User talk:Xoloz/archive9

Why?

First of all There has been several atempts by people to create information regarding The Carebears.

13:08, 22 June 2006 Xoloz deleted "The Carebears Demo Crew" (A7) 12:58, 10 April 2006 JIP deleted "The Carebears Demo Crew" (content was: '#REDIRECT The Carebears (demogroup)' (and the only contributor was 'Nightstallion')) 08:33, 31 March 2006 Nightstallion moved The Carebears Demo Crew to The Carebears (demogroup) (WP:RM) (revert)

Everytime someone writes something about them it's geting removed. The CareBears where the biggest and most powerfull demo group for the atari ST. And it's a damn shame that there is no information about them on wikipedia..

Follow this link if u doubt me.

http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=the+carebears+atari&meta=

Can the text i wrote be restored?

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was really torn whether I should do it or not, but then I figured, "it's Xoloz... he won't care." It was fairly worthless though, and I readily admit it. But I figure we're allowed one or two "worthless" little edits every now and again, as long as they are between spans of highly constructive edits. Glad you found it acceptable! See ya. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the tfd notice, but it is still on TFD/June 4 and frankly people can't decide where it goes. IMO, it doesn't matter where it is. Kotepho 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see MFD being the proper place for it, but it is being used as a template so I can also see TFD as being the appropriate place. Where the debate takes place is of little consequence for the most part, and moving it around back and forth does nothing but confuse people. It is best if it is put one place and it stays there, or you end up with multiple listings on MFD and TFD. :|

My lack of a user page (or redirect) is by choice, for now. I didn't have anything particularlly useful to say on it in the first place, and it is interesting to see how people react to the red link. People seem to be quick to respond with some worthless aphorism such as "XFD is not a vote" or "WP:NOT a democracy" if I dare use the term "vote", for instance. Kotepho 17:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a long time ago! Tcatron565 00:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope you will consider supporting my if I have another RfA. Thank you for your comments. --digital_me^(t/c) 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history looks ok to me...in both the redirect and its target. Certainly, the log shows a number of (un)deletions by you, but it offers no currently deleted history and the existing revisions date back to 21 April 2004. I think you may have been bitten by a Mediawiki bug, probably along the lines of this different but symptomatically related one. Or maybe just a database belch. One thing I'm not sure about is your first deletion: deleted to restore per DRV content was: '#REDIRECT :Category:Games_with_special_editions' (and the only contributor was 'Lews Therin'). That edit no longer seems to be in the history, despite you doing an apparently complete restore - you didn't move something in between (why would it have been redirected to there?)? Also, I don't think it was necessary to delete the redirect anyway; surely it was enough to restore the history wholesale and then revert/edit. So I'm a bit confused, too, but seems to be ok now. -Splash - tk 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you deleted or block my other sockpuppet accounts User:EKN and User:MansaMusa? I don't want anyone else to leave a message there. QuizQuick 02:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Xoloz. There are actually a couple of (old) personal attacks on User:EKN so I’m wondering if you could delete those to prevent anyone from reverting. As for User: MansaMusa I didn’t really use the talk page, but maybe it would be more convenient to delete it in case anyone else requests and ends up using that username?

Thanks again. QuizQuick 02:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you closed the deletion review of Template:User CCP, a discussion in which neither of us participated. Your result was "keep deleted"; how did you arrive at that conclusion? My rough count of editors who expressed an opinion (at [1]) indicated there were slightly more editors in favor of keeping than of deleting. Such an outcome (majority keep, but not supermajority keep) is supposed to return the deleted item to its associated deletion process -- actually send it there for the first time, since in this case the original deletion was a speedy (citing the nonexistent T2 criterion, no less). Really, I don't care if this template exists or not; I'm just trying to understand how a "keep deleted" conclusion can be reached in this case. Vadder 03:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to know why that discussion was closed. By the vote count, that template should have been undeleted. Hong Qi Gong 16:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Qi Gong, you (and all other interested parties) might wish to see the response left by me at Vadder's talk page. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how the CCP's banning of Wikipedia should affect this, especially in light of the fact that plenty of other Userboxes for political parties are allowed. Wikipedia as a whole does not have political aspiration, right? The BBC continues to report on China in as unbias a manner as possible, even though it is banned in mainland China. Hong Qi Gong 18:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia likewise continues to cover China and China-related topics under its NPOV policy. The banning of WP in China, however, makes the issue of supporting or opposing its Communist government likely to inflame and divide the WP community. The point of CSD T1 is not to censor encyclopedic content (or user expression, for that matter), only to prevent contentious POVs from infecting the the template namespace. In many cases, I feel T1 is overextended to cover political and religious topics not commonly considered inflammatory; in the case of this template, though, China's ban of Wikipedia makes its government a topic likely to inflame editors' passions. I make this assertion objectively, as my evaluation of the consensus in the debate among established editors, and without intending myself either to criticize or to promote the goverment policy of the People's Republic of China. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misza13 ^{T C} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Misza13 ^{T C} 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed the following while browsing the deletion log "19:28, 7 June 2006 Cyde deleted "Template:User christian" (Moved to User:Xoloz/UBX/User Christian per WP:TGS)" May I assume that you adopted this cute little userbox? For information how to feed it, care for it and stop it from leaving feces inside templatespace, may I invite you to WP:TGS? And if you adopted any more boxes, may we hope to see them in a little archive? :) CharonX/talk 02:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message :). I turned in my mop for a lot of reasons, but mostly I just like being a normal editor, at least for now - others often get intimidated by me being an admin, so now I only have the weight of one editor :). Plus, I was getting PAINFULLY long e-mails from some people about blocks (I didn't even do that many, either) and I just didn't have time to even read them sometimes! That, along with the possibility of having my driver's licence photo stamped on Brandt's page was enough for me to take a least a temporary break from janitorial stuff :). RN 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I post a 3RR inviolation? ForestH2

This page was the subject of an Mfd discussion closed on 19 May 2006. The result was Keep by unanimous consensus. Xoloz 21:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, I don't usually check this talk page. Thanks for letting me know anyway, I had no idea it was going on, lol. (I have redirected Mr Ducky's talk page to my own) <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> theKeith  Talk to me  00:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadani sends his greetings and friendly smile to you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! And, all the best!

