User talk:Xoloz/archive19

An editor has asked for a deletion review of deletion of innaccurate claims or bias of sean hannity. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Fastbackpinto 01:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I posted a request to have my article restored but have not heard from you yet.

I object the deletion of the article about Shoplet that I wrote recently. In addition to its verifiable contents, the article also meets Wikipedia's requirement of notability. Below are links to independent sources and press coverage that established Shoplet's notability.

FOX 5 News

MyFoxNY.com Online Coverage

City of Hope Foundation

Top 100 OPI Resellers in the World 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 OPI.net - Office Products International

I hope that you reconsider and promptly restore my article.

Thank you. Nymonsoon 15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was disappointed to see that you totally misunderstood the arguments in the AfD and DRV. The arguments were not based on the claim of subject having won a notable award within a sub-genre; they were based on the claim that she was innovative or prolific in two pornographic genres: big-bust and BBW (see WP:PORNBIO criteria 3). Epbr123 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the argument you were attempting to make, yes. Your point, however, is a bit too fine: the evidence for her success in the genre(s) was a non-notable award in a non-notable magazine. I saw your argument that the guideline did not demand the evidence for criterion 3 to be notable -- despite the absence of the word from the guideline's literal text, I think this argument of yours is very thin. If WP:PORNBIO is to be read that broadly, I'd be inclined to second those folks who said the guideline needs to be scrapped (and I'm generally a strong supporter -- and proud consumer -- of pornography.) In any case, the consensus in this discussion was that your interpretation of the guideline was inappropriate for this circumstance. The simplest way to phrase this is that you lost the argument, both by head-count, and by the measure of policy, as informed by common sense. It certainly didn't help your cause that the article was a poor stub quality. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were also reliable independent sources stated, so the article passed WP:BIO. The AfD certainly didn't have consensus to delete. Epbr123 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are factually in error. The two sources cited were the individual's own webpage and "lanasbigboobs.com", a commercial provider. These do not meet WP:V by the widest stretch. If you find different (truly reliable sources), then you are welcome to rewrite the article using them. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extra sources were mentioned in the DRV, which as the closer, I hope you have already seen. Epbr123 15:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned, and rejected as unreliable by everyone but yourself. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are they unreliable? Epbr123 15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned at the DRV, they appear likely to have a commercial relationship to the subject and/or to fail the fundamental requirement of WP:RS, which is: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." There is no evidence of trustworthiness given for these sites. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence that this is untrustworthy. Epbr123 16:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence that that site is untrustworthy consists of the consensus of DRV commenters who rejected it. When one offers evidence, and several rational folks reject that evidence as unconvincing, the burden is on the offerer to make his case. Personally speaking, I know of no reason to trust "PornReports" as any different from John Doe's (admittedly pretty-looking) blog. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that you believe that any outlet which covers pornography will be unreliable. If this was a review site for any other product, you'd find it fine. Epbr123 16:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check my userpage, friend. I love porn, and admit as much. But I do recognize that, since sex is the single most dominant topic on the web, random sites cannot be trusted unless they have some evidence of trustworthiness. Most editors agree with me, and thank goodness they do, as WP does not need any article whose sources are the equivalent of a personal webpage, listing some guy's favorite beauties. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I won't waste your time by writing anything in lengthy context. I recently submitted an article on the Glasgow UK concert venue "BOX". The venue is indeed real, it's popular, and it does not have any wiki references as of yet. I referenced the venue with outside links within the article I wrote.

I purely wish to add a great music venue to the wiki pages, as there are many other Glasgow venues that currently have pages. BOX is rapidly becoming one of the more popular places to go in Glasgow and its my favourite hangout, such is the reason I know so much about it.

Please give me a FULL reason as to why the article was deleted. I don't see any way in which you can prove that it is not worthy of being on this website.

If you had any problems with any small aspect of the article, simply remove those pieces (let me know which bits not to re-add) and I will be happy!

