User talk:Xoloz/archive12

Although the original article was poorly written, and could almost be considered vandalism, the alf house has a degree of notoriety that merits a spot on wikipedia. One, notable bands such as, The Unicorns, Three Inches of Blood, S.T.R.E.E.T.S., and many others, have played the Alf House. It is a long standing venue and one of the most notorious punk houses in canada. Also some of it's former residents have been involved in widely publicised political events, such as the woodwards squat. Also one of it's former residents was jailed for 90 days due to his involvement in the Brittania Police Riot and Kobra Natghei's escape from custody at Vancouver Intl. Airport.

Xoloz, are you really comfortable with protecting a talk page that is clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy and is contributing to harassing and distressing a fellow Wikipedian? I would really appreciate your help with relegating this harassment to history (it comes up on Google in its current form)! Mestel has clearly stated that this is a violation. Can you ask Hillman to redact his talk page? Can't an administrator (i.e., you) help me with this?

Although you may not agree with my position on a number of things (like which articles belong in Wikipedia), I think you have followed my edits enough to know that I am a good faith editor and have no serious violations (a 3RR that I was sure did not apply as I was reversing mass deletions - live and learn). Even in your closing of the MfD, you acknowledged that some of the pages needed editing out of personal information (as opposed to Hillman's continued proliferation of conjecture, odd obsession and threats to continue stalking). Shouldn't all this insanity be deleted and people just go back to editing the encyclopedia? I would really appreciate your advice on this. --DrL 16:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Xoloz,

Since I am in the process of negotiating with Mestel and recently obtained an agreement from him that his two "clients", DrL (talk · contribs) and Asmodeus (talk · contribs), would not make this kind of complaint to admins about the page(s) in question while I am negotiating with Mestel, I find this highly disturbing. Now I'll have to start over with Mestel at the point where we try to establish whether his clients are in fact willing to let he and I try to negotiate a mutually agreeable compromise!

Needless to say, I utterly reject her charges of "stalking". If anything, I feel that it is she who is harrassing me in my efforts to initiate a thoughtful policymaking discussion of various grave challenges to the integrity of information presented in the Wikipedia, as well as procedures such as digging which can be used to combat such problems, but which are also open to abuse. Ironically, my page of notes on DrL/Asmodeus is not abusive but intended to help me establish both why digging is sometimes neccessary and why it needs to be carefully regulated! Of course, she is making so much trouble that I still haven't found time to take this work foward. Therefore, I consider her behavior disruptive of a good faith attempt by a long-established contributor to ensure the future of the Wikipedia.---CH 03:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll like to request a undeletion of the history of Metal Mario, Grand Theft Auto IV, Grand Theft Auto 4, GTA4, & GTA IV. SNS 18:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Deletion review/The Adventures of Dr. McNinja 2 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 00:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been involved in the debate. but you are hardly a neutral bystander regarding the value of DRV. I've no problem in saying that deletion was never going to happen at this point, so the nomination was possibly as WP:POINT violation and the debate perhaps fell to be closed per WP:SNOW. But what type of legalistic reasoning is Longstanding precedent says MfD is not for policy proposals, and killing DRV is a policy proposal.?? There is no such policy - and indeed since the debate would end in keep or no-consensus no 'policy' was bneing created. (Indeed, policy is often decided by deletion precidents (see the bounds of WP:DENY being tested by various xfD debates - looks to me precisely the ways to do it, rather than one bloody poll.)) Basically you killed off a discussion that was not bad tempered, and was allowing a certain testing of community feelings towards DRV. An overwhelming keep vote would probebly save a long-winded policy discussion elsewhere for now. Why not let it run? What harm was there? It looks a bit like 'we don't like that - so let's slap 'em down with 'policy'.' (PS, this isn't an angry post, just bemused :) ) --Doc 15:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion_review. 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. Gmaxwell 13:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. We even had a small discussion about how DRV is or isn't broken - isn't DRV about process? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One would hope that DRV was about the encyclopedia. There is no forum for process on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 01:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be slightly incorrect on the last point, but entirely right on the first, which is why we're protesting your actions yet again, as we always have to do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"We"?

"Your actions"?

