User talk:Xoloz/archive10

I'm also back from my extended wikibreak...hopefully...unless the proposal rears its ugly head again. Its nice timing too, since Jul 15 was my 1 year anniversary. :) Syrthiss 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, I'm back...thanks for your well-wishes! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 04:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an RFC against this user, for which his talk page was part of the evidence of his disruption. In light of this, the request to "vanish" and pop up under a new username seems like an attempt to evade the consequences of past behavior. Just wanted to pass this along, since a concern about this and your deletion was raised on my talk page. Postdlf 23:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on Wikipedia processes, but I would think it's one thing to vanish -- which everyone should be entitled to do -- and another to start from a clean slate with your disruptive record expunged. If he's going to start editing under a different username, then the RfC shouldn't be moot, unless anyone can evade the consequences of their behavior merely by creating a new account. I agree with Postdlf's observations above. --Gary Will 00:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on your comments ... to me, it makes no sense that anyone in the middle of an RfC or other administrative proceeding can make it all go away just by creating a new username. This view is supported by Wikipedia guidelines which say "Where there is no significant abuse and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page be deleted" and "as a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted." See Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? The only reference to right to vanish that I can find refers to users who have used their "real name, or a longstanding pen name," which isn't the case here. If you can start fresh at any time, then blanking your talk page should always be an acceptable edit, which it isn't. --Gary Will 00:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm confused by what you're saying, so I'll need you to help me understand. You say WikiRoo is banned permanently, but then you talk about him making a fresh start. It can only be one or the other. Is he banned or not? If he is, then I agree that this is the harshest penalty possible, and further discussion is pointless. But then why the discussion of "fresh starts," if he is, in fact, permanently banned? If he's now allowed to continue under a different username, then he isn't vanishing, he's just changing names ... again. But since you've said you have no problems restoring the talk page, if you could do that, then in one stroke that solves all my issues. Thanks! --Gary Will 03:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect I think you may have assumed too much good faith. I don't believe WikiRoo meant to "start fresh". See [1] - looks like he just wanted to delete his talk page. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your optimism is inspirational. As he seems quite upset about the matter, I'm going to leave him a message on his IP's account explaining what happened. I think it's best to convey the nature of disappearing - if he's upset enough he may just use one of his other accounts to vent some of that frustration. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems now that he has no wish to take part of Wikipedia at all and has requested his IP to be "vanished": [2] - how does that work when a user requests his own IP disabled? Do we honor that? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, I was thinking something along those lines was probably the case, and just wanted to check. I'll let him know. Cheers --AbsolutDan ^(talk)

Just when I was starting to get ready to dive in there. Of course, since I'd raised most of one day I couldn't close that one, could I? *wink wink* There is some discussion on WT:DRV about a slight tweak to the way these could be closed that it would be good to have your input on. Always nice to have you back.
brenneman ^{L} 23:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey, that was fast! ^_^ - brenneman ^{L} 00:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Where's your source for him dying on 11 July? That was a Tuesday. He was reported as dying "on Monday", which would be either 17 July or 10 July. Recent deaths and his own article now both say 17 July. If you have an alternative citation, I'd love to see it. Cheers JackofOz 01:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(he died monday; first reported today (first time))

Thanks for making this page move, Xoloz. I didn't want to be the one to update 3,000+ wikilinks! Happy editing! :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except I do not have time at the moment, as it might take me a little bit of explanation and time. If nothing has happened by tomorrow evening, I will close it (although perhaps beforehand if I get lucky and have a few minutes. Been awhile since I've been around DRV. Ahhh... good times. ;-) Thanks for the note, and for thinking of me. For reference, is there more to it than the DRV page and the RfDs? I thought I recalled seeing this on AN or similar. Am I mistaken? Thanks. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's what it was. I knew I remembered something of the sort. And I don't mind being "threatened". Seriously, who wants to mess with a dark lord??? ;-) If I get a chance, I'll do the deed mañana. Thanks again. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I read this correctly this was a joint nomination and Decade should be deleted as well, since the AfD tag at Decade points at the closed Blue Canoe AfD page. ~ trialsanderrors 21:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xoloz. I write to you for being both an administrator and an expert in History. I would apreciate your help moving the article Portuguese-Galician to Galician-Portuguese, as this medieval language is widely known. I have bibliography and references for the change in Talk:Portuguese-Galician. I have asked another administrator before but he seems to be inactive. Thank you for advance! --Garcilaso 11:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have clarified my position on my talk page. Once again, if you see no harm in it, please remove my UserPage. 1652186 13:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Here is my reply:

Great but the criteria mentioned implausible errors:Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects that were created recently: Redirects as a result of an implausible typo that were recently created. and portest seemed implausible and was created recently. Anyway if you want to keep it, no problem. Dr.K. 01:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can other people close out AfD noms, or is this left up to admins? You can reply on my talk page if you prefer. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Goldman (actor) is a patently false article implying that a journalist is an actor and not a journalist. It is a pure fiction and should be a speedy delete. Kramden4700 03:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the man is not an actor, and the James Goldman (actor) article immplys that he is an actor who is playing the role of a newscaster. The whole thing is vandalism and should be a speedy delete. Kramden4700 03:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

On User talk:1652186, you wrote : "There has been incivility on each side of this dispute, so I would advise Mr. Verhelst to look after himself before admonishing others."

Could you please point to my incivilities ? I feel that I will going to need to change my style of contributing and debating, so I would be pleased if you could help me, showing me my contributions that were incivil. Thank you. --LucVerhelst 12:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice on my talk page. It's just that in my experience, letting bullies go ahead isn't the best strategy.