--Bhadani 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did a speedy delete on the J. W. Smith article earlier this evening. This is understandable as it was quite stubby, but aside from the {hangon} the Talk page did point to my note to the tag's originator (see here), indicating that the subject would likely pass notability ([[User_talk:Oberst#J._W._Smith|he agreed). The article was created as a new home for Smith-specific material in the economic democracy article - I didn't just copy over because I was unsure of the contribution-history implications for a section. I had just added the merge tags when you speedied, and was going to dig up some more info to add to make a less minimal stub. If you can undelete or restore the wiki-text for me, great, otherwise I'll recreate later this evening. - David Oberst 01:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Introduction/sandbox, could i ask you to delete these pages too (i just noticed them):

• Wikipedia talk:Introduction/sandbox
• Wikipedia talk:Quick guide/sandbox
• Wikipedia talk:Cheatsheet/sandbox
• Wikipedia talk:Tutorial (Talk pages)/sandbox

Thanks :) -Quiddity 18:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually mostly agree with you about being as open as possible. Unfortunately, here, stating that NSLE is deadminned is about as much as can be safely said. Maybe we should publish all old discussion logs after 10 years or so, like some nations do. Kim Bruning 22:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fundamental Surprise

X -
I'm uncertain about this one: Small article in breathless prose on a real topic or pseudo-advertising for noelogism? Of the external links on the page, one gives me a blank page and one doesn't have the words "fundemental suprise" in it. When I Google it the name "Lanir" comes up a lot, and this hit makes me suspicious. What do you think?
brenneman ^{L} 12:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you deserve it... BD2412 T 16:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping your reasons secret? What ever happened to your insistence that actions of admins be transparent? ;-) NoSeptember 16:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving the vegetarian userbox. Why was it deleted in the first place? :-) –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 06:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, the images are not PD. They are tagged incorrectly (WP:PUI#30_May) -Nv8200p talk 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xoloz

You forgot to put in the colon, so it's not in the user namespace: User Paul Martin/Hexadecimal metric system instead of User:Paul Martin/Hexadecimal metric system. I can't move it there because there is a redirect to this very article, that is, to Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system. That redirect meets the requirements for speedy deletion, I think, since the original article no longer exists (and the original article is to replace the redirect) and there is no notable edit history (it was automatically created when the article was moved to the main talk namespace). ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 18:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you have a moment, can you take a look at this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Wgit He has recreated articles that were speedy deleted, and removed numerous speedy delete tags that have placed on said recreated articles. He's a menace. Thanks. ---Charles 05:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick action on this matter. ---Charles 15:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Xoloz/archive9, thanks for your support during my recent request for adminship. It means so much coming from a veteran like you! I'm looking forward to adminship! If I goof up (which I very well could), please leave me a message on my talk page or e-mail me. I appreciate the feedback... Thanks again man -- Samir धर्म 08:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just a query about your interpetation of DRV closures, as you seem to do a few :) DRV seems to be one of the few decision making places that are based just on numbers, but when closing them, is that all you take into account? Or do you discount arguments that are addressing the original article, and not the debate? You can see my comment on the DRV talk page, about why I think the process may be broken if based on simple numbers, but right now, don't know what (if anything) could be done about this. Regards, MartinRe 10:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, your description of DRV as a fourm of "whether debate should begin again" is a good way of putting it, I guess I over focused on the ability of drv to overturn decisions, I reckon that's the engineer in me - looking for ways things might break so they can be improved. :) I think I should concentrate on "if it's not broken don't fix it" instead! (feel free to remind me of this if I weaken again!)

On an semi-unrelated note, I recently suggested transwiki to wikinews on an afd for an article containing a bio of a person involved in breaking news due to the amount of speculation contained within. (WP:BLP and WP:RS concerns) As in similar circumstances in the future, I'd suggest the same, for similar reasons, I decided to write up why I thought that creating articles immediately on previously unknown people was not a good idea, and that wikipedia should wait for the dust to settle before doing so. Hence, WP:DUST. Would you mind having a look and seeing whether it makes some sort of sense, or am I again looking for a problem to match a solution :) (hence why this is only semi-unrelated!) Regards, MartinRe 17:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the image at Image:Mnlicenseplate.gif with a picture I took myself (Image:MNLicensePlate2.jpg), edited to obscure my license plate number with a fake number. I'm not sure if you got in touch with someone at the state of Minnesota, but the old image is orphaned now, so it can be deleted. If you find out that we can use the state image, and if you think the state image looks better than the one I edited, let me know and I can have tonight's picture deleted. Otherwise, I'd just recommend deleting the state image and keeping my JPEG. --Elkman 03:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a brand new editor here at WP I just went through the Editing Tutorial earlier today. It seemed to clearly indicate a preference for highlighting dates with internal links and gave a specific format for doing so. However, when I was viewing the Recent Changes Log, I noticed one or more editors systematically de-linking dates. Since the editor(s) specifically mention the de-linking in their edit summaries it seems obvious that this is not vandalism or part of a revert war. Needless to say, I'm confused and I feel like I've missed an important point somewhere. I really don't want my edits to cause more work for another editor, so if you could take the time to clarify this (or point me towards someone who can), I would appreciate it. PS - I'm asking you because I've seen your work and have great respect for you, but should I have taken this to the Help Desk instead? Doc Tropics 03:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to provide such a lucid and educational response. Not only did you provide exactly the information I needed, your warmth and good humor left me smiling :) Regarding the suggestions you offered, I couldn't agree more! The community that I've encountered here is fascinating, and in many ways quite wonderful. I hope to contribute to that community by adding to content rather than controversy and my first tentative steps have been encouraging. Well...mostly encouraging. Since you posted to my Talkpage you might have noticed the entry directly above yours. Imagine my chagrin that a well-intentioned (but apparently, poorly worded) Thank You note should generate so much dialogue, even though the tone remained quite pleasant. That was exactly what I'm hoping to avoid since the time would have been better spent on an article. Still, your response really lifted my spirits, and I hope I can learn from your most excellent example :) Happy Editing! Doc Tropics 03:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sydney Roosters season articles have been in deletion review for 8 days now with no consensus on the deletion and little addition to the review for a few days now. Is it possible to have it finished up please. Cheers. Sbryce858 10:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the interest in removing Cancer Bats has ended. Avenged Evanfold 17:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have this one speedied? It unfortunately was missed out of the Justice Court MfD nomination, and is useless without its accompanying pages anyway. Kimchi.sg 13:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on this image has failed to make an appearance on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, so I removed the deletion tag. Also, there is no reason for deletion of the image, and it is a hoax perpetrated by the user who uploaded the original image in its place and does not like seeing his ugly picture replaced by a more beautiful one. Bromyne 13:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look at the talk pageof Polfboekstraat? I live in the neighbourhood of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. There is no such place called Polfbroekstraat. There is just a gang of people who want to rubbish English Wikipedia. Every minute this page is accessible is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Cotthem is no more than a green field and a circular road, which used to belong to the village of OOmbergen, now also part of Sint-Lievens-Houtem.