Please explain. What did I do, and how did "you" (plural), whoever you are, protest it? --Tony Sidaway 01:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We is obvious. Your actions are obvious. See above, and don't act so innocent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Please explain. Who is this "you" (plural)? What are "you" (plural) protesting? Would you like to tell me? Normally the dispute resolution process starts with an attempt at personal communication, so if I haven't heard about this protest you talk about then there may be a serious problem. --Tony Sidaway 02:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the thread, Tony, seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... hi guys! :) Since this my talk page, I was wondering if anybody wanted to talk to me. If Jeff's first question was meant for me, I'd already answered it at the DRV. MfD is not a place to delete active policies. The place to change DRV is a centralized policy discussion. Deleting DRV without some alternative in mind would be problematic for the encyclopedia -- chaos does not aid in the advancement of good articles. If anybody has any workable alternatives, I'd love to hear 'em; in fact, Jeff, I believe that is exactly where our DRV discussion left off. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually in the midst of a project to compile evidence of how broken DRV is. I'll be sure to point you to it before I point the DRV talk page to it. I still disagree with your assessment, although I didn't see it at the DRV, I only saw you endorse Tony's typical behavior. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Xoloz - I've proposed a compromise on Hillman's talk page. I'll let you know when he responds. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you were the closing wikipedian for the deletion review of Nero (band). Could you please restore the content of the last version of this page to my userspace so that I can work on improving the article? Thanks!

--XxxX 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and if you want assistance in relisting this AfD, I'll be happy to comply. Yanksox 19:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xoloz, is this supposed to be closed along with your general closing of the Esoteric languages review? I believe it's the only one that was listed separately. -- nae'blis 22:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was utterly baseless. Please ask me to explain if you don't understand. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do explain, as I don't understand. Xoloz 23:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 15:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The result of the debate was Delete. Most (if not all) of the keep commenters have a self-interest in the project: the consensus among impartial Wikipedians is clear."

Can you please clarify what you meant by "the consensus among impartial Wikipedians"? So what does that say for the 50% who voted keep? Laughing Man 17:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"No convincing argument to rebut this presumption was offered by the project's supporters"

You obviously did not read the project page, which was crystal clear and perhaps editors didn't feel the need to rehash what was on the project page since they assumed others would review the project before making uninformed descisions. Administrators who fail to consider the importance of some other Wikipedia policies, and instead make descisions soley from there own POV without investigating the project, I feel should be discounted. Perhaps you should nominate Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for deletion as well? It seems your rationale applies here also. Regards. Laughing Man 21:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments really show your ignorance and misjudgment in this matter, I would refer to you the project page if you didn't hastily delete it, but the goal was not "promoting a positive view", but rather coutering biased with a goal to create neutral articles where there are geniune NPOV problems. As far this particlar project, I was never a member, but I support the goals of the former project as well as the goals of Countering system bias Wikiproject, I just hope in the future you perform due dillegence in future your decisions, Best Wishes Laughing Man 22:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the article content, that will help me massively with my work on merging them into list of esoteric programming languages. On that note, I really need some help figuring out were to create templates for that, I'm not sure were to place the table element templates, or what exactly to call them! :/ Any advice would be dearly appreciated! This was more of a reminder, really, not to simply relist all the languages at once, for this would end up equivalent to the mass AfD. If you work though them alphabetically, a few letters a day, that would also give us plenty of time to ensure that everything needing merging has been merged. Thanks again! LinaMishima 22:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its at User:Seanb995/Elucidate. Let me know if you want the author to do something else with it. Original discussion is at User talk:Wslack/Archive 1#Elucidate. Thoughts? \/\/slack (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it was announced [1], I think the history of Mario Party 8 & Mario Party Wii (& their talk pages) should be undeleted. SNS 20:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, can you merged the history of Mario Party Wii with Mario Party 8 instead of just restoring it? I can't see the history of course but it was created after the last time Mario Party 8 was deleted, so it might fit into the history of Mario Party 8. SNS 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xoloz. Could you please explain to me on which ground you closed the debate. As an administrator, i could have closed it while accepting the evidences of the debate as sufficient ground to restore the article or at least to request a rewrite. Instead, I thought that it would be more constructive to add a vote with my explanation. I do not understand your decision. Honestly, I am not familiar with the AfD procedures, which I think are over-complicated and somewhat unclear. Your conclusion is "Deletion endorsed, without prejudice to a sourced rewrite." I do not believe that the debate was endorsing a deletion. Also, why does my last comment not appear when I click on "review" to see the discussion history. My posting was advocating a "restore" but it has disappeared from the history. Please explain your decision. Thank you. olivier 15:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. While I do not completely agree with the decision to delete, I respect your decision. In any case, you have addressed my questions. Since we are talking about this: I have been following a few deletion request cases recently and I have been quite shocked that a "consensus" reached by random users could be used as a basis for a decision. Moreover, I believe that a lot of respectable users and admins are busy on other areas and have no time to monitor the AfD discussions and bring their input. On the other end, a good amount of people with questionable agenda seem to be very active in the AfD discussions, and since the majority rules, even a very strong argument which could prove all the others wrong will only be counted as one voice. The bottom line is that I begin to wonder if the AfD process as it works today is not flawed and if some changes should not be implemented, for instance by having a pre-screening/validation of the voters, like in a light version of the ArbCom. Would you like to share your opinion on that? Do you know where I can turn to further discuss this issue? Thank you. olivier 16:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed while looking at Mario Party Wii's history that it was originally moved from Mario party revolution. That was deleted when Mario Party Wii was deleted. What I wonder is if it should be recreated as a redirect to Mario Party 8 with it's history restored (I would think there would only be one edit there saying that it was moved to Mario Party Wii). What do you think? SNS 17:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would Duck Hunt Wii be an appropriate redirect for Wii Play? Wii Play contains the Duck Hunt demo from E3 2006 (which is why the Duck Hunt Wii article was originally created). If so I would like it's history undeleted (& possibly the talk page history too). I would also like the history of Mario party 8 undeleted. SNS 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing your closure of DRVs but your method of doing so. You seem to have deleted entire discussions from this log page. I'm sure you're not doing this on a routine basis. I don't have specific experience closing DRV so I'll leave it up to you to correctly restore the closed discussions for future reference. Thank you. John Reid 21:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The logs are blanked at closure, unless a closure is very complicated. A copy of the log as it existed at closure is available in the "Review" link for each item of the recently concluded section of the page. It isn't hard to follow, and is the same general process followed at IfD. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This community is worse than nine angry rabbis locked in a telephone booth. Who thought of this silly scheme? John Reid 15:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I didn't think it up, but I'll take the "blame" for it. I think it works well: DRV doesn't need permanent subpages in the same way AfD does. DRV is just a forum for cloture, ie. whether discussion should end or continue. As such, we keep the records, but not a form that "litters" the place with subpages.