Thanks. --LucVerhelst 19:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why you delete the myg0t talk page? G8 doesn't qualify

1. Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere or notes that would help in creating an article. User_talk pages are exempt from this. Subpages (including archive pages) are only deletable under this rule if the corresponding top-level page does not exist.

it did contain deletion discussion and notes that would help in creating an article

now restore it. 12:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ze" or any other gender-neutral pronoun is equally good for referring to me, as far as I'm concerned. I don't really care which gender-neutral pronoun people use for referring me, but since it seemed easier for me to pick one than to explain that, I went with "they" since at least it's already an English word, and using it to refer to specific people who don't identify as male or female, when it's already used to refer to a person whose gender is unknown, seems less of a leap than introducing new words into the language. Thanks for the words of support. Catamorphism 15:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think there may be more to the The Gnostic Movement Incorporated debate than you were led to believe when you deleted it.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gnostic Movement Incorporated. 999 pushed through a speedy delete inappropriately. See my comments on the AfD page. 999's AfD and editing behaviors are beginning to appear as POV-pushing, especially when you look at his other AfDs. While "The Gnostic Movement Incorporated" was problematic (I recommended deletion in the normal AfD timeframe), 999's bypass of AfD's deliberative consensus processes is troubling.

999, the nominator, pointedly avoided giving the author notice of the AfD, in spite of specific comments about this in two earlier AfDs he started:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual transmutation
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnostic Movement

Per WP:CV, CSD for copyright only applies in narrowly defined situations inapplicable to this article. 999's response to my concerns this were disingenuous. The website allegedly plagiarized was not making money selling content on the web. They do sell some books, not web content, as a sideline.

This all happened so fast I hadn't even finish typing my response to them before the article was gone. I never even had a chance to compare infringing text.

I'm not complaining about your actions. The guidance given admins and Jimbo Wales' note instruct admins to process CSDs quickly, relying on others' good faith and neutrality. Admins must rely on the the nominators to be neutral in tagging CSDs, using them only in open and shut cases in careful compliance with the rules.

I'm concerned more about abuse by 999 and preventing its repetition than resurrecting the dead. Wikipedia is about consensus, not one-man juries. This editor is building a high edit count and may soon become admin himself; if my growing concerns about his modus operandi are correct, that would cause headaches for his fellow admins and real problems for rank and file editors such as myself. (Caveat: I'm very cautious about new admins, as my RfA votes probably show.)

I decided to experiment with checking a few Afds at random as a "good citizen" the other night. Call it self-inflicted jury duty -- I've wasted hours on gnosticism-related deletions since and have no more time to devote. I'd appreciate your reviewing this matter and taking those next steps you deem best for Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community. Thanks, --A. B. 20:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS this is not a rush request. Give it a look when you have time.

--A. B. 21:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to delete. In fact from the date of the relisting for further review (on the 15th) there was no further discussion. The original AfD was KEEP. The review was conducted and completed in the middle of (my) night, giving me no opportunity to respond. The attackers have no response to my statements. They just keep repeating the same lies with which they started. This article is based on previously published, reliable, secondary sources. And this person is notable in our local history. The article should not have been deleted. Wjhonson 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically one or two editors lied through their teeth, knowing that she was indeed verifiable. They don't like her because she is *hard* to verify, not because it's not possible. The sources which verify her, are of local scope and not wide distribution and she has not yet received wide-scale (nationwide) interest. She gets very few google hits. However there is no, and the editors knew there was no, claim on verifiability grounds. They just lied and others reading the log believed them, because they concluded it while I was sleeping and unable to respond to the attack. The further opening and review found *zero* further attempts to vote against the article. The discussion was moribund because they knew they were wrong. Modern tests should not be used on persons of historical interest. Thanks for your time. Wjhonson 02:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the original Afd in chronologic order you will see that I stated my sources, I even stated where they might be found, which exceeds any wiki standard. The offending editors did not bother to find out, they did not check anything. They simply kept repeating that the sources were only in my possession, which they knew was not true, because I had stated the publishers and names, etc. I also stated several times after multiple "I dont see any claim of notability" exactly what the notability was. And again in the review, they repeat "non-notable" without any attempt to state what my claim had been. Basically they tried to re-factor the case, and hustle it through when there would be no one to defend it. The original Afd on the *same arguments* found KEEP. These arguments were not new, they were the same. They pestered that closer, until he reopened and then rushed the review. Thats just not acceptable practice. Wjhonson 03:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to request the review, and I'm afraid the same antagonists would once again descend to attack. So if you could tell me how to relist the article for review I would appreciate that. Wjhonson 05:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what's back? --Calton | Talk 07:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now what's wrong with my redirect? It's prefectly acceptable. Wjhonson 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every source in my article is secondary. Every single one. These are all previously, published, secondary sources. Can you point out which one is not? Thanks. Wjhonson 15:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm using editions of the primary sources. Not the primary sources themselves. The editions themselves are secondary sources, discussing the primary sources. The newspaper items are extracts published by a local historian. The census are in book form published by a genealogical company. So they are secondary sources. Wjhonson 16:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the mere act of questioning a source is sufficient to deny its wikiclusion, then what would stop a malicious editor from questioning every source they themselves have not seen? Surely you have to agree that the mere opinion of another editor "questioning" cannot be the basis for the deletion of an article.Wjhonson 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You admit you "don't know how to distinguish" between the two situations. And yet you use your inability to distinguish as a positive club to beat people like me senseless. And you support this by WP:RS where actually the discussion of obscure sources does not seem to support your position. WP:AGF seems to dictate that editors should not be called "liars" simply because they use obscure sources, wouldn't you agree? And yet I've been called a liar multiple times in these AfD's, simply because I specialize in obscure sources. If you read my User page you will see that. My expertise is in the use of obscure and yet reliable sources. Will you now agree to unprotect and allow further discussion of this very notable person? I have about 20 emails on her to answer from various historical groups who are clamoring for more information. Wjhonson 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing your statement that the census cannot be used as a source here in case you want to join the discussion. Wjhonson 18:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use the census citations alone. I used them to back up other statement made in previously published secondary sources. Again I cited many secondary sources in my article, the primary citations were used to back up those statements, not alone. Wjhonson 20:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as I have stated, every claim *can* be verified by reliable sources. An editors opinion about whether a source is reliable, when that editor has no knowledge whatsoever about the source, is WP:OR and should not be used as evidence in a review. Wjhonson 20:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the Snohomish Tribune newspaper is not a WP:RS ? Wjhonson 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I note a revision in your userpage indicating your college choices. Consider this a gentle prod from a like-minded admirer that you might wish to add Harvard among them. I'm quite certain, given both your intellect and your unusual background, that you would be a formidable candidate, and a benefit to the University as well. I would gladly pay your application fee myself. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; that's quite a compliment (and quite an offer). The only downside about Harvard is that it does not offer a degree in civil engineering, my intended major. And before you say MIT, I have to say I'm looking for an all-around, instead of specialized, school (if only they combined MIT and Harvard...). Perhaps I'll apply to one of two schools anyway (although I couldn't possibly accept your offer). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvardian aspiring engineers often choose physics, math, social studies, or sociology as their "concentration" (unfortunately, some small vestiges of elitism do remain at Harvard, and the curricular vocabulary is one: we don't have "majors.") Much flexibility is also given to undergraduates in designing their own course of study, so you may make the civil engineering curriculum for yourself, in consultation with a faculty advisor.