Sint-Lievens-Houtem has fewer than 10,000 inhabitants by the way. Have a look at its article. Have a look at the towns and villages in the same province in the info box there (until the moment when they rubbish those as well, of course). Note that Cotthem is mentioned as a hamlet (it was not even independent before the merger, but part of the village of Oombergen). What will convince you? A letter by the mayor of Sint-Lievens-Houtem? Could be done, by the way. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 19:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have two questions on expressing temp. in WP:

1) What is the proper format for expressing a range? ie, 700 C - 800 C (1292 F - 1472 F), or 700 C (1292 F) - 800 C (1472 F). I suspect the former is preferred, but I'd like to be sure.

2) How the heck do I insert the symbol for degrees? As you can see that it's missing from the above :(

You can reply right here whenever it's convenient, I've got you watchlisted. By the way...I'm only pestering you because you give good answers. "The reward for a job well done is...another job." Thanks in advance for your help :) Doc Tropics 20:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Xoloz/archive9,
Thank you very much for your support on my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuiviénen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xoloz, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks a lot for letting me know. I clearly misread G4, with the sentence "In case of a speedily-deleted page, they must also determine that it met a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place", silly me, of course when adding another CSD tag you ought to use the same one as before, otherwise it makes the admin's job that bit harder, and of course you can see in the deletion log if it's been deleted before. Thanks for taking the time to let me know. And with regard to the latter part of your comment, I have been thinking about it; I want to get my edit count up above 3000 first, and try and get a few more main space edits under my belt. --Wisden17 18:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to be a bit cheeky. I think what you added to my talk page was wrong! You said that you can use a G4 when something has been prod deleted before, WP:SPEEDY says otherwise "an article that was deleted as an uncontested prod and then re-created is not subject to this criterion, as the re-creation effectively amounts to contesting the proposed deletion.", going on to say that such cases should then be taken to AfD. I'm sure you just added that bit in to keep me on my toes, at least that's what I'll tell anyone who asks! --Wisden17 18:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my position on the Mediation Committee, I'm always reading policies, related to editing (so I can now say I know WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV backwards, of course I then have to add onto that guidelines and essays, as usually the only acceptable solution you'll get in a mediation is something that meets both policies and guidelines). --Wisden17 18:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure these should be deleted after blanking, hiding the history of old IFD discussions from non-admins. The person who tagged them for deletion also seems to be fine with just blanking without deletion. I tried to start a discussion at WP:AN, maybe you'd like to join in? Kusma (討論) 00:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. :) Well, I had assumed I was doing drudgery that no else wanted to do -- monotonous housekeeping, CSD G6. If the discussion veers the other way, I clean my mistake by undeleting them all! ;)

I guess it probably doesn't matter either way and nobody cares, but we keep lots of silly logs, so we might also keep these... Kusma (討論) 00:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I have taken the discussion to the IfD talk page, where it might be more on-topic than at WP:AN. And I have found a weak-ish reason to keep them. Kusma (討論) 01:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we want them undeleted (and I'm too lazy to do it myself, so I'll take you up on your offer above). Happy undeleting, Kusma (討論) 02:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, list of undeletes; these my fault. I'm working up a list of the previous 193 that were already delted when i got there. Can you handle those too? -- ∞Wirelain 02:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I had fun watching them delete as I was posting them ... list of the other 193 availible on request, it's big. -- ∞Wirelain 03:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must have done something terrible to Karma today. ;) Please, go ahead and give me the big list. Monotonous tasks are why wiki-gnomes exist! Xoloz 04:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I can put it on WP:DRV you know. (installed below) -- ∞Wirelain 04:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why waste other people's time? There is a marginal consensus to undelete, and I close many DRV's anyway -- I'll do it! :) I am your servant. Xoloz 04:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, none of those 2006 dates have happened yet... nothing to undelete there, I hope? Xoloz 04:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, i wasn't even looking, just parsing the redlinks out. Lol -- ∞Wirelain

1. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 10, 2005
2. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 11, 2005
3. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 12, 2005
4. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 13, 2005
5. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 14, 2005
6. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 15, 2005
7. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 16, 2005
8. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 17, 2005
9. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 18, 2005
10. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 19, 2005
11. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 20, 2005
12. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 21, 2005
13. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 22, 2005
14. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 23, 2005
15. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 24, 2005
16. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 25, 2005
17. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 26, 2005
18. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 27, 2005
19. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 28, 2005
20. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 29, 2005
21. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/August 30, 2005
22. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio_3
23. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 1
24. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 2
25. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 3
26. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 4
27. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 5
28. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 6
29. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 7
30. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 8
31. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 9
32. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 10
33. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 11
34. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 12
35. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 13
36. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 14
37. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 15
38. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 16
39. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 17
40. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 18
41. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 19
42. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 20
43. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 21
44. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 22
45. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 23
46. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 24
47. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 25
48. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 26
49. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 27
50. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 28
51. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 29