A good 50% of our DRVs are of the form, "Why was X deleted? I liked it. Signed, Newbie. / "Hello Newbie, X was deleted because of policy Y at AfD. Even though Wikipedia isn't paper, we can't keep articles about everyone's pet goldfish. -- FriendlyAdmin" Not the sort of thing that demands a subpage, ya know?

As for the daily logs, I opposed them with a passion, but some folks insisted they made the history easier to parse, so I conceded. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You've managed to obtrude yet another level of metaissue. Now I don't care proximately whether UBX are permitted, forbidden, or if GUS is shoved down our throats; my immediate concern is not whether my meta-UBX objecting to the shoving was stolen or whether this community was saved from destruction; and I no longer care about the metametaissue of the archiving process of DRV. I just want you to keep this thread on one page: here. Thank you. John Reid 04:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason for a speedy delete was that the article was nominated a second time - this is not one of the criteria for deletion of an article. If you read the second debate, you will see that the main issue brought up against the Loserz article was alleged non-notability. To quote Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, "Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted: Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum.". -Interested2 13:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that you could consider giving Hillman a little poke to encourage him to respond to my proposal, which is now at his negotiation subpage? It's been nearly a week since I proposed it, and Hillman has edited on numerous occasions since then. David Mestel^(Talk) 16:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed while looking at the page histories that Donkey Kong Country 2 was moved to Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest by use of cut & paste instead of asking a administrator to perform the move. That same user also did the same thing to Donkey Kong Country 3 (redirected to Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!) & It's Mr. Pants! (redirected to It's Mr. Pants). Can you merge the page histories? SNS 23:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do have a look at Mr. Mestel's negotiation proposal and provide him with a response -- he's a very reasonable fellow, so I'm sure you two will get along well. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the prod was actually unneccessary. Ironically, the delay is due to his DrL's message in your user talk page. FYI, some time back I requested that Mestel obtain from his clients a promise not to reiterate their demands to admins that I be blocked immediately or to initiate new administrative actions against me while negotiations are in progress. I felt that DrL's message to you violated that request. You might want to see User:Hillman/Negotiation/Notes if you don't understand why I made my request to Mestel or why I am reiterating it now. In any case, please be assured that I have stuck and am sticking to a gesture of good faith which I made some time back at Mestel's request, and remain committed to pursuing the negotiation with him in good faith. I hope that the current setback is only temporary. Thank you for your interest, and if DrL approaches you again, please let Mestel know. TIA ---CH 00:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Well, you needn't worry -- I won't grant any request from Dr. L for measures against you (or vice versa) without word from Mr. Mestel and my own investigation. If any other admin steps in, let me know, and I'll have a talk with them. The situation will remain in status quo until I have word from Mr. Mestel that negotiations have resolved. So, whatever "provocations" you may feel Dr. L has undertaken, is undertaking, or might undertake, know that these will be of no consequence, and try to pay them no attention. Simply work with Mr. Mestel, and I am confident an agreement to the satisfaction of everyone will result. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xoloz, that is good to know. Do I understand you to say that you stand ready to intervene with any admin who (not having investigated the facts in the case and perhaps not knowing about my agreements with Mestel) blocks me or deletes/unprotects one of my user subpages, while negotiation is in progress? (I tend to agree that seems unlikely, but it remains a concern, since admins are human and can certainly make mistakes.)