Your suspicion regarding our friends on the other side of Cambridge is correct: M.I.T. really is as frighteningly dull as is reported (for those people who have any interest in the humanities, anyway.)

My offer stands; should you decide to apply, a visit to Cambridge is always best, and I can see about arranging for an especially friendly person in the admission office to handle things. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 04:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you went to Harvard (still there?)... that answers a lot. I have visited Harvard on many occasions (note the second sentence of the bio on my userpage) and went once last August in a prospective student state-of-mind. Surprisingly, you have convinced me to apply to Harvard, especially since it looks like the school's application won't amount to a whole lot of extra work for me because Harvard uses the Common Application. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given he grew up near Boston, i think its time for him to spread his wings. He can't go wrong with his current choices. David D. (Talk) 04:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... if only you knew...

• Me: Grew up in Boston, moved to (metropolitan) Washington, DC
• My Uncle: Grew up (and studied) in New York, moved to Washington, DC, studied in Charlottesville, Virginia at the University of Virginia, moved to Boston
• My Mother: Grew up in New York, studied in and moved to Boston, moved to Washington, DC
• My Sister: Grew up in Boston, moved to Washington, DC, studied in Charlottesville, Virginia at the University of Virginia

My family is trapped... spread my wings indeed. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Xoloz! It was very unexpected, and an absolute pleasure for the recognition. It especially means a lot to get a Tireless Contributor Barnstar from someone I consider to be the very epitome of a Tireless Contributor. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to the article Kittie May Ellis. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the mediation, and indicate an agreement to mediate within seven days. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kittie May Ellis, and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation.

Your protection of the page is blocking further review. If you don't want to be a party you can unprotect it. Wjhonson 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't G4 I had it tagged underconstruction and I was actively editing it when you deleted it. It seems like WP:AGF should require you to have given me time to actually finish my edits before you deleted. And as you can tell I have no idea how to actually *do* the things you're suggesting. I'm only slowly figuring out how to fill in this mediation information and probably screwing it up. So I have no idea how to request another review or whatever you're stating. The pages give very lousy examples for people to learn by, which is why its taking me two hours just to do this one. Wjhonson 04:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't going to make much difference it you're going to insist that published extracts of government documents, non-eye-witness news reporting, and sources you may not have heard of, are not secondary and WP:RS. The posters at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources seem to think that those sources are reliable and secondary. Unless you want to rebut what they said. Wjhonson 04:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The opinion of an editor who has no knowledge of a source, as it whether it is a WP:RS should not be the basis for deleting an article. A grading of a source as a WP:RS should be based on the other WP:RS, not on editors opinions. If an editor feels that a source is not a WP:RS they should obtain a citation which states that. If during an Afd for Review, there are opinions stating that something is not a WP:RS the closing admin should disregard those *unless* the poster can confirm their opinion using a WP:RS
• A newspaper reporter, reporting events, that he/she was not an eye-witness to, should be considered a secondary, published and WP:RS
• Extracts of government documents, published by third-parties should be considered as WP:RS
• This article was deleted based on a claim of non-verifiability, without any attempt being made to determine whether the sources were actually verifiable. The mere fact that some sources are hard to verify, should not preclude their being used if they are the only or most pertinent sources available for the task.
• This article was [hangon] and [underconstruction] with active editing at the *time* it was deleted. No attempt was made to allow me time to correct the stated flaws.
• And finally WP:AGF should dictate that I was making an attempt to make the article *more* verifiable and it should not have been deleted.

Wjhonson 04:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

Care to explain the situation and the reasons for the speedy delete? I read the article on the deleted log and found no main problems with it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two deleted versions. One was deleted one day into the deletion review by User:Deathphoenix. The second one was created during the review and deleted by User:Xoloz after the review was closed. ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Xoloz,

My name is Sk Suzuki, I have read your Bio, and and I am writing for you. I just login today again, it has been a while, because I had just returned from Hong Kong for my global entertainment business talks.

I find difficult to edit Wikipedia on our matter. Because, it is unlike HTML or PhP and is new tom me, and it is not the matter of Sandbox things which I know, but I figure it out, that, whatever I wrote in was not searchable by the Internet / Yahoo. I was lingering in Wikipedia, looking at other samples, and wondered how others could be searched by Yahoo, while my writings in Wikipedia couldn't be searched.

On the other hands, it is very irritating that, amid of hard editing situation I was opposed by some smart people who wants to delete my articles as fast as 1 hour.

I found that we have basically two(2) areas, one is the Article and one is the User. I wonder of all these things. To tell you the truth

Anyway, we are still constructing official releases. My lawyers and public relations are still working on it.

I would be happy to pay someone "friendly" and Expert, who could edit and maintain our information in Wikipedia Encyclopedia by next year Summer / Fall. Someone who never opposed me but welcome me. Because, we don't have much time, skills, and even oftenly, we don't have time to monitor our page on this open source, we don't need oppositions.

The reason why I chose to protect the page was because, we are categorized as controversial entertainment producer by our legals. We are the official information owners. We don't treat this wikipedia as our private blog as how someone accused us. We can afford our own system outthere. However, we care if other people to deface our information and to mislead our readers, because of their vandalism intentions. It even took me for weeks to figure out how to put that padlock sign on our wiki page.