Um, NM! -- ∞Wirelain 04:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one way that I should ask User:Sunholm (formerly User:Sunfazer) to re-create her old account (which has not yet been re-created after her username was changed), then go to that page and edit it to place CSD tag, and it'll be done; than I nominated that page for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sunfazer's monobook.js. This is an owner's request for speedy deletion of it. I didn't notify her on her talk page first with this during the nomination. I'm going to contact her soon regarding the page. -- ADNghiem501 06:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting at my RFA. My Request was successful with 41 supports, 12 opposes and 5 neutrals, and even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. As an admin, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in the project namespace. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. -- mtz206 (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Xoloz,

good to see someone else helping to clear the CSD category from time to time. Hooray! Please remember, even though something's tagged as a speedy, we aren't always required to delete it. This is important in cases like this one, where speedying was not the ideal solution. Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment, can you please take a look at this guy? He keeps reposting the same article, again and again. It has been speedied twice, and he has now taken to removing the speedy tag and replacing it with a cleanup tag. I'm not sure what he thinks he's accomplishing, but he insists that he will continue reposting the same article "until someone gets tired". Well, I'm not tired yet, and I'm going to keep deleting the damn thing until someone stops him. ---Charles 17:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response on this matter. I neither wanted nor intended to get into a big edit war with this fella, but he really became combative and argumentative and I decided an administrator needed to sit him down for a while. ---Charles 18:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- I deprodded this and made it into a stub. Mangojuice^talk 04:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could you explain me how to proceed for deleting Stagecoach (movie)? Bye, --Dianai 11:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it would be delete because no one article links there, and it's only usefull if someone search the two worlds in the search box. But, I'll follow your advise, your reasons for not deleting are good. Thanks, --Dianai 17:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that anything that resulted from the discussion at Wikipedia:WOT is nulled because of where it took place? And that it has to be discussed in each individual talk page? That means we have to reach a consensus on whether the Iraq War is a part of the War on Terrorism in the Iraq War article, the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article, the War on Terrorism article, The War on Terrorism template, and the Theatres of the War on Terrorism article? Because this is honestly quite the silly proposition. The consensus reached through the discussion there applies to all of these articles, and was put into a neutral place for this reason. And in reality, it is an issue that would come up in many more articles than the 5 mentioned, must we have a discussion over this issue at every turn? I really dont see the logic behind it, and I would also contest that this was the consensus reached in the deletion request. Most people said keep, and further GTBracchus, and others stated it would merely impede efforts to reach a consensus to delete it, or to deprecate its results. Rangeley 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When an issue such as this effects multiple articles, the proper method of drawing together a forum for wide-ranging discussion is an RfC. Why? RfC is an accepted mechanism; every Wikipedian learns about it fairly soon after becoming an editor, and every Wikipedian knows where to find it. WP:WOT, by contrast, might have been a niche page, populating only by a small portion of editors lucky enough to discover it, either by chance or by the calculation of others. The page is still useful -- one chance reference points and arguments made there, as it has been archived -- but claims of "consensus" there are invalid, because there is no way to ensure all interested Wikipedians had notice of the discussion, as they would if it had been RfC'ed. Please begin an RfC to reach a binding consensus on the issue, if you still wish to reach a binding consensus. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I do honestly believe there was a consensus to do exactly what I did (because the number of folks saying "keep, but... ignore/nullify, etc.", when added to the deleters, equalled a consensus to deprecate), but even if there had not been such a consensus, I might have been compelled to enforce policy anyway. Discussions anywhere are fine, but for a major consensus on a major question, one must go to RfC (or a posted centralized discussion.) This was neither. Xoloz 12:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to unprotect anytime, I just didn't feel like a revert war over simple vandalism (and it was an AOL) and from the history it looked like that was going to happen -- Tawker 17:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<chuckle> re: Category:WikiP equalized with Commons Cats, I'd just tagged this w/o saving and running down and fixing the orphaned links from preview, when it came up deleted. Nice to be timely! (Reading minds maybe? <g>)

From the message here, I need input and advice:

User Xoloz (talk) deleted this article after you started editing it, with a reason of:

C1 content was:

This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: It is a category that has no items whatsoever in it, it has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

In fact, it was just renamed per Cfd and the BOT screwed up the matter (see my contribs the past 24 hrs for the dreary clean-up if you like. I don't recommend it, however! <g> That's why I was about to hang a {db-catempty} in it... the save attempt generated the message above.)

On the general practice of deleting categories showing 'zero pages' on en.wikipedia

See (just created) Category:Maps by century shown and the current few children. This is an interwiki project to rationally organize and categorize maps (now), and eventually other images across languages. It's been ongoing for about two months, but only recently has there been talk of initiating it as an official project. I've been involved a few weeks and only know a few 'players'.

I'd had three cats speedy-deleted last weeks, (four counting that one you acted on shortly after I'd fixed the templates) despite that they were showing images down from the The commons as they should... that's part of the goal. Arrange things so they have the same heirarchy on the sister project Wikimedia Commons as here. Such 'Maps holder cats' should never have anything but 'reflected' images from the commons once we clean up the maps here that satisfy copyright needs. The remaining (few) will of course occupy some niche here too, but the system does fine in displaying maps from both sister projects. This example category should never have anything but other categories... it's a navigation bridge, a node in a tree structure. It may some day have Navigational templates, but except by mistake, should never have a mainspace page here, nor a map either here or on the commons database and reflected here.

So... How the heck do we keep editors here from deleting such? (See the Category:Maps, and follow to the commons and see the heirarchy we're trying to port here as well; that'll give you a feel for the scope of the reorganization now starting to ripple onto this wikipedia. Other languages have a slight edge I think, one of the active editors is Dutch or German, another, British.

