), and fires from either the standard 30 round magazine or a 75 round drum. From field and combat results, the feedback from PLA and foreign users, the accuracy of the Type 81 is better than that of the license produced AK-47 and is closer to that of the American M-16, but still retaining equal reliability. The Type 81 has been exported to various countries, primarily Asian and African.The Type 81-1 is similar to the Type 81 but has a foldable stock. The Type 81 squad machine gun is heavier (5.15 kg), has a longer barrel, slightly higher rate of fire (700 rounds per minute), and fires from either the standard 30 round magazine or a 75 round drum. From field and combat results, the feedback from PLA and foreign users, the accuracy of the Type 81 is better than that of the license produced AK-47 and is closer to that of the American M-16, but still retaining equal reliability. The Type 81 has been exported to various countries, primarily Asian and African.The Type 81-1 is similar to the Type 81 but has a foldable stock. The Type 81 squad machine gun is heavier (5.15 kg), has a longer barrel, slightly higher rate of fire (700 rounds per minute), and fires from either the standard 30 round magazine or a 75 round drum. From field and combat results, the feedback from PLA and foreign users, the accuracy of the Type 81 is better than that of the license produced AK-47 and is closer to that of the American M-16, but still retaining equal reliability. The Type 81 has been exported to various countries, primarily Asian and African.The Type 81-1 is similar to the Type 81 but has a foldable stock. The Type 81 squad machine gun is heavier (5.15 kg), has a longer barrel, slightly higher rate of fire (700 rounds per minute), and fires from either the standard 30 round magazine or a 75 round drum. From field and combat results, the feedback from PLA and foreign users, the accuracy of the Type 81 is better than that of the license produced AK-47 and is closer to that of the American M-16, but still retaining equal reliability. The Type 81 has been exported to various countries, primarily Asian and African.The Type 81-1 is similar to the Type 81 but has a foldable stock. The Type 81 squad machine gun is heavier (5.15 kg), has a longer barrel, slightly higher rate of fire (700 rounds per minute), and fires from either the standard 30 round magazine or a 75 round drum. From field and combat results, the feedback from PLA and foreign users, the accuracy of the Type 81 is better than that of the license produced AK-47 and is closer to that of the American M-16, but still retaining equal reliability. The Type 81 has been exported to various countries, primarily Asian and African.The Type 81-1 is similar to the Type 81 but has a foldable stock. The Type 81 squad machine gun is heavier (5.15 kg), has a longer barrel, slightly higher rate of fire (700 rounds per minute), and fires from either the standard 30 round magazine or a 75 round drum. From field and combat results, the feedback from PLA and foreign users, the accuracy of the Type 81 is better than that of the license produced AK-47 and is closer to that of the American M-16, but still retaining equal reliability. The Type 81 has been exported to various countries, primarily Asian and African.The Type 81-1 is similar to the Type 81 but has a foldable stock. The Type 81 squad machine gun is heavier (5.15 kg), has a longer barrel, slightly higher rate of fire (700 rounds per minute), and fires from either the standard 30 round magazine or a 75 round drum. From field and combat results, the feedback from PLA and foreign users, the accuracy of the Type 81 is better than that of the license produced AK-47 and is closer to that of the American M-16, but still retaining equal reliability. The Type 81 has been exported to various countries, primarily Asian and African.The Type 81-1 is similar to the Type 81 but has a foldable stock. The Type 81 squad machine gun is heavier (5.15 kg), has a longer barrel, slightly higher rate of fire (700 rounds per minute), and fires from either the standard 30 round magazine or a 75 round drum. From field and combat results, the feedback from PLA and foreign users, the accuracy of the Type 81 is better than that of the license produced AK-47 and is closer to that of the American M-16, but still retaining equal reliability. The Type 81 has been exported to various countries, primarily Asian and African.--Esmeralda1226 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just left you a message on your talk page... I made a mistake - see the full explanation on your talk.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 18:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I talked on the board about the Luna the Fashion Kitty sources a little.

to conclude the discussion....