Xoloz, before I saw your warm welcome letter, I have already decided to Ban any article about us from Wikipedia. I already talked to my lawyers that I don't want any of our articles in the future to be placed by someone or anyhow in the Wikipedia, and regard it as unofficial information. This was because, I feel I am not welcomed by smart people in the pedia-world. We don't need to be harrassed by those people, merely just over the matter of free open-source.

However, Xoloz, since I read your words, who is the authority of the system, and in fact is more friendly than the common volunteer-editors, I have decided to appreciate Wikipedia once more. I know there are separations between real authority and busy bodies.

Therefore, I decide to edit this User Talk page and to put my words here, to be readable by Xoloz.

Xoloz, I can't reach you by email, or how to have dialogue with you on "My Talk", I saw one email column before, but when I came back, I can't see any. For my eyes, Wikipage is very dynamic, and things here today is hardly to find by the next day. It is very confusing to my eyes. Xoloz can reach me : songbirdsecretariat@yahoo.com

Once you have reach me and I verified that you are authentic, I will give you my direct contact.

Please kindly advise me, how long will a dormant page last? If it is soon to be wiped out, politely, we will choose to retreat from Wikipedia, until our lawyers and public relations finished their paper-works. The next time should we appear in here, I will pay a programmer expert for Wikipedia, the friendly one - we don't need the unfriendly one. This person in concern will start, edit, monitor, maintain and execute. I will never try anything else anymore with my hands on Wikisystem.

Looking forward, sincerely yours.

- Sk Suzuki - Author / Songwriter

I even forgot to put my signature...

{{Sk Suzuki - Author 13:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)}}[reply]

Dear User:Xoloz.

Yes, you are correct, that, English is not my mothertongue, but you were incorrect because I don't speak Chinese either. In every of my writing, I intentionally format some styles to sound like a foreign speaker. I am forever foreigner.

Your User Page Description. Your original talent as a Historian and initiative as a feminist, touched my heart. May I know what kind of physical disability you have?

When you feel lonely as you wrote on the top of your discussion page, you may write to my Secretariat's email anytime.

Sincerely.

- Sk Suzuki - Author / Songwriter

user: The Songbird ov Summer Place

I always forgot to sign.

Sk Suzuki - Author 16:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of the silent majority of administrators with the best interests of the project at heart. I really think, though, now that the page has been recreated for a 4th or 5th time (I've lost count) at User:Kelly Martin/nummywummy, it's time to invoke Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. If they want to have their enemy's list, let them - don't cause trouble for yourself by getting into a wheel war with Kelly. I'm done arguing with them. Honestly, I'm reconsidering whether I really want to be involved in the project at all. I have better things to do than to play childish games. One day, it's userboxes. One day, it's redirects. One day, it's enemies' lists. Who the heck cares? BigDT 18:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, brother, amen. Xoloz 18:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the user said she is not a speaker of Chinese ("Suzuki", Japanese, maybe?) I doubt I can help much. She seems to be using her userpage to advertise an album her band made. It would be good to remind her of WP:N, WP:MUSIC, WP:NOR, I think. -- Миборовский 20:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you—I notice you just closed the deletion review for Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, and wondered if you could take another look. The count was neck and neck, and I had just finished a response to Byrgenwulf's last comment when it closed. Since our remarks were meant for the closer, I hope you don't mind me posting it here:

I certainly did not post notices of this review to "all the people who had voted "delete" [or "keep"] in the AfD," and did not encourage anyone to vote in any particular way. Byrgenwulf, on the other hand, added the article to List of pseudoscientific theories, linked it out of the blue at WikiProject Pseudoscience, and nominated it for deletion a few hours later; shortly afterward, a link to the AfD was posted at WikiProject Physics, calling upon members of that project to view it. Byrgenwulf then compounded the original impropriety by linking the deletion review at WikiProject Physics, accompanied by his own slanted commentary ("can you believe it? ... Why can this unpleasantness just not end?"). These are high-traffic project pages with dozens of participants, and the links, together with the slanted commentary, misled those participants into thinking that the topic purported to belong to, or could accurately be classified under, their fields of interest. When the opinions are unusually spaced (the endorsements almost all on the first day, and the overturns overwhelming through the rest of the review), the balance extremely close, and both the AfD and deletion review subject to irregularities, my feeling is that the safest approach is to relist. Tim Smith 16:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like Asmodeus has taken it upon himself to re-open not only the CTMU debate, but all the other deletion reviews which Xoloz closed as well: here. I still maintain that posting the link as I did was not out of line, as my comment was to do with the unpleasantness of the argument, which anyone who has read it can see. And I think this should really be put to bed. Mr Smith, I am sincerely sorry that the article you wrote got deleted: I meant no personal harm to you. But c'est la vie, I suppose. Byrgenwulf 17:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to express an opinion in my recent request for adminship. I have withdrawn my self-nomination because there seemed little prospect for further productive discussion or the formation of a consensus to promote. Many commentators offered constructive critisism that I will use to improve myself as a user. Others suggested that the nomination was premature and that a re-nom in a few months would be more likely to gain consensus. The reason you gave for your opinion was per Tony. If you have the time, I would appreciate some specific actions I can take to address the problems identified by Tony Sidaway. If not, no problem; I still appreciate the feedback. Eluchil404 20:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to do a lot of work on DRV, could you change the way the DRV closure process works? Blanking DRVs once they are closed seems like a very bad way to end them; how about using closing templates like WP:RFD? And then they can be collected on a DRV archives page, like the Rfd one. Also, when closing each DRV, please use something in the edit summary that lets us know the result and the reasoning behind it; "closing moribund debate" really doesn't tell us anything. Thank you. --Cyde↔Weys 22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point on templates for closing. I like them and I hate them. I like them at AfD, and I hate them at TfD. I generally don't like them if there's a means of closing debates that is simpler than them which there was at TfD and is at DRV, owing to their comparatively low-traffic nature. In fact, I left a fairly threatening message regarding the introduction of the evil things at the talk page. This said, if they "recently closed" listing were to be ditched on the introduction of the templates, I suppose the net evillity in the closing procedures would remain about the same. Since I can't imagine a reason to use closure templates and links from the history and edit summaries and handwritten notes in the "recent" things, I guess that'd be what you have in mind. -Splash - tk 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at this user? He has recreated an article about himself four times so far, twice today. I tagged the first one as db-repost, and started to tag the 2nd one the same way, but another editor tagged it to be userified, which I think was the wrong approach. Every time he recreates it, the content is different, but always vanity that borders on nonsense. This is just plain vandalism, and he's been warned twice already. I think he needs a stiffer warning. Thanks. ---Charles 18:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone else already jumped on him. So, never mind. ---Charles 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... is there a reason why I see no barnstars on your user page? Do you maintain a barnstar-free userspace? ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're not getting out of it that easily... (see below). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have your opinion on WP:STEAM which I just drafted. Haukur 00:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I trouble you for an analysis of your decision to endorse the deletion of the mega society article? --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the concept of discretion but that is not what I saw operating here: discretion operates within bounds and these bounds in practice appear to bear no relation to documented policy, although I do take on board your point about IP addresses. Even if practice is not going to change (and I suspect it isn't) the policy documents need to be updated to reflect this. Returning to the specific DRV, can I remind you of my question on my talk page of how you discounted the votes of User:GregorB or User:Canon? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It bothers me that he made the same mistake as Jaranda. The result of a poll should not be based on a vote count, but on arguments - arguments which are based on Wikipedia policy guidelines. And there weren't any arguments on the endorse-side (yet) that were based on these guidelines. As Jaranda's mistake was mentioned and emphasized several times during the review discussion, it seems to me that Xoloz didn't even read the discussion, but merely counted votes. Correct me if I'm wrong, Xoloz. If I'm wrong: my apologies, and could you provide than an explanation that is based on Wikipedia guidelines? Thanks. Sijo Ripa 16:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we started on the wrong footing. I didn't mean to indirectly insult you in any way and perhaps my above comment was a bit arrogant. My apologies if I did so. But you incorrectly assumed that I didn't read or participated in other deletion debates and in some way I'm offended by the way you've put me down as a newbie that shouldn't participate for two or more weeks in such debates. I assume good faith however and think that this is not what you intended to say. My impression about the deletion is based on your edit summary: "New users, solicited votes were discounted." This seems to imply that you counted the votes and not weighted the arguments (which is a procedural error) and this summary irritated me a lot (not anymore in other words). At the same time you didn't mention the reason for deletion in your summary, which you have done now on my talk page (i.e. lack of notability). Note however that only 4 persons wanted to endorse this deletion on basis of the notability argument - all others didn't specify a reason, used the vanity argument or used the sockpuppet argument. I also think that the people who disregarded the notability provided less arguments why it wasn't notable than those who defended its notability, which gave me the impression that their reason was weaker (I was clearly wrong). I do know that notability can be a basis for deletion (and I put the deletion tag on some pages for that reason), but I thought that it should be mentioned why it isn't notable - or at least some reply should be given to those who try to prove the notability, especially when they try hard to do so by giving many reasons (which was the case for this page). Actually I don't really care for a Mega society article as such, but about the Wikipedia project as a whole (what can be included and what can not - who decides - are the policies followed? - are decisions arbitrary?). I would lie if I would say that I'm not a bit disappointed, but the emphasis is on "a bit" ;-). I'm really glad (in a non-sarcastic way) that it is your judgement (see my talk page) that the article was not notable and that the deletion was not the result of some (dis)counting. I do not mean this in an arrogant way, but could you add the most important deletion reason in your edit summary in the future? Thanks, happy editing and enjoy the barnstar! :-) Sijo Ripa 17:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the concept of discretion but that is not what I saw operating here: discretion operates within bounds and these bounds in practice appear to bear no relation to documented policy, although I do take on board your point about IP addresses. Even if practice is not going to change (and I suspect it isn't) the policy documents need to be updated to reflect this. Returning to the specific DRV, can I remind you of my question of how you discounted the votes of User:GregorB or User:Canon? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that just because you're a WikiGnome, you don't deserve a barnstar. You are the very definition of a Working Man (assuming you are a Man, of course), I see so many of your contributions on my watchlists. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha... I can understand that. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xoloz, Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I've seen your RfA (I found it through WP:100) and I have to say, it's an ideal worth shooting for. I'd love to hear any advice you have to give about going about an RfA next time. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page. Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

Hey, Xoloz/archive10, thanks for supporting my RfA, with a tally of 104/4/7... I am now an admin!!! I was and still am very flattered by all the kind comments that I recieved, I will also take into account the comments about how I could improve. I guarantee I will try my best to further assist Wikipedia with the mop. Feel free to drop in and say hi or if you need anything. Again, thank you so much! Yanksox 07:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Fried (onomastics). REVIVE NOW SPEEDY!! I strongly protest and have a STRONG GRUDGE againt YOU! --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 05:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why you don't response me?? You love to delete and kill the people's endeavors. You are failure as an administrator! --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 06:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please resonse me! I can't work. --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REVIVE NOW!!! Why did you delete and you can't revive? --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 14:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is as close to patent nonsense as can be. If it's not that, it's blatant vandalism designed to damage Wikipedia's reputation. There is no reason to allow garbage like this five minutes of life, let alone a five-day AfD. --DarkAudit 15:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't redirect Jo-Jo Dillon to J.J. Dillon, Bor-us Malenko to Borus Malenko, or any other random insult during a storyline. The redirect was a now permabanned user vandals joke and keeping it around creates the feeling that vandals can keep their jokes even if there is the remotest chance it may be applicable. --- Lid 04:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slick Ric and The Dirtiest Player in the Game aren't insults but part of the gimmick that is Ric Flair and his cheating ways. It's not an insult and is rather an endearment that appears insulting (see Kurt Angle "You Suck!" chants and Jimmy Rave toilet paper). Comparitively Taco Michinoku is a joke, and one that isn't really applied to him at all often. A few random namings does not make a redirect necessary. --- Lid 04:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,I think I got it now--Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 05:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just noticed that Cute 1 4 u is only 11! Maybe you knew already. Tyrenius 09:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see there has been some sort of dispute between yourself and User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg; apparently over the deletion of one of his onomastics pages.