Assuming I don't commit some truly blockable action, of course, which I certainly do not intend, although as Stacy Schiff says, "Wikipedia is becoming a regulational thicket", and IMO the biggest current problems with WP sociopolitical system are:

1. Wikipedia being a complex place, there are not enough rules governing the many difficult situations which arise which seem to pit one widely accepted principle of good behavior against another,
2. No-one knows what even the currently modest rule set is, because it is too hard to figure out where to find all the ones which might be applicable (IMO this might have simple technological solution: a new "Rules" namespace and/or a specialized policy search engine: "find all policies which may be applicable to harassment" would help in this case)

So I fear that we will see increasing cases in which different admins quote different policies which appear to lay down the opposite injunction, or users claiming (possibly truthfully) that they didn't know about rule R. But I digress.... ---CH 19:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...this stars for you!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For Xoloz' highly appreciated closings of DRV debates that would cause my head to explode were I doing it, I present him with this barnstar. Syrthiss 15:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, it is disputed whether your warnings in this case were valid. RN considered them invalid, and so removed them. It is not clear that he was incorrect, so he is not at fault. Simply let the matter die. Xoloz 15:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've missed the crux of the issue. That my warnings are valid, or invalid, is irrelevent. He has also removed other warnings in the past, and not provided a link to archive pages. That is the crux of the issue. I had let the matter die, and then RN went and made a complaint to the noticeboard, that effectively locks his page closed, with no warnings, and no archive links. To let him get away with that, simply reinforces his inappropriate behaviour, and will encourage it in the future. It is my opinion that can't happen. And my understanding that the reason everyone is hesitant to take real action, is simply because of favouritism ... which doesn't seem right. Nfitz 17:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The portion of text you quoted at AN/I allows for the removal of invalid warnings. My view isn't "favouritism" exactly -- I know RN to be a studious editor, and find the likelihood of his vandalizing anything to be very low. I don't doubt you acted in good faith, but I suspect that this matter is simply a question of difficulty in communicating or mistaken assumptions (perhaps by both you and RN, I don't know.) I do trust RN not to have vandalized anything, though, and it would take a mountain of evidence to convince me otherwise. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience he can be a good editor, but he is also trigger-happy, and shoots first, and asks questions later. It is for stuff like this he has been blocked twice; and there are warnings related to this, that were on his archive pages, that he no longer links. Are you suggesting that the blocks he has been subjected to weren't valid? Nfitz 19:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I have been around long enough to remember vaguely the circumstances involving the first two of those three blocks, and they were controversial and disputed -- process vs. WP:IAR question there, very old, very tricky. In any case, that was ages ago. My objection is not meant to impugn you, only to insist that RN is generally trusted, and that warning him would rightly require exceptional circumstances. Even in disagreements, we don't warn respected editors unless their behavior is egregious. This may be a "double standard," but it's a fair double standard, common in everyday life: experienced and respected folks are treated differently than newbies because they've earned respect. (By the same token, newbies are treated with more patience, because we expect they'll make mistakes.) Best wishes, Xoloz 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... that's just not the impression I was getting of him. Consistently he seemed to be using non-neutral language in his comments, that just seemed designed to inflate arguments. He was quick to act, and seemed to skate around the edge of rules. And quite frankly, from the actions I saw, couldn't be trusted. And when I looked at the history of his blocks, I kept seeing the same behaviour there as well (hence my thought that those circumstances are still relevent. However the tribe has spoken ... though personally I think that experienced editors should be held to a higher standard! Rather than double standard!  :-) Thanks for your comments. Nfitz 01:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll like the history of Out of the Deathmount, Paper Bowser, Diddy Kong Pilot, Loggo The Toilet (I'm pretty sure the earliest of this article was on the Banjo-Kazooie character), & Paper Mario Wii undeleted. SNS 19:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, someone just moved Minor characters in Conker's Bad Fur Day to List of characters in the Conker Series through use of cut & paste. Can you merged the histories? Can you also do the same to the talk page? I mean the talk page would have moved too if the person had used the move option (there was no article where he moved it). Also the last edit there was made before the first edit in the new talk page (so there would be no edit overlap). SNS 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Xoloz, thank you for your very kind words of support for my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to bounce something off you. Do you think this article is OR? It's setting off my ORdar but I thought I get a second opinion before I went and prodded it. Whispering^(talk/c) 18:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please userify this for me. Septentrionalis 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I'll cut that out. I didn't realise that it had copyright issues but thanks for correcting me.