Many regards. J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempercal (talk • contribs) 02:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why was the page deleted this time? it wasn't "blatant advertising" and it is obviously "relevant", especially since other associations manage to get their pages to stick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.67.149 (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While new content is wonderful in principle, certain types of content fall under WP's criteria for speedy deletion. In this case, ABAA's article offended CSDs A7 and G11. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory, articles on organizations must assert encyclopedic notability (it is not enough that an organization exists) -- failing to do so is speedy deletable (A7); articles must also not be written in manner that is strikingly promotional (G11). ABAA's article was deleted for both these reasons. New editors are not punished for the mistakes they make in their first drafts, but it is hoped that they will learn the guidelines through practice, and warnings as necessary. In this case, the author ABAA failed to "take the hint", and has seen his content speedy deleted four times now, after which point, protection against recreation is the norm. The place to list a business that is not encyclopedically notable is the telephone directory, or the like. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. All I'm trying to do is get an article started so that I can tell ABAA's members that an article has been started and encourage them to contribute. How do I get the ban lifted and just post a stub? btw, the reason that the association is encyclopedically notable is that it contributes a lot of research to the industry, and is a resource for 'education and technical information on air barriers'.. it's a non-profit so we're not trying to sell anything and are just trying to let people know we exist.. i ask that you re-consider —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.67.149 (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While non-profits are often admirable, Wikipedia does not waive its notability criteria for them. To satisfy the relevant guideline, one would need independent, reliable sources (from the mainstream press, or major coverage in an industry periodical or scientific journal, independent of the subject.) If your interest is mostly in establishing a locus from which employees can communicate, try myspace.com or facebook.com. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia exists to chronicle things of some renown. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cultural information. IIRC, I have occasionally heard the term "pimpin'" used in the manner you describe (most American cultural themes have an impact this side of the Atlantic), but to me the matter-of-fact style of the userbox ("This user is a pimp"), as well as the emphasis of the article pimp which the userbox linked to, gave the wrong impression. Although I understand that the creator wasn't trying to imply that he was actually linked with prostitution, the content of the userbox seemed to be open to misinterpretation. I also believe it would confuse/offend non-native English speakers, who would discover only the literal meaning of the term when looking it up. Walton^One 18:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving notice here that I'm considering challenging your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (5th nomination). Is a small subset of the community really permitted to ignore (repeatedly) our requirements for independent third-party sources which discuss a website, simply because we like it? Wouldn't a merge to history of Wikipedia be more appropriate?

A properly functioning AfD depends on arguments grounded in policy. When confronted with arguments that ignore policy, there's a responsibility for the closing administrator to discount those arguments and apply a little judgement. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted your "closing summary" on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Furry, in the hopes that furries on Wikipedia will learn what makes a good article and what does not... feel free to comment on my comment on that page if you have anything to add. - ∅ (∅), 13:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at a prod of another article. In this prod article, it specifically says that the editor adding the {prod} template should add a clear comment in the edit summary. Please see the edit summary that User:Mikeblas made in the Phex history. It is "(unreferenced; prod)". This is not a clear comment that the article was proposed for deletion. If there is an admin guide for moving the article to deletion, can we be sure that they check the editor has clearly marked the article as proposed deletion? The "prod" template by itself is not informative to people who have never been through a deletion proposal.