That user has created literally thousands of pages similar to the one you deleted. He (or she?) creates these quite rapidly. This is not the first one to have crossed the AFD path. A bunch of them (but not all of them) have been bundled into an onomastics category.

This behavior of creating these massive pages that frankly, make absolutely zero sense to the vast majority of people, is currently the subject of an RFC. Complicating matters is the fact that Sheynherz appears to have an extremely limited grasp of English. Some editors who are also interested in the study of names are arguing for him and his pages to be left alone. However, enforcing that will be difficult because, as has been stated, these pages are confusing at best, and nonsensical at worst. They often include un-translated text from German and Hebrew, and sometimes he uses a table format that is even more confusing. It is inevitable that some of these will be nominated for deletion. His lack of English makes him unable to argue in their favor, and the sheer numbers of pages he creates makes him (indeed, anyone) unable to keep track of them all. Lately, as more and more of his articles are deleted, he has become quite angry, frustrated, and volatile.

If you wouldn't mind, please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sheynhertz-Unbayg and read the comments. As an administrator who has recently crossed his path you might be able to provide useful input. Alternatively, some of the previous comments might cause you to question your deletion of his article.

Thank you for your time and attention to this. (an interested party) 15:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no question of fact. Someone erroneously made those redirects, and they should be deleted. --SPUI (T - C) 18:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The person who made the redirect disagrees with your belief in this matter." How do you know this? He actually deleted a similar case at Nevada State Route 6. --SPUI (T - C) 21:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a new version of the Guido Demoor article (see Guido Demoor/Proposal). I have announced this at the talk page on 22:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC), inviting other editors to participate.

Up until now, nearly 48 hours later, we received no reactions. Do you think we could now change the article ?

I'd like to request you to lift the page protection, in order to be able to edit the article. What do you think ? I'll wait until 22:00 tonight to implement the changes. --LucVerhelst 16:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention, both during the edit warring and now. --LucVerhelst 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering why you removed that from WP:MfD. Was it just not notable enough deletion/discussion to keep listed? Other discussions are kept there for a few days. If I'm missing something, please tell me. Thanks.--Andeh 17:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I haven't spent much time at mfd some am a bit clueless! Anything else you think I might need to know?--Andeh 18:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed recently that you deleted the article on MCRC (Main Campus Residents' Council). Needless to say I'm rather annoyed, a number of people, myself included, put a lot of work into that article. Perhaps next time you should be more considerate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.26.142.3 (talk • contribs) .

Hi,

It is not a matter of being considerate or inconsiderate. The article fell under criterion for speedy deletion A7. An article regarding a person or a group of people must assert encyclopedic notability. A residential council at a University is very, very hard-pressed to do this. Wikipedia is not MySpace, and it does maintain a minimum standard of notability, which almost every college group will fail to meet. Next time, please sign your message by using four tildes. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Main Campus Residents' Society has over 50 full time employees, and the Main Campus Residence Society has a membership of over 3000 students. As the Council governing the society, I'd say that the MCRC is fairly notable. Most students organizations aren't nearly the size of the MCRS/MCRC except for the primary undergraduate society. If you still feel that our organization isn't notable, then you might as well delete all student organizations that aren't the Alma Mater Society, although somehow I don't think that would please too many people. Ben Juteau 17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a self-promoter whose entry was deleted because I sought to use Wikipedia to advertise. I admit that that's all I was doing, and I would like to know how to weasle-word the entry to avoid this violation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baruchshemtov (talk • contribs) .

Thankyou for your participation in my RfA. Due to an almost even spread of votes between Oppose and Support (Final (16/13/6)) I have decided to withdraw for now and re-apply in a couple of months as suggested. I thank everyone for their kind support of my editorial skills; it meant a lot to me to get such strong recommendations from my fellow editors. If you ever have any hints as to how I can improve further, I would love to hear from you. Viridae^Talk 15:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadani 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!

--Bhadani 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just enjoying the dear Monique and deciding that she was at least trying to assert a claim to notability, and the next minute it had gorn. Ah, such is this cruel world... :) Tyrenius 03:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not fussed about clemency and further intimacy would I think only end in tears. Just interested in criterion really, as she seemed to have some assertion of notability. I'm wondering how this is being interpreted. I would have played safe, but my experience of speedies is still at an early stage. There's plenty of stuff there I'd like to delete but err on the side of caution, or sometimes not being able to find a right category. Tyrenius 19:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS On copyvio.[3] Tyrenius 20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the barnstar Xoloz. Appreciated. Binaca Geetmala was a bit before my time, but it's almost legendary in my dad's generation. Take care -- Samir धर्म 09:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xoloz, just wondering what the reason for the page deletion and protection was? I remember the page had rumours/speculation on it last time I checked (about a month ago). Thanks and keep up the good work, it looks like you do a lot of it! -- User:Trolleymusic

Thanks for the reply Xoloz :) -- trolleymusic

I do not understand why David Tench is protected. I thought it was agreed that the page would not be published until the show was confirmed and we knew more information. Well, we now know exactly who David Tench is. He has made apperances on TV and the shows start date has been confirmed. Many other TV show have information about the series before the show begins airing. Can you please unprotect so users can start a David Tench page? 58.104.95.48 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

AfD does not have the authority to say definitely "this will be okay to post later." You can either write a David Tench article different from the one deleted, or take the matter to deletion review. I will unprotect the article space for you to write a new article, but please don't just repost the previously deleted content Please sign your talk page comments with four tildes. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 <august-gen> 4

on deletion review==

An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 <august-gen> 4 |deletion review]] of [[:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 <august-gen> 4 ]]. 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 am unable to find the deletion review of "Binaca Geetmala" which was discussed in detail starting on 28th July 2006. The edit log and diff file shows up your name against the final revision and deletion of the log. Please restore the log ASAP. Thanks, EyeMD 04:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i'm not familiar with procedure for filing an official request for an explanation. why did you delete the article i wrote on harris mercer? he's a very prominent figure in youth and student right politics, he's appeared on c-span several times, and he's not known to me personally. why did the article qualify for deletion as a vanity page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.239.132.81 (talk • contribs) .