About The Lovelasting Life
No problem, glad to help. :)  Quasy Boy  18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Więckiewicz
Why did you want to speedy delete Robert Więckiewicz? Link

Drewno (talk to me) 21:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the article is single sourced to a directory site (I think this is the Polish version of IMDB, but I am probably wrong). At the time I nominated it, I thought that the movies he has been in were not notable enough to make him a notable actor.  Every day on WP there are hundreds of articles created on actors with IMDB entries for small parts played in minor movies that never had wide release.  This looked like one of those actors.  Sorry if I got it wrong!   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 22:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, thanks for letting me know :) Drewno (talk to me) 00:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy tagging
Hi. Thanks for tagging The Republic of Kyro - I have zapped it, but WP:CSD wasn't the right tag to use. That is rather a deceptively-named one, but the actual definition is quite narrow : "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material." It is really only for things like "#7('ZX%#^^kQ!@{" or "Yaaaaayyyyyy LOL!!!!!!" The right tag for that one was db-hoax. It's important to get the right tag, so that the author gets the right message to tell him what he did wrong, and also because if you can't find a suitable one, it probably means the page is not speediable. There is good advice for speedy taggers at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Keep up the good work - New Page Patrol needs all the eyes it can get! JohnCD (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, I hate A1. I disagree on your assertion that this a hoax, because a hoax infers that the falsehood is "masquerading as the truth."  I'll go along with A3, but on the grounds of vandalism, instead of hoax.  But either way... meh.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 20:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete my contributions regarding football club
Why do you tagging my contributions about korean football club? I took much times in order to create this articles. I'm not receive money form wikepdia and this is just my hobby. But wikepida employee like you delete contributions without care. If you do it. I'll leave English wikepdia. Put yourself in my shoes. I created manay aritcles for wikipedia and took much time without any reward. But layperson like you regarding football try to delete my contribution without care.

I think you want to delete my contribution Because you are ignorant of korean football history. But This articels don't have any fault and these football clubs very important of Korean Footblll History. So I created this aricles for wikepedia and sacrifice my spare time. These clubs are abosutlely notable, Just you are ingorant, You think that clubs are not notable. Refer to South Korean football champions. Please learn korean and read my article's korean wikipedia version. You can understaond importance of this football clubs. Please instead of tagging delete, Make Improve these article by yourself. YKorean version articles have all references. You can improve my contributions and help me.

Pfrd (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you delete korean football club, I also delete NFL clubs on korean wikipedia
I think you are typicial arrogant american and you are a big fan of Greenbay Packers, But as you know, American football and Greenbay Packers are popular only in USA. Especially, In korea, Everywon don't know American football itself. Continually, If you delete korean football club articels on English Wikipedea, I also delete NFL clubs articles on korea wikipedia and another country. Because NFL don't have notability except USA. Pleae respect that you don't know. Pfrd (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Please stop, take a few breaths, and relax.


 * I proposed the deletion of the articles in question because I believe they do not meet several of English Wikipedia's core policies. These are the policies on notability and Reliable sources.  Did you notice that there was one article in this batch of articles on Korean football teams that I did not propose deletion?  That article is Korea Tungsten Company FC.  Next, consider why I didn't propose deletion for this article?  What makes it different?  The answer is that the Korea Tungsten Company FC has citations to two reliable sources.


 * Please don't take my proposed deletions personally. "Notability" has a very specific meaning at English Wikipedia, and it is the core policy that specifies the criteria that a subject must meet in order to have an article here.  Notability isn't bad - I'm not notable, after all - it just means that if something isn't notable, then we don't have an article about it.  So how do we judge notability?


 * We use coverage by independent reliable sources to judge if something is notable or not. The thinking goes like this:  If something is notable, then someone will have written and published information on the thing.  The more people that write about it, the more notable it is.


 * I did not propose the deletion of Korea Tungsten Company FC because it has two citations to published reports. This is basic minimum level of notability for a subject here at English Wikipedia.  If you can improve the other articles to also have references to reliable sources, then they have just as much reason to be here as any other article.


 * A couple other things... First, it's not my responsibility to fix the articles.  The editor who proposes deletion is under no obligation to improve an article.  It's the responsibility of those who want to keep the article to improve it so that it meets Wikipedia's standards.  I'm sorry, but I'm not going to learn Korean.  It may surprise you, but I actually did check to see if there were any sources that I could find that would support the articles and I couldn't find any.  I'm an unpaid, volunteer editor, just like yourself.  I'm not paid by Wikipedia, and I have no more powers here than you do.  I don't have the power to delete articles, I can only tag the articles that I think are eligible to be deleted, so that administrators can consider the relevant policies.  I am ingnorant of Korean football, but that's not why I proposed that the articles be deleted.  I proposed that they be deleted because they did not cite any reliable sources to show their notability, and I could not find any relaible sources using the research methods available to me.


 * As for how I will proceed - I will wait a few days to see if you (or anyone else) can improve the articles by adding reliable sources to them to prove their notability. If this hasn't happened in a bit, then I will probably nominate them for deletion, a more formal process which is "arbitrated" by a Wikipedia administrator.  Again, the only reason I would do this is if they violate our Wikipedia policies by not showing that they are notable.