I understand that getting crap off of Wikipedia is a very good thing. And of course, the deletion policy/process eventually caught this. Thanks for all your work. Bpringlemeir 23:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm not out to get you? All I wanted was some clarification; I haven't disagreed with your opinion, or said you were wrong. Why did you think my "conduct" wasn't good? Wikispace is meaningless, and unhelpful to use - see wiki. It would be a lot more helpful to use Project space, or even Wikipedia space, but wikispace is inaccurate. Don't assume I'm simply commenting to annoy you, because I'm not. Majorly (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit) was redirected to Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit) with a claim by User: A Link to the Past that there was some previous discussion on this (not only wasn't there one but when someone mentioned there wasn't any in the talk page back in July they were ignored). Because of the amount of time it was redirected some images were deleted. I would like the article changed back with the images restored. I would also like Sonic the Hedgehog (video game) & its talk page to be moved back to it's proper Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit). SNS 18:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your closing last month regarding recreated BJAODN pages, you may wish to look at these. --Calton | Talk 20:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm looking for a specific action: I just picked you because you'd made a declaration at the DRV and presumably would have an opinion on the suitability of these on that basis. --Calton | Talk 21:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Scarian^Talk 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly an FYI to you as an admin who still uses the old, templated method for salting pages. That method of salting pages is depricated, and the template is now up for deletion. While things can still change, the current discussion definitely looks headed towards deletion. Assuming that this happens, you will no longer be able to salt pages with the old method, and will need to begin using the newer salting method that involves cascading protection on the title, and allows recreation to be blocked while still having no article at the name, leaving it as a red link. This new method of salting is centered at WP:PT, and the instructions for how to make it work are there as well. - TexasAndroid 13:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in closing the deletion review of Image:Carellcolbert_ds.jpg, you offered the following rationale: "The image had no clear, supporting, sourced text. Given that overwhelming failure to comply with image policy, the closer was correct to discount any opinions which did not take take adequate note of that fact."

I thought I was very familiar with Wikipedia image policy, so I was shocked to discover I'd overlooked such an "overwhelming" failure! Of course, in fact, there was "supporting" text. And "clear," of course, relies on the eye of the beholder--you are, in fact, the first person to claim the text was not "clear." As for "sourced"--well, you're right there. Now, I'm conversant with general Wikipedia policy, which requires that all text be verifiable and attributable, but apparently Wikipedia image policy requires that all images be accompanied by explicitly sourced text. Anything less is "overwhelming failure." Again, I was not aware of this policy. As someone who does a fair amount of work with images, could you please direct me to where this policy is stated? Thank you.—DCGeist 17:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite our continuing philosophical disagreement, just a note of thanks for your thoughtful and thorough response. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 01:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xoloz, could you please cut back on the slightly early DRV closures? You're a reasonable guy, but as someone to tends to disagree with you on the less obvious DRVs, it's somewhat upsetting for me (and, I would imagine based on the complaints you receive, others as well) to see you close so many borderline cases. Again, you're a reasonable person, but I think it's fair to say that you tend to err moderately off-center with these discussions, and I would really like to see a more diverse group of admins participating in closing them.

Alternatively, if you feel that a full five days is generally unnecessary, perhaps you and/or I could propose a slight adjustment to WP:DRV policy?

Best, — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't have made the request if I thought it were asking anything significant. I reasoned it shouldn't matter that objections haven't been raised by other users, since I am convinced that no one benefits significantly from regular ahead-of-schedule closures. (Perhaps closing after four days saves unnecessary discussion, but in that case adjusting the WP:DRV policy would have the same effect.)

If your decision is firm, I won't push my minor disagreement. It's not worth a major dispute to me. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the page Bitterside be editted?
I am willing the recreate the page without using copyright violations.
JEPAAB 12:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've written teh article at [User:JEPAAB/Bitterside]. Now can you please help me and tell me what I have to do since I am a bit shaky about his business? Thanks!

JEPAAB 18:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bitterside. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