Mr. Mercer, by the terms of the article is 15 years-old. The last two sentences of his supposed speech before Mrs. Bush quoted at the end of his article were self-contradictory nonsense, but the article claimed they drew a standing ovation. This contradiction, coupled with Mercer's reported age, make the assertions of note in his article implausible. Under CSD-A7, any article lacking a remotely plausible assertion of note may be speedily deleted. My suggestion: if Mercer exists, provide verifiable and reliable sources of his career. I find it exceedingly likely that this will prove impossible, but I am often wrong. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: please prove Harris Mercer has done what the article claimed. Please sign all your talk page comments with four tildes. Best wishes, Xoloz 01:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have made a mistake in the link to "previous AfD" in your nomination. I'd have fixed it myself but I thought that you'd probably know where it was, so it would be a waste of time for me to search for it, and I wasn't entirely sure that that wasn't what you intended. --David Mestel^(Talk) 16:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome, although "Mr" is a little formal. You say that you are a flaming liberal. I presume that in the South, "flaming liberal" means that you believe in the concept of evolution, as well as *shudder* taxation... --David Mestel^(Talk) 16:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was most kind, though, if I may be permitted to deviate from WP:AGF for a moment, probably not entirely honest. On a side note, though, don't you think it's interesting that in the land of the burger, blue stands for the left, but in the land of the tea cake, it stands for *sss* the Tories? --David Mestel^(Talk) 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i honestly don't understand any of your problems. when you say his speech was "self-contradictory nonsense," do you mean that youo personally disagreed with the content of the speech? or that it was a patently stupid quote? in case you missed the point, what he's saying is that the modern youth movement lacks direction but that this is normal and, to the individuals in it, liberating. how was what he said self-contradictory? and i didn't say he was an internationally important figure. it's difficult to be a leader in the national youth movement unless you're a youth, and he has been for four years among the most noted and active minors involved in politics and one of the most prominent figures in the aclu's student rights movement--which is, by the way, a comparatively tiny part of the organisation's national agenda. there clearly was an assertion of note in the article. your claim was that it was implausible, but i don't see exactly what part of it you think is so impossible.

--24.239.132.81 20:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say the article was a clear A7 - I don't have access to the full article (perhaps you can provide a link), only the one that Lost put at the Village Pump, but the second sentence starts 'He published...'. Perhaps you can explain how that is not an assertion of notability? Publishing is the first criterion of notability listed in the guidelines. As I recall, the article also mentioned that Dr. Butler was involved in traditional yacht design and what his design criteria were, which seems to me to be more than adequate by Wikipedia's standards. Even if there was some doubt as to the subject's notability in your mind, how you can claim that there was no assertion of notability whatever mystifies me.

Since you express some guarded regret for my annoyance, let me explain things from my POV. As I see it, there were a number of courses were open to you eg:

1. No action

2. A note on my Talk page

3. Adding a stub note to the article

4. Deleting the article from articlespace and pasting it to my User page, with a note

5. Initiating a non-speedy deletion process

6. Deleting the article

Any of 1 - 4 would have been appropriate, but you chose the most draconian. I don't find your argument of overwork to be a convincing excuse either for outright deletion or doing so anonymously. When you weigh up how long it takes editors to research and write articles and their personal investment in their work against the minute or so it would take to cut and paste it from one place to another with a stock note, you might begin to understand why people whose work you've deleted without so much as a word of explanation feel so aggrieved.Rentwa 16:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the full text of the article:

"Dr. Thomas Harrison Butler, MA, FRCS, (March 19th 1871 - 29th January 1945) was an opthalmologist and amateur yacht designer. He published various designs of small traditionally built yachts and concentrated on balance and handling under sail."

If a significant amount of time and research went into that, I'm quite surprised at its brevity and lack of detail: it seems to me to something one might compose in less than 5 minutes. The words "He published..." are not magical; to constitute an assertion of note, they must be followed by a specific claim, like the title of the work so published. Self-publications (it says "He published..." not "His work was published by major publisher X) are not assetions of note, and reliance on self-publications as the sole source of note in an article is suggestive of lack of note.

Consider also that two-sentence articles are subject to A1 speedies, should they lack context. It is arguable this one does, since its stated terms are equivalent to "John Doe (born X day - died Y day) was a well-known self-published ship designer." This article was content poor.

You suggest courses of action for me. From my POV, 1) and 3) would irresponsible for an admin; we don't leave articles with no assertions of note for reading; 2) or 4) would have been exceptionally nice of me, but it is neither the recommended nor the typical course of admin work; and 5) would have required me to exercise a judgment other than my own, because I had absolutely no doubt whatever (and still do not) that the article was speediable.

Now consider what you might have done differently:

1) Rather than bothering with two short deleted sentences, you might simply write a longer, better, more thorough, sourced article.

2) You might have asked me politely to userfy the content for you, which I would have, and do routinely.

3) You might have written a deletion review dispassionately, asking for others' opinions without impugning me, whom you did not know.

What has happened here is this: You have misunderstood Wikipedia practice (generally, if an author wants deleted content, he asks the admin, not vice versa: this is so admins can both monitor the good-faith of the writer of a bad article, and also so admins are not burdened with writing notes for unwanted content, because 90% of speedy deleted material are jokes/hoaxes/nonsense that no one cares for, even the writer.) Having so misunderstood practice, you leapt to the conclusion that I was terrible in my duty, and chose to attack my character without bothering first to ask for help.

I understand that unseasoned editors may be emotional, and may err in their conduct, so I hold you no ill-will; but, I have a duty to explain to you why your course of action has been flawed.

One last technical point: for some reason, you seem to think that my deletion was anonymous. All deletions are recorded in the public deletion log -- this is another reason that speedy deleted content does not normally prompt talk-page notification to anyone, as that is redundant with the log.