In any event, I'd like to get an solution because each speedy delete is really wasting (costing) three editors their time. The creator, the nominator, and the deleting admin. This time I added this comment inline as the top of the page: DO Not Delete if empty --Parent Category-- permanent category in new heirarchial interwiki system, -- questions: user:fabartus

Any Ideas better than that? Thanks // FrankB 20:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re your answer: Yikes! I'm very sorry... my lack of experience with commons makes me unsure whether there is anything I failed to notice in examining the category page that might have kept me from doing the unfortunate deed. Since I suspect there are other admins like me, I think the text warning you have suggested is an excellent idea. I'll add this to my long list of follies. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

NBD on that one since the BOT should have cleared it up save it got messed up in the logic of the templates. All is fixed now. The category reorg does need to have a project page soon. I'm composing a notification on Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion#Disappearing_categories (it'll be a few moments before it's finished... I'm linking to the above heading, so expect 'visitors') as I speak (<g>) about the matter. Hopefully that will stem the hemoraging. Best regards // FrankB 16:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I added this notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Disappearing_Categories on the matter. //FrankB 17:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to delete my account. I have two reasons for this. 1: I didn't get to contribute anything yet. 2: My brother logged into my account and started putting really bad stuff into Wikipedia. (Read my account's contribs if you need to). It can be safe to assume that my brother is a huge fan of Runescape (if you catch my drift) ;-). In my book, that kinda is vandalism. After deletion, I plan to create a new account and start fresh all over again.

If you cannot delete my account, I would appreciate it if you could give me alternatives on reversing everything my brother placed on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Webstergenius 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page for the sailing topic (search sailing). I included an embedded image (that I own). The page had the following content, which I think adds a lot to the sailing page. It doesn't have a lot of words, but it doesn't need them. In fact, the fewer words the better. But, it seems it was immediately marked for "speedy deletion." I don't get why? Please help!

The current page on sailing safety is inadequate.

Here's what I added:

Step 1. Yell MOB!

Step 2. Point at the person in the water!

Step 3. Throw things that float!

Step 4. Go on a beam reach (perpendicular to the wind).

Step 5. Tack the boat through the wind.

Step 6. Go on a broad reach (almost a run).

Step 7. Come up to the person in the water on a close reach.

Step 8. Stop the boat!

Finally, attach the person to the boat, then drop your sails and use the halyards, boom, and/or winches to get the person back in the boat.

<< image uploaded on the topic >> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jganz (talk • contribs) 17:28, 26 June 2006

• This is a newbie, and edit is in good faith. I've been sailing for thirty+ years, and the procedure is fine. I've advised him on his talk, so forget this one, unless you want to explain why and what happened. // FrankB 18:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest undeleting the page and making it a sub-page of sailing by moving to Sailing/Figure_Eight_MOB_Manueuver, and I'll monitor and help fix it up. I've already tipped him to make it a box offset to the margin, but the safety-section really has several such 'vignettes' pending. Short sub-pages seem to be a good organization of such. That's my two-cents anyway! // FrankB 18:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my brain-fart... I'll just recreate it that way now! // FrankB 18:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decided this was better title, and can hold several such procedures: Sailing/Man_Over_Board_Procedures. ttfn //FrankB 18:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, please, please: sailing topic (search sailing) is total idleness - if you wish to refer us to a specific article, create a Wikilink to it! The problem with this lot is that Wikipedia is not an how-to guide. I suggest you search sailing on Wikibooks and add to the articles there. -- RHaworth 19:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• RHaworth's been disarmed... he's a little too quick patrolling new pages for the best productivity, I would guess. The second time he's jumped in on me in something in early formulation. Seems to think things need to be perfect when first put up! <g> // FrankB 19:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(from user talk:RHaworth) Man are you quick! rv'd your {Wikibooks} see User talk:Xoloz for thread... User talk:Jganz (OK, your ball, new court) for what's going on! It's a sub-page of Sailing on safety.

You might try letting things go until they're a few hours old at least! <g> Nice to see you again anyway! // FrankB 19:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologise for the speedy action - I do like to give articles time. Just a few comments: see Wikipedia:Subpages - a / no longer indicates a sub page in the (Main) namespace. If Sailing/Man Over Board Procedures is a subpage, why is there no link to it from sailing? I still say it is Wikibooks material and pointing a newbie to Wikibooks cannot be considered biting them. -- RHaworth 19:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross posting to User talk:RHaworth: Because Jganz is a total newbie, and I was trying to give him some direction while complying with WP:BITE. Xoloz probably assumed vandalism, and being a sailor since the sixties, his safety focus is certainly on point with standard training. (See the list of other articles such a page can be referenced from on his talk! 'MOB' training is derigor in both sail and power boat courses.) I went off to fix-up a link (drift) in the intro paragraph I clubbed together, and when I got back you'd already tagged it for wikibooks. In sum, as a WP:Wc member, I was trying to lend a hand while leaving stuff for him to master and do. He'd already been bitten in a sense. No mystery. NBD either. Best! // FrankB 02:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't expect stuff to be perfect from the first version - but I expect it to be in the right wiki! My previous brush with Fabartus was over a matter of interwiki-ing to Wikisource. And again, Frank has not actually explained why he thinks the MOB article should be here rather than in wikibooks. -- RHaworth 08:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:SPUI/jajaja. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey X. Time to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saryn Hooks (second nomination), your procedural nomination. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem with your closures, just the form. Could you mention the result in either/both of your edit summaries? On a related note, people don't know what moribund means either, but I regard that as their problem. Kotepho 02:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: (not speediable, so prod) What about WP:SNOW? If someone removes the prod, must we go though the AFD? ---J.S (t|c) 06:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know SNOW isn't a policy. My only point is that there is never a chance that an article called "How to burn DVDs" would ever pass an AFD. It would be a collossal waste of time. Not only that, the article fails NPOV, NOR, NOT and likely a dozen other content guidelines. If I were to go though and remove all the un-verified material I could mark it DB Empty. Should I just do that? ---J.S (t|c) 21:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for deleting my account yesterday. I really appreciate it. And thank you for the help you gave me in that problem I had with creating a new account. I can start fresh now. And trust me, my brother will not do ANYTHING anymore. --walkingencyclopedia 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (The former Webstergenius)[reply]

I don't see how you managed to close a DRV debate and get a result that goes against policy. Cross-namespace redirects are disallowed for pragmatic and technical reasons. The only correct way to link to project space from article space is by using external links (see Wikipedia as an example). Remember, as admins, we are lot more than mere "vote counters": we need to do what's right for the encyclopedia. And avoiding self references is one of those things. --Cyde↔Weys 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against cross-space redirects, just a style guideline that can also be interpreted differently, see also my reply to Cyde on his talk page. Kusma (討論) 01:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is quite clear on this. Accusing me of "disruption" for deleting your blatant violations of policy is, further, incivil. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to disregard policy. Those redirects are either to be deleted or to be replaced with redirects to boldness, as per policy. That DRV decided otherwise merely proves that the DRV process is flawed. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you believe that a handful of deletion-obsessed process wonk on DRV can determine "consensus" for Wikipedia indicates to me that your logic and commonsense is so absent that it would be criminal of me to even pay any attention to anything you might say. Given that, I have decided to simply ignore you and your opinion on this, and on all other matters, until such time as you show signs of actual complex thought. Please consider a different pastime; you may find Agora Nomic more your style. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honey dearest, that wasn't reckless. It was deliberate. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is in response to the comment you left about a speedy delete of my talk page. I wanted to delete my user talk page (and my user page), for the following reason.