I would like the history of Berri the Squirrel & Squirril High Command undeleted. SNS 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it! >Radiant< 12:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide me with a userfy for Robotocracy? I think your reasoning was flawed as the idea didn't start with the Daily Show per se, as I've got plenty of examples of discussion on the issue in various books on Science Fiction, just not using the outright term robotocracy. But I did find Cybercracy. Not sure if I like that better, mind you, or machine rule. Still, the theme of Robots are taking over is around as a discreet theme. FrozenPurpleCube 14:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've created the article Machine Rule because I felt it was a better term for the article than Robotocracy. Cited two sources, though one I really should look at the Stephen Hawking book, but I'll need some time to get it. Satisfactory? FrozenPurpleCube 17:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have User talk:Cyde on my watchlist and I noticed a discussion about the GUS and SUS templates in which Cyde comments to WikiSlasher that you already undeleted the SUS template.

Obviously, GUS and SUS mean nothing to those who are not already "in the loop". Should I be interested in what these templates are or am I better off not knowing?

Thanx.

--Richard 16:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't necessarily be better off not knowing, but I can be pretty sure once you find out what all of this is about you won't particularly care. This goes back to a ten-month-old conflict over userboxes, and if you aren't already involved at this point, you sure as hell don't want to be. --Cyde Weys 17:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With that sentiment, I do wholeheartedly agree. :) Xoloz 17:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you guys are right. I actually knew what GUS stood for but, since I wasn't actively involved in the controversy, I had forgotten. I'm fine with GUS and you're right, I don't care about SUS. I just wanted to know if there was something that was missing from my knowledge of Wikipedia.

BTW, Cyde, please don't read anything sinister about your Talk Page being on my watchlist. I have my preferences set to watch any page I edit and I left a comment for you some time ago. Xoloz's Talk Page is now on my watchlist also. I learn a lot of stuff by watching the Talk Pages of admins and other respected editors.