I was engaging in typical admin conduct on a very busy day, for which I do not deserve to be impugned. As I said, I hold no grudge here, but I do state the facts. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed that the article was finished or content-rich - I said in the initial Deletion Review 'I started an article...'. Nor do I have any gripe with Wikipedia's policies on what constitutes a stub or an excessively short entry (although I have seen one sentence stubs and mine did include a photo). Whether or not Dr. Butler self-published I have no idea - I wouldn't have interpreted 'He published..' to mean that he self-published, but for you to say that you did seems rather like a straw man argument to me. Your other objections seem equally evasive. I use 'He published...' to mean 'He wrote...' as a great many others do. Should I paste some examples for you?

Furthermore, what you seem not to understand is that a significant amount of work [i]can[/i] go into what appears to a reader to be a very skimpy piece of work. Fact-finding, checking for existing articles, registering an account, learning the details of wikiML and file uploading adds up to a considerable amount of work, whether or not it appears so to you. In my case it was quite late by the time I'd learnt how to upload the photo. I then tried to find out how to embed it in the text, gave up and went to bed. The next morning I logged on and found that my work had apparently vanished in a puff of smoke, and without Lostintherush's helpful intervention I would still be wondering what had happened.

Let me repeat, just so there's no misunderstanding - I have no gripe on the content question - what I take exception to is that you couldn't even take a minute to notify an obviously genuine editor of what you had done (see your own note about 90% of speediable material). You were quite happy to leave me floundering in cyberspace wondering what on earth had happened.

I'm going to quote something I posted above. Please take the time to read it and think about it, don't just respond with more tub-thumping:

When you weigh up how long it takes editors to research and write articles and their personal investment in their work against the minute or so it would take to cut and paste it from one place to another with a stock note, you might begin to understand why people whose work you've deleted without so much as a word of explanation feel so aggrieved.

By repeating how busy you were and telling me the proper way to address you, all you are saying, in effect, is what an important person you are, and how far down in your scale I and my work rank. I note (2) that I'm to approach you politely - what is the correct form of address when speaking to a Wikipedia Admin - Your Honour? Your Worship?

I'm sorry you feel impugned, but your manner does strike me as high handed. You admit yourself that it would have been possible for you to be nicer than you were, and I think you'd be a nicer person if you were :-) - see? I bear you no ill will either.Rentwa 19:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you feel my manner is high-handed; so, I feel, is yours. This is what I would have liked to see prior to the DRV on my talk page:

"Hi,

You deleted Harrison Butler. Why? May I have the text back?

Thanks,... "

or, at DRV, you might have written,

"Harrison Butler was a short article that was deleted. I contest this because I think he was notable."

Very Simple, both.

You argue that I should have dropped a note on your talk page; yes, that would been very nice of me. I delete about 60 articles a day at CSD lately: maybe 3 per day draw complaints, and maybe 1 every other proves mistaken. The time it takes to drop those mostly ignored notes would cut down on my ability to work. I'm not saying that I'm more important than you are; I am saying that it's rational for the person who cares most about the article -- the author -- to bear the burden of asking about it, and doing so politely. I make this point because I have no intention of beginning to drop notes post speedy-deletion. To my knowledge, no one does it; it is very inefficient. This isn't an observation about the amount of work I do, but a comment on how the deletion process works optimally and practically.

I continue to bear no grudge :), but I wish you to understand why admins do the things we do, so that you won't become inappropriately mad or disenchanted with other admins doing normal work, the way that you have with me. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you're having trouble seeing beyond that enormous ego of yours, so I'll keep trying: No-one who comes to Wikipedia owes you any kind of deference, however much you might want it.

'I delete about 60 articles a day..' Then maybe you should try to delete less and spend more time thinking about which ones deserve more sensetive treatment.

Or do you imagine that Wikipedia would grind to a halt without you?Rentwa 21:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon, but this: "I can see you're having trouble seeing beyond that enormous ego of yours, so I'll keep trying: No-one who comes to Wikipedia owes you any kind of deference, however much you might want it" (emphasis mine) is entirely unacceptable. Nothing I have said, however high-handed you might find it, justifies that language. I have bolded some portions of my previous reply which you would do well to re-read. Otherwise, this discussion, for my part, has concluded. I have no time for those who cannot maintain civility, a duty every user, admin or not, bears. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I grant you my pardon and hereby inform you that I've asked for a clarification of the matter at Wikipedia Talk:Administrators. I still bear you no ill will (I must be a bloody saint). Rentwa 02:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned this thing back into a "deletedpage" template again. It will save bickering in the long run. --Tony Sidaway 01:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to offer your thoughts vis-à-vis the talk page posting about which Rentwa informed you supra; the thread, in which, it should be said, Rentwa is careful not to identify you but nevertheless affects a mildly indecorous tone, is here. In view of your stated views relative to administrator "recall", I think it's clear that we need to replace you with Arnold Schwarzenegger.  :) Joe 04:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, in any case, Crzrussian has, one regrets to say, become the first admin to step down expressly in view of his recall commitment (BTW, I, as you, would, as an admin, hold to the one user standard, with the caveat/clarification that upon the request of one user I would not simply abandon adminship straightaway—as CrzRussian—but would instead submit myself once more to the examination of the community, probably at RfA but perhaps, if others thought it better, at RfC). As regards my e-mail, there's no need to read reply; it's possible—try not to be too surprised—that I used more words than necessary. As to the issue with Rentwa, I gather from his/her talk page that you amicably settled things, which is to your (and his/her) credit. A calm demeanor and jocose temperament diffuse many a situation here, I think, and are always to be admired (FWIW, I frequently use the you would do well to locution, meaning not to affect a high-handed tone, so you're in good/bad company there).

As to a prospective RfA, I don't know that I'd have much use for the tools at the moment; my time is largely consumed by the several sports and games portals that I maintain (almost solely, which is fine, as I'm able to foist my idiosyncratic style on readers), and I expect to be editing less frequently for a few months as I begin again my unnecessarily rigorous workout regimen, my pursuance of which was interrupted when I tore an abdominal muscle. I am quite happy that you think me to be someone in whom you would repose trust, and I'll be quite delighted to receive your support when, having more time to assist with admin tasks, I do pursue an RfA. Joe 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Media Developer isn't link spam. I'm a teacher and I'm trying to recognize student work!

Chill! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by databoybiz (talk • contribs) .