• I wish to leave wikipedia, and so, don't want any personal information which is tracable to my name.
• So I want to delete my user pages, because it reveals too much personal information via the history

Is it possible to delete both the pages for good, before I quit? siddharth 20:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm sorry to hear that you're leaving. Yes, under those circumstances, I will speedy both your user and talk pages. I will also indefinitely block your account, which is the functional equivalent of deleting it (we can't really delete accounts because we need a record of your contributions to articles for GFDL license purposes.) If you decide to return to us, either register a new account, or email me via the link here at Wikipedia (sidebar to my talkpage), and I will happily unblock you. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like how people are criticising you for closing a DRV. You closed a DRV, and the people in that DRV considered the "no cross-namespace redirect" guideline/policy/whatever when they made it. But you know what? Those folks seem to be the ones who would immediately develop a high blood pressure and possibly have a head explosion due to other people's actions on Wikipedia. I've said my piece, and if there comes a time that there is another central discussion about this, I'll gladly contribute, but my advice is to let the "NO CROSS-NAMESPACE REDIRECT!!!!" police get their knickers in a knot over rouge admins closing DRVs against policy while you sail away with no pressure. I said my piece, I disagree with them, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over where Be bold or Be Bold redirects to. I hope you won't stress too much over it either, because as far as I'm concerned, you closed DRV within process. If the "NO CROSS-NAMESPACE REDIRECT!!!!" police want to edit war with you, take the high road and let them win. Maybe being this laid back is not a good thing, but I've noticed that I've developed a lot of grey hairs over the past few months, and I'm trying to do as much as I can to stem the tide. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I also commented on Talk:Be bold, but I don't know how useful that's going to be. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, Xoloz. In my eyes, you're one of the good guys, closing tonnes of DRVs and *fDs, and I know you don't hold as much stock in these things as some of these other folks are. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petros471 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Petros471 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xolox. As you know, I'm also a fan of process, but I have to say that the "be bold" situation had several problems (not all of your making). The first and foremost one was that DRV was not the correct forum for the discussion in the first place, what an article redirects to is basically a content dispute, all *fd (and any corresponding drvs) should be concerned with is whether the article/redirect is kept or deleted. In that sense, the problem started with the initial rfd, as the closure was a little too vague. It might have saved some confusion if it was closed as "WP:ASR would point to a delete, but as this has been changed to "boldness" closed as keep" or something along those lines. In that sense, I'd agree with what Kelly said above, in that the choice of rfd closure was delete or redirect to boldness. The confusion continued when it went to drv, when the result was overturned - but if you consider that the rfd was closed as "keep" that should have implied drv said "delete", but instead drv focused on content, for which it is not designed. Flawed might be too strong, but I do think DRV has difficultlies when popular and policy collide as it's too numerical based.

In any case, DRV is about process, not content, so the DRV result should have simply returned endorse (keep), overturn (delete) or relist. It should not have been used to judge what content the article should contain, which was the mistake you made, I believe. I was disappointed with the rash words on many sides as well as the resultant edit and wheel warring. I'd also point out that prior to the wheel war, retargeting the redirect isn't an "administrative decision", so warning people on that basis wasn't justified.

For what's it worth, I think the rfd closure was correct (keep once the ASR concern was addressed) and the DRV closure should have been "Speedy close - DRV is not for content disputes" or "Keep endorsed, take content dispute to talk page". Hope this finds you well. Regards, MartinRe 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've still to reply to you apropos of Template:HurricaneWarning–you should, of course, fear that a note the completion of which has required better than a month will be exorbitantly long–and sundry other things, but I think I ought to leave a comment to the effect that, the specifics of this DRV aside (I'm not sufficiently acquainted with the matter to pass judgment), your work as an admin has been exemplary. There are plenty of us who appreciate the work of admins such as Friday and you properly to reconcile the dictates of Ignore all rules and Process is important and generally to recognize that an admin acts (or ought to act) ministerially, to interpret the views of the community and then to effect the outcome desired by the community. Even as I think the judgment you show to be exceptional, I appreciate very much that you don't consider yourself infallible (to the imprimatur of other editors given one is approved for adminship isn't an imbuing or reposing of omniscience, pace some tenured admins) and are disinclined to subjugate the expressed preferences of the community writ large to your own or those of "prominent" users. Good on ya... :) Joe 23:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't let anyone "disappear" you. I don't know enough about policy yet to be confident about whether you did the right thing on that DRV closing or not, but there was no call for people to beat you up on ANI the way they were. Administrators are some of the most experienced and trusted editors here, and they're supposed to set a better example than that, y'know? Just take the valuable input to heart, and let the rest of it roll off your back. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xoloz,

Thanks for your message.

I'm in a bit of a quandry this whole thing, because Kelly is right about the issue of the redirect: cross-namespace redirects are conveniences for editors, created out of laziness, that are in many cases potentially confusing. They do the encyclopedia no good, so it is very disappointing to me to see so many people defending them. Much is made of the fact that WP:ASR is only a guideline, but I don't think much of the tendency among many editors to say "it's just a guideline" to justify things with no purpose. I don't think administrators, or anyone else, should encourage this tendency. (The situation is muddied, I admit, by the wishy-washy wording at WP:ASR, but established practice has been to get rid of article-to-project redirects for some time.)