--Richard 18:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stellis has chided me for recreating Boss Hoss. I can't blame him/her, since the deletion log only includes a link to the old deletion resolution and not the new one that specifies no prejudice for a new article. Can you help out with this? Thanks. —BozoTheScary 16:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I'm a moron. I didn't see that it was someone else posting this comment from months ago. Nevermind, though it would be cool to reflect the new disposition on the deletion log. —BozoTheScary 17:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just merge them all into one big article...? · XP · 04:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points all around, and works for me! · XP · 04:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently someone moved the contents of King K. Rool to K. Rool through the use of cut & paste. SNS 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xoloz, are you active at all on the Commons? The subject has been broached to add a DRV there, and you do so well at this one that your thoughts and comments (if you haven't made them already) would be appreciated. [2] here would be a good place to start. Thanks and regards, DVD+ R/W 19:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Xoloz, and thanks for supporting me in my recent request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed that you corrected my close here. Instead of {{subst:at}} at the top and ab at the bottom (which is what I'm used to for AfDs), what should I use instead? Thanks. enochlau (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some sage for you :) . As you say, there may be merit in a community-based system for the same. I notice at least five recent proposals in Wikispace for that - however they seem to lack focus, and some are badly written, and several people object to the entire idea. It seems consensus is hard to find on the issue; for all we know either or both sides could be a vocal minority. >Radiant< 14:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I do love those user pages that you sometimes bump into that make you think a little - thanks & regards! --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll like the history of Banjo-Kazooie 3, Banjo Kazooie 3, Banjo threeie, Banjo Threeie, & Banjo-Threeie undeleted. SNS 14:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just found another cut & paste mistake to be fixed. Kirby (tentative title) was moved to Kirby Adventure then it was moved back through use of cut & paste (with Kirby Adventure turned into a redirect). SNS 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Xoloz is awarded this barnstar for his devoting to helping clearing the deletion backlogs and pushing DRV along, which are ignored by so many administrators. Your commitment to honouring your "election promises" is very much appreciated in this political age. Thankyou, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was already deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obfuscated Weird Language (which occured before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages). I do not believe that the DRV or that second deletion debate has any influence on it being a CSD due to the first AfD. —Ruud 16:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought AfD was meant to judge the appropriateness of the topic, not the content? It would seem a bit of a waste of time to put this one through yet another AfD, but I guess you're right that one more esolang AfD won't make that much of a difference. —Ruud 17:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the histories, I believe the history of Banjo Threeie should be merged with the history of Banjo-Kazooie 3. Here are my arguements for this:

• Everything from the third revision to the revision before mine would fit perfectly in the history of Banjo-Kazooie 3 (no edit overlaps). The oldest two shouldn't be much problem (it would just look like the article was redirected in September 2005 then in January 2006).
• Banjo Threeie started as a cut & paste move from Banjo-Kazooie 3 anyway (so it's not like they are unrelated).
• The version of Banjo Threeie in early August contained relevant information on the history of the next Banjo game (like for example the mention of the Xbox tech demo). This information can later be included in the current version without having to be completely rewritten.

SNS 17:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Sam Vaknin appeal deleted already? It was taken down even tho the last post had been only 30 hours earlier. Could it be put back?

Talk to Theresa - 17:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to retract my request above... IF IF IF I can start another appeal (my own) to review the AfD??? May I??

You see, Xoloz, I went back and looked over the thread again and I noted the weak premise that the original appeal was based on, then the round and round discussion regarding the irrelevant premise the appeal was based on.

So is this possible? If so, can you tell me how to start it? Thank you. Talk to Theresa -TRCourage 17:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xoloz,

I recently found that you had closed the deletion review for "Nandini Rajendran" as "Deletion Endorsed." Is that right?

Xoloz, didn't User:Doctorbruno provide the references?

Could you please explain? (I am not well-versed all the rules of Wikipedia - so I may have missed something.)