JEPAAB 20:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly was the page on International Cooperation on Airport Surveillance (ICAS) deleted? It is no company, no person... Schnegge0105 16:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of AIAI were moved to Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute through a cut & paste move. The edit history from this edit [2] & older will need to be merged with the other article. SNS 16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't want you to be lonely, hope this helps. Since the article is back, is there any way to restore the image that was also speedied? Thank you so much! Chris 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew an admin could find a speedy reason where I couldn't. It sure seemed like a CSD, I just couldn't categorize it. Thanks! --UsaSatsui 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no prejudice on recreating this article, I was wondering if you would unsalt it so it can be properly recreated. Admc2006 07:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would let you know that someone named Phil Welch unilaterally decided to delete the work on Matrixism that you and others did. Would appreciate it if you could repost this work (somewhere at least) so it is not lost. Thank you. 207.69.139.141 09:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you look at the warning templates posted on Talk:The Matrix and (now) Talk:The Matrix (series), you'll see that this Matrixism business has been discussed over and over again since 2005, and the references never seem to pan out to anything more than an author taking the Geocities site at face value. As a probable hoax and recurrent linkspamming vandalism campaign, it's been consistently removed over the past couple of years in the absence of any real evidence that it exists as a bona-fide religious movement. The first AFD that was done on it suggested a merge to The Matrix, but the editors of that article came to the consensus (which has since been maintained) to reject the content entirely, so the redirect has been consistently deleted. The linkspammer is known for venue shopping and has tried to insert references to such articles as List of religions and New religious movement—their talk pages also document the formulation of the consensus that this is indeed highly trivial content of doubtful veracity. To make a long story short, our anonymous friend, who is trying so hard to put references to "Matrixism" in Wikipedia, has a very long history of going from place to place and waiting from time to time to do the same old thing, which has never been accepted in the long run.

Matrixism is simply not verifiable or notable enough for inclusion, nor will it be barring some vast emergence of real evidence. This is some guy whose self-promotion has gotten passing mentions in a few published works, and who has since 2005 been trying to use Wikipedia as another venue for self-promotion. Philwelch 10:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section and re-direct has since been restored (we'll see how long that lasts) but the article work-up that you tried to preserve where the Matrixism re-direct is/was located is no longer there. If you might know how to retrieve that i would like to look at it. TR166ER 10:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to work out why this film has been barred from having an entry on Wikipedia. I noticed that you were involved in some of the debate and so I thought to check in and ask you for your opinion. It doesn't seem to me that it can realistically be consider "not notable" any longer as it is achieving 35,000+ views daily on Google Video and is causing a massive stir all around the place. In addition virtually all the material is sourced on the creator's website, so I'm a bit of a loss to understand the position that Wikipedia has created for itself. Can you enlighten me at all? I very much appreciate any time you could take to explain this to me.

Regards

Amira227 10:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell, I accept the deletion of 3 wise monkeys in pop culture, but please explain how you conclude that it was unsourced. A few items are unsourced, but most are acceptably sourced by primary sources within the OR policy, specifically WP:PSTS. If it's been deleted please refer here. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying promptly, but I still don't get it. Films and books are primary sources; using these does not breach WP:OR, which requires simply that the editor "only make descriptive claims", not analytical ones. Now that might result in an article that is trivial or unencyclopedic, which I accept breaches other policies and deserves to be deleted because of those policies; whereas using secondary sources could enable the editor to report non-original interpretations, which make up a good article. But I still don't understand how the use of facts from primary sources is "unsourced". - Fayenatic (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your full reply. I might draft an addition to WP:PSTS summarising this. I guess the best process for that would be to post a draft on the OR policy talk page. Thanks again for taking the time. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You closed this as allowing recreation, but the page is still protected against recreation by non-admins. I'm confused. --W.marsh 21:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the talk page not be reinstated as well? Presumably with the result of the AfD/DRV process? This will allow others who suggest a future AfD to see the history. Fiddle Faddle 12:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll like history undeletions on Re-Animated (TV Series) & Doom 4. SNS 02:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't noticed your message on the top of the talk page until after I posted that. SNS 16:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xoloz, thank you for your support during my RfA. If the concerns that were brought up by other editors gave you second thoughts, rest assured that I'll keep all of the comments in mind in the coming months, and will try again later. In the mean time, if you see me doing something stupid, please let me know. See you around. --barneca (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your participation for my RFA bid and for your support.--JForget 23:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello. following your decision at these articles' del-rev i'd like to know what should be done in order to make these articles legit, in you opinion. since i do believe that they are notable and should exist, i'd like your guidance. please respond to my talk page. many thanks, Comint 07:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]