All that being said, Kelly may not always be right, and her agressive approach breaks down if she isn't. In principle, DRV decisions should be allowed to stand when they are reasonable.

But I still think DRV was misused here. There was a valid RfD vote, based in Wikipedia guidelines, good sense, and the goals of the project. Then DRV overturned this decision based on none of the above. So now you say there should be a new RfD... why? What was wrong with the first one? And that's where the misuse comes in—there was no new evidence, it was just different users with a different opinion on the same issues. I do not think their views, though more recent, are a more valid expression of the will of the community—in fact, I think they may be less so, because the regulars at RfD know the community-endorsed guidelines for redirects and generally base their decisions on them.

I think to remain useful, DRV must stick to its mission of reviewing possible errors in process or new information. It cannot be allowed to become a general re-run of *fD or to re-interpret established guidelines and practice.

SCZenz 08:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no excuse for anyone to be rude to you, I agree absolutely and unequivocally on that point; it's more important than the rest of what I have to say, but here go my arguments anyway...

You can't claim that because you were following consensus in a specific forum that you bear no responsibility for your interpretation and execution of that consensus. I read your comment on MartinRe's page, and I have to say I still think you ought to have taken into account that the grounds for review were questionable; in particular I'm not happy to hear that your justification for acting was that DRV-users decided on DRV-talk that the issue was under DRV pervue—that sounds to me like exactly the sort of turf-expansion that worries many about DRV. Whether or not DRV is nominally superior, as a review it comes after other decisions and so supersedes them; if it can review anything for any reason, it really is acting as a "Supreme Court." -- SCZenz 15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to come with the *cheery wave* and the *how's it going* but your talk page tells me I've missed some fireworks. Now I must go dig through the wreckage... Oh, yes: *cheery wave* *how's it going*
brenneman ^{L} 08:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chinese Pig. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Hey Xoloz, I'm sure you check out DRV on a regular basis, but you close so many things that you probably need a reminder that this was yours. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hope that you realize that I was simply reusing the language of the parent comment and I have no desire to kill anyone, or for that matter see harm come to anyone. Apologies if this was unclear, Mackensen (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, you may wish to keep an eye out for NorseStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the creator of Multinut. I gave him a 24-hour block for vandalizing SCZenz's user subpages; he turned on him after SCZenz deleted that article (first time around). Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ben Shuldiner. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. I seem to be sending you a lot of these. In any case, you speedied this as a recreation of previously-deleted content, so this DRV might be of interest to you. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok your a admin so perhaps you'll know. I was thinking of proding Beta's last 24 edits or so because of notabilty concerns. Should I or should I just hold off for right now? BJK

You recently closed an AfD on Star Jones Reynolds. I just wanted to mention that there have been some edit wars on that page, and it might be worthwhile for someone like yourself to take a look at the history. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Jones_Reynolds&action=history Regards, --TruthbringerToronto 01:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xoloz, you stated that there was consensus re the decision you give. But what do you define as consensus? I did not agree with the criteria for Notability that you stated was decided on. I gave long argument and WP neutral verifiable citation that strongly suggests that the NZ Trubunial was an opinion but not all opinions and Philosophos also agreed that the subject was Notable in itself. But the point is what is the basis that you say there was consensus on? Up to this point we had been continuing on the basis that consensus meant all people agreeing - did you use your authority to change this? Please clarify. Thank you.--Richardmalter 05:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm a bit confused at your request. I had nothing to do with the original AfD at Bi-Digital O-Ring. My decision regarded the later AfD on Dr. Omura, to which the O-Ring is now redirected. That debate, on Dr. Omura, had a clear consensus to keep the article also. The O-Ring was redirected there to consolidate: that is an editorial decision outside the scope of AfD. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply; I was only referring to the later most recent Dr Omura debate. You gave a decision that says that There is a consensus that Dr. Omura is notable for the controversies surrounding his "treatments", although the merit of these treatments is highly dubious. This ignores me, one of the major contributors to the discussion and also another contributor recently, and even Crum375 at one stage (who I quoted on the talk page to highlight this) and also two other contributors previously (that you can find in the Talk page). I had argued very recently, and Philosophos agreed, that Omura/BDORT were notable in themselves (ie not dependent for the reasons you concluded). There was not concensus as you stated. This make a big difference because it affects the POV of the article. If the premise is that the controversy and highly dubious comments are what give Notability, then the article will of course be arranged accordingly. Conversely, if Omura/BDORT are Notable in themselves, the order will be simply a 'What, When, Who etc' basic encyclopedic entry, followed by other sections that characterize debate etc. --Richardmalter 01:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Well, I think you can rest relieved. Under deletion policy, I am fairly constrained to consider the course of the debate at the AfD, and cannot give much (if any) weight to talk page comments. This is what I did. However, my comments at the AfD are not at all binding on the course of the article; AfD only concludes whether an article should be kept or deleted (sometimes together with a limited set of options of the type of keep to be employed: eg. Merge, Redirect, etc.) I stand behind my rationale because I do believe it is the reasonable thing to conclude impartially from the AfD debate, but my remarks on Dr. Omura's repute are not at all binding -- I was only explaining how I came to conclude that the article should be kept. In a way, my remark was a "worst-case senario": even if this man is a charlatan, he still belongs in our encyclopedia. Now that the article has been kept, it is up to you and other editors more knowledgeable on the subject to flesh out on the talk page how credible (or not) the doctor is, based on evidence available. In that endeavor, my comments are utterly irrelevant -- and if anyone says differently, do feel free to quote me on that. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 05:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. I follow what you say easily. Best regards.--Richardmalter 12:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, hope you had a good holiday. Another question for you please, re this entry, re the liability issue of WP. If I have a man, A, the subject of a WP entry, who has an invention, A-I, for which he makes big claims, which are very contentious, is a) writing in the format, ". . .according to A, A-I can detect men on mars with a candy bar", or b) "A-I can detect [the same claim]. These claims have not been scientifically proved", either, or, and, both OK viz WP liability? ie do we have to follow every description or variation of the claimed invention, A-I, immediately by a disclaimer, or is basic phrasing like "according to" OK? Or do we not have to worry at all as long as it is clear that we are just describing not advocating - which is just basic descriptive language, eg "the Flat Earth society convenes twice a year and discussed flat earth issues" [no disclaimer]? Thanks.--Richardmalter 10:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just based on your userpage, I have to say... I like you. Good going, man. DS 12:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the page concerning rapper Kenn Starr. And next time read the article and do some research before redirecting.