Thanks! TriColor 05:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a follow-up survey for the animated gif you restored in DRV recently at Talk:More Cowbell#More animated cowbell poll. Seems like there is a consensus against using it in the article, and the talk page is currently the only place where the image is used. Do you think that's enough grounds for deletion? Cheers, trialsanderrors 07:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anarchopedia_3rd_nomination as consensus to delete. The article certainly doesn't deserve protection against recreation; it's a topic covered by a number of other Wikipedia languages. Without going into the merit of past content, I've created a stub on the topic, with interlang links. If you are going to delete a page with long history and versions in other languages, please take the time to leave a note on its discussion page; though I know it can be tempting to plow through AfD. +sj + 18:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does one pronounce your username? [Zoh'locks], [Zoh'lohz], [Zuh'locks]....? My inquiring mind would like to know. Thank you most sincerely, Fsotrain₀₉ 04:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always pronounce it [skruhmp-shuhs]. - brenneman ^{L} 02:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep these two requests for deletion review open. There was no concensus; you will note that in one of the cases, even the original deleting admin had expressed misgivings about the deletion. We are still waiting for feedback from the Navy about this issue, but it remains unresolved in any case. Leave a message on my talk page if you have questions. Vectro 17:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator at English Wikipedia -- I have closed the discussions within policy at my discretion, and they remain so. Navy feedback could take years, and it doesn't matter to some of the issues at hand. Even if the material is in the public domain, copying it verbatim is bad form, and would qualify for Wikisource, not Wikipedia. The articles should be rewritten from scratch using sources, including the disputed material, in an editor's own words. The matter is resolved. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you have closed it outside of policy and outside of your discretion. WP:Undeletion policy states that a page may be undeleted after five days under certain circumstances (which were not met), and suggests that otherwise the page should remain open for ten days. In any case, even the original deleter had moved to undelete. Furthermore, while it's true that Navy feedback might take years, it's reasonable to give them a week; such would be witihn the policy guideline of 10 days. And finally, while it is your opinion that the material should not form the basis for an article, such is not policy: there are over 100 Wikipedia articles originally created from Navy sources, and Bondoa6 (talk · contribs) has in the past greated good articles that started with navy sources (see VA-65 and VA-42). Sincerely, Vectro 20:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who opted to overturn, Xoloz's close was perfectly in order as it reflected consensus after five days. There is no mandatory extension to ten days in the policy, and seeing the lack of responses to my post I doubt it would've made a difference. Note that the DRV only reflects on the deletion decision, which was endorsed, and not the article itself. If a viable version of those articles is created the deletion decisions and the DRV's have no bearing on them, as they only hold for the copy-and-paste versions. ~ trialsanderrors 02:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xoloz--I took very seriously your request for input from experienced, impartial editors on this delete, even if I didn't realize that I was as "confused" as you described me as newbie (no insult taken though). However, in spamming the delete discussion with anons, Mykungfu has pasted in my prior comments from other pages, giving the impression that (even though my prior comments are true) I have joined him in spamming the discussion. Is it bad wikiquette for me to remove thes comments, or should I let them stand? BTW, thanks for looking at this, regardless of the outcome.-Robotam 19:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, I rolled that page back to where it stood before MKF showed up, and tried to tidy it up to fit the usual format of AfD pages. Feel free to undo what I did if you feel it was improper, but I think it's in good shape now. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you restore an indef block? they're using their account to launch a denial of service attack on AOL based editors--172.162.193.218 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On my talkpage I was told that a few autoblocks were set off by Mykungfu's block, so I unblocked a few from my earlier block of him. However, I'm not sure I understand where this second block is coming from as I can't find any links to the IP spamming, and I would figure that after his unblock, the IP spamming would have stopped. I'm a bit busy at the moment so I can't look too extensively into the matter, but I'm not sure whether you believe the most recent autoblock should be removed or not if it is to keep Mykungfu away from a page, so I'm leaving that to you. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 20:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week Hi,

I have re-imposed a one week block against your continued involvement in contentious disputes. I will reduce this block to 48 hours if you agree not to involve yourself any further in deletion diputes regarding Alpha Kappa Nu, now at AfD. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please indef this user for using thier account as a platform to attack other

• • no aol users have EVER been attacked by me ! Mykungfu 20:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the original Alpha Kappa Nu site, everything i've written has been to explain the POV of why the article was made and it's relevance to history. Please read above in the section named Indefinite blocked This gives a detailed summary of the current situation. Please take a look at "This article should be deleted because NinjaNubian/MyKungfu is using multiple IPs to endorse keep for article and terrorising Alpha Phi Alpha and Alpha Kappa Alpha. Bearly541 02:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Alpha_Kappa_Nu_%28second_nomination%29 Individuals have been making numerous accusations as a personal vendetta against myself on the talk pages as well as the user page for AFD-Alpha Kappa Nu. Mykungfu 20:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mykungfu continuing to avoid block by vandalizing Alpha Kappa Alpha with AOL IP addresses. See here [4]. Bearly541 03:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mykungfu has moved on to avoiding his block by reverting any other editors on Sigma Pi Phi with AOL IP addresses[5], and threatening continued "edit wars" if he is not "compromised" with[6]. [7]-Robotam 19:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please take a look at this, MrDarcy and Robotam refuse to even work with other users.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigma_Pi_Phi#Skip_Mason_2

Thank you.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/countering anti-Serb bias. 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.

Hi, Xoloz, thanks again for protecting that at my request some months ago. I'd like to ask you to unprotect it now since I need to update it. (I am planning to revise my entire user space.) Note that another page in my user space has been recently vandalized several times by an anon sock for KraMuc (talk · contribs · block log), and some oddly angry anon has recently declared in my user talk page that he considers me an "enemy" of his (I have no idea what that is about!), so over the next few weeks I'd certainly appreciate assistance in watching for and reverting possible vandalism of my user space over the next few weeks.

