User talk:Xoloz/archive14

Userfy

Could you please userfy The Colbert Report recurring elements, as per consensus in the discussion?--TBCΦtalk? 05:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, as per my post below. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Colbert Report recurring elements

Hello, you recently closed the deletion review for The Colbert Report recurring elements, and I would like to request that at the very least you restore it to my userspace. Several editors from both ends of the argument approved of restoring the article to the userspace of one of the editors to be cleaned up and properly cited. I would definitely be willing to spend some time on the article to bring it up to snuff at Wikipedia, citing as much as I can and removing what is obviously original research. Even if the article doesn't make Wikipedia, it is a valuable resource for anyone who is interested in The Colbert Report and its themes. Personally, I found it interested and thought-provoking when I first read it. I'm not arguing right now for the restoration of the article by any means, just a restoration to my userspace (or you could email me the article, if that's what it takes for the text to be recovered, because in all honesty, a fair amount of work went into it, and it would be a shame for it to be lost).

Please consider my proposition; it's not too unreasonable! Thank you. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice that TBC has also posted such a message, sorry for the double post! -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I hope you enjoyed working at the elections. I might work at the polls next year. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

And welcome back :) Haukur 20:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were gone? Probably explains why it fell to an old process-wonk like me to defend the system against the antinomian man of sin. [1]. ;) Oh, btw congratulations, whatever it is for! --Docg 23:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol :) I was off-line for all of a day and a half, working the polls for the 2006 US Elections. The congratulations stem from those elections, which have neutered Satan's pet monkey. Happy days are here again, and the world is a bit safer! Xoloz 01:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should be congratulating the whole of mericaland then! But, now I'm more worried about household discipline, as we will have noting with which to scare the kids.--Docg 02:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedster (comics)

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but it looks we might have an edit war at speedster (comics