I know the person attempting to place an article at Kenn Starr is not Kenneth Starr; but Kenn Starr the musician is not notable, and has been deleted; the redirect was for plausible misspelling, nothing more. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually spend much time on WP:RFD but something compelled me to look there tonight. I found a trend there which I consider quite disturbing - a number of discussions seeming to be highly selective in their application of Wikipedia:Redirect. At the risk of asking you to again tempt the morass of this cross-namespace debate, could I ask you to look over the page and to see if there are any discussions where you feel it appropriate to comment? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent makes policy, and if enough people believe something it becomes true in Wiki-space. If it's ok to push the issue like this is an open question. - brenneman ^{L} 07:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Don't forget when deleting articles that have been AfD'ed to close out the nomination once the deletion is completed - ref Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The Kimberworth Treeswing, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United States/79kb and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United States/60kb. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Fourteen Worlds Theory page has been nominated for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. Tag was removed, so I put it up for AfD. since then, the AfD page had been repeatedly vandalised. I ask that you put an end to the silliness. Thank you. --DarkAudit 01:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently hostility towards inclusionism isn't dead, despite predictions it was, circa December 2005 when people were urging Kappa to run for adminship again. Badlydrawnjeff's RfA reminds me in everyway of Kappa's first RfA; overwhelming support to start out with, then a deletionist casts an oppose vote solely based on politics, and then a minority large enough to break consensus joins in. What do you think of the matter? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting! Hello Xoloz/archive9, and thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I'm pleased to announce that it passed with a final tally of (96/0/0). I was overwhelmed by all of the nice comments and votes of confidence from everyone. Thanks again, and see you around! OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping my dear Xoloz is doing fine, I'll just drop my entire load of flowers in these corner to cheer his Talk Page up... and him in the process! :) Big hugs, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Happy Independence Day :) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet mother of corn on the cob! I just looked at the history of WP:DRV/Recently Concluded. I think you should 1) Get a big pat on the back for doing all these, and B) Make sure the rest of of slack bastards do our jobs. You're too valuable a resource.
brenneman ^{L} 00:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xoloz, old friend, Just a note to say hello. If you'll check my userpage you'll see I've been away for awhile. I just wanted to keep up contact. In spite of my serious disillusionment with wikipedia, I have always found you to be a worthy individual, the kind the republic needs.

wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 02:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How will eagerness and "3 noms in 6 months" affect me as an admin, if I become one? I've already withdrawn because I knew the nom wouldn't get anywhere, but I'd like to know the reasons. RfA and the standards for adminship seem to be getting tougher every day, to be honest. Schzmo 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour

I've just discovered that the above page wasn't deleted by you (I'd requested the deletion) because "G8 not applicable; redirect at that name exists". I see that the redirect has two pages linked to it, neither of any importance. What do I do next? Undo those links and request that the redirect and its talk page be deleted, or what? Can you point me at anything that gives guidance on this sort of stuff? I'm not enormously well-versed in wiki-intricacies. Best. --GuillaumeTell 18:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I can see the point of retaining a record of what happened in the past, obviously. --GuillaumeTell 09:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jim Weathers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. (The article has had a colorful history. I'm posting this message to the last two admins to delete it - apparantly it was two different articles.) BigDT 22:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) Syrthiss 13:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol it was only 7 minutes! Can I help it if my wikibreakbreak just was well timed? However, I shant be checking DRV while you are away as I am still drowning under tsunamis of work in real life (hence my extremely poor showing in contributions for June and July so far). Syrthiss 15:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for voting on my recent request for adminship, which did not succeed by a vote of 3/14/3. Not to worry, though; I am far from disappointed. The vast majority of the votes, even those in opposition, were quite positive. To be honest, I was not expecting it to succeed, and nominated myself on a bold spur-of-the-moment decision. Apparently, I'm not quite as experienced as I thought I was--I was sure I registered in February rather than April--but never fear! Emc² said it best: "Besides, you don't need to be a sysop to write good articles." I'll just continue doing what I'm doing, and perhaps I'll see you again in three months' time. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i hope you can take part in the deletion review debate for the above metadata template (it puts a star on the article's mainpage, and as you voted in the original deletion review debate i thought it might interest you that there is now yet another one). the vote is here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8 (scroll down for Template:Good Article section). thanks. Zzzzz 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xoloz. Sorry for the tardy response, I have been away for a few days over the weekend. It looks like one of the DRVs in question has been closed already. The other bulk nomination by Rossami I have commented on fairly pointedly and so would prefer not to close it for now. DRVs like that, when I was handling most/all of them, I usually just allowed to lie for such a period of time that either someone came only pseudo-randomly and did it, or long enough that I could justify closing it myself. That particular one is easy enough to deal with though, so perhaps it can be dealt with sooner than later. Hope you're well. -Splash - tk 12:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally completed my reply to your astute note apropos of the deletion discussion over the above-entitled template. Inasmuch as I took nearly two months to complete it, you should be altogether concerned about its exceeding length and periphrastic nature. In all seriousness, I must apologize sincerely and profusely for my dereliction; it was borne out neither of my being uninterested in your e-mail nor in my generally being less-than-collegial. Rather, I undertook a few projects here that consumed more time than I'd expected them to, and I worked on them, in my obsessive way, to the exclusion of all else. To be sure, there's no excuse for my dalliances, but I hope you'll not think me a total jerk. Lest your talk page should immediately exceed the recommended size, I've e-mailed you my reply, so I thought I ought to alert you in order that, whilst on vacation, you should not miss my e-mail be sure to set your spam filter in order that you shouldn't have to see my note. Hope the vacation is enjoyable... Joe 03:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 00:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xoloz/archive9, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka 07:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]