 * Finally, please do not make judgements about me, attack me personally, or threaten me. These are not civil modes of discussion.  English Wikipedia takes civility very seriously.  It's the only way anything can be accomplished in a huge group project like this.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 14:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Check out korean version of korean football clubs that you want to delete
Firstly, I created these football clubs on korean wikipedia. then I created and translated on English wikipidea. All Korean version have citations to reliable sources. Please check it all article's korean version that you delete. Editing is my hobby and it takes much time. So I skipped adding citation on English version.

Many NFL clubs' korean version don't have citation. But they are certain and English version have citation so Korean version are not need to citation. But if I delete NFL club articles, Only reason that article don't have citation, What do you think of that?

This is same case.

I'm very busy man, If I have a spare time, I improve this football club articles and adding citation and footnote on Englilsh wekipeida, This articles needs just improving, But you want only deleting Please wait or you improve article, you can do it Pfrd (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Rouse
Because it's more of a common sense thing here. Most (if not all) of the malls they own have articles, so it's probably a good sign that they are notable. There's also this, this among others. The company is brand new, so of course there isn't going to be a lot, but there's some. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair 'nuff.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 23:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Charles Wells (mathematician)
Hello Livitup. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Charles Wells (mathematician), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Professor emeritus is certainly enough to pass A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You do know that "Professor emeritus" simply means that they are are a retired professor, correct? It's no special designation and not indicative of notability... Professor Emeritus   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 20:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I know that in the US "professor" doesn't imply the same seniority that it does in Europe; but WP:CSD is a fairly low bar, and "renowned for his fundamental contributions to category theory" is a claim of importance. A7 doesn't require sources, though I did go and look at the University website to make sure he was real. Consider AfD if you like, but I think there's probably enough there for WP:PROF, though it needs better sourcing. JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough—though I still say "professor emeritus" is nowhere near enough to pass A7. Though in the end I can agree that "renowned for his fundamental contributions..." makes a claim of notability significance so A7 may not be appropriate anyway.  In the end, I did take it to AfD because I can't find scholarly notability no matter how hard I look.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 20:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:A7M, a guide by the very experienced admin which I often recommend, along with WP:10CSD, actually goes so far as to say that "is a teacher at a notable university" is enough to escape A7. I wouldn't go as far as that, but I think "Professor" (from a recognised University, with a capital P, and without "Assistant" in front), would give me pause. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was familiar with 10CSD, I had not read SoWhy's essay. I was aware of A7 judging significance, not notability.  I mistyped above and have corrected it.  I think several of SoWhy's examples set the bar artificially low, at least as per the unwritten consensus shown by the actions of other admins processing CAT:CSD.  I sense that you personally are a more narrow-interpretation admin, which I can respect.  I do appreciate your notifications, though I don't always agree with them.  However, considering the necessary ambiguity of even the most specifically worded CSD guidelines, the occasional disagreement is probably to be expected, and that's what we have PROD/AfD for.  Thanks for engaging in the conversation, though.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 21:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for correcting the deletion template. I was scrolling down to G3, and I accidentally clicked A1 instead of scrolling! Thanks for catching my mistake! Jeancey (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. :) Keep on patrolling!   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 21:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this too! Dreadstar ☥   00:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries again!  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 00:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I never worry. :) Dreadstar  ☥   01:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Advanced Distribution Server
Hello Livitup. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Advanced Distribution Server, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. B music ian  07:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Walk away Renée ! listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Walk away Renée !. Since you had some involvement with the Walk away Renée ! redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 18:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xuanyuan Jian: Tian Zhi Hen
I'll take you up on the offer to withdraw this nomination. —  C M B J  23:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Alexis Bachelot
Is now at Featured article candidates/Alexis Bachelot/archive1. Hope this goes well! Thanks again for all your help with it. Oh, and also: I hope you don't mind, but I listed you as a co-nom. Don't feel like you have to do anything because I put your name there though (unless you want to). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, it got promoted to FA! Wow, I am shocked this happened so quick. Thanks for all your help on it--a lot of the time the reason it takes so long to get promoted is due to a need for copyediting and so on. Hope we can work together again in the future! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was awesome. I'd be happy to work with you on another one... I remember you suggested something to copyedit next, but save me from digging through the archives and remind me.  I'll start working on it right away!  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 14:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a lot of fun. Sure is nice to have one go so smoothly. The other article that I had been thinking about was Elias Abraham Rosenberg, it's about the first recorded Jew in Hawaii--he was received much better than the first Catholics though. I imagine him as a Jackie Mason-type. It's relatively short, so I want to make sure the prose is solid. I think I've tracked down virtually all the sources there are on him, so I doubt I'll be adding much more to the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)