TIA ---CH 14:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request fulfilled. :) I assume this means the end of the dispute with Dr. L? Best wishes, Xoloz 14:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Re your question about an unrelated matter: as far as I know, User:David.Mestel and I are continuing to progress toward beginning our negotiation. I approached you about my user page because you were the admin who protected it at my request with regard to a distinct controversy. But only after some thought because I am trying hard to avoid further delays in that matter.---CH 15:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alarm, alarm! Sorry, Xoloz, I guess I wasn't clear. You unprotected the wrong page! I wanted you to unprotect User:Hillman, not User:Hillman/Dig/Langan User_talk:Hillman/Archive13. Right now, User:Hillman is protected but User:Hillman/Dig/Langan is unprotected. I want User:Hillman to be unprotected so I can update it, but to keep User:Hillman/Dig/Langan User_talk:Hillman/Archive13 protected, at least pending outcome of negotiations with Mestel.

Hope you can fix this! Thanks! ---CH 15:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... See, I never protected your userpage proper; R Koot did, but I have unprotected it for you. I took your request to mean that you wanted Archive 13 unprotected, hence my remark about Dr. L. I have reprotected that. I have never protected Dig/Langan, which is now blanked, right? Do you wish for its protection?

Sorry for the confusion. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... that's what I meant... wow, my batteries must be sputtering :-/ The confusion was due to my low power fault, but everything is just right now! Thanks again for your help, Xoloz.

Hope it is clear to all observers that this has nothing to do with the topics of my negotiation with David.Mestel, which is on-going. ---CH 19:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You write: How can Wikipedia have a fixed apparatus against which to campaign. We aren't a bureaucracy, are we?

It's not a bureaucracy, but important functions are carried out only by trusted people chosen by the community for that function, most notably administrators, bureaucrats and arbitrators. The community decides how that works; it is decided by discussion, not decided by a small section of the community wielding a big stick. --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bearly541 has put a lot of work into the sockpuppet page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Bearly541 He also has been pretty much the only writer of the sockpuppet page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mykungfu&limit=500&action=history The sockpuppet page is a bit unusual in that it doesn't really list just sockpuppets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mykungfu

It gives a partial "synopsis"

"Mykungfu makes unwarranted edits to NPHC groups such as Omega Psi Phi, Kappa Alpha Psi, Alpha Kappa Alpha, Alpha Phi Alpha, and Delta Sigma Theta. User also harrases users via AOL sockpuppets. User also made attack page Alpha Kappa Nu which attacks featured article Alpha Phi Alpha. User cannot be blocked. High threat."

it also gives what appears to be advice with "Top of Mykungfu's User Page Should always have this banner in order to forewarn users of destructive capabilities. If taken down, please revert action at sight by IP. Also, please tag vandal IP with {{sockpuppet|Mykungfu}}."

and has 2 screen shots

---

---

and

List of Banned IP addresses

Should read this [as of October 5, 06:56] (unless user directs more IP addresses for destructive activities). Vandal is well known to take off sockpuppet tags to avoid being blocked. No IPs from this list should be removed. Please feel free to add more IP addresses that the vandal uses for destructive activity.

Although I believe this to border on harrassment I feel that maybe AN can be of help. Especially when USERNAMES such as Boobydoop and Mikeandike who were past vandals have been associated with my SN. I have always said that I was NinjaNubian and lost my password and became Mykungfu. The previous 2, BD and Mikeandike aren't me. I came in around August 2006, BD and Mikaandike were last used in march. Please take a look into this. thank you 205.188.117.71 08:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[8] Syrthiss 13:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOU'RE CRAZY XOLOZ! (sounds from Werdna that they have addressed your concern) Syrthiss 17:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byrgenwulf has opened a Request for Comment on the conduct of Asmodeus, here. I regret to bring news of what is likely to be an unpleasant event to your attention, but since you were involved in administrative duties relevant to this dust-up (in particular, the CTMU DRV), I felt you should be informed.

Best wishes, Anville 17:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about adding the various projects for deletion on the wrong date. I kinda got the impression that the days were put in by bot or something. Thanks for the information and, even though I'm pretty nearly completely through now, I will ensure that any additional pages I add are put in under the correct date. Badbilltucker 17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.o Thanks for the tip. I guess I wasn't paying attention to the MfD when I deleted User:Jason Greenberg. Nishkid64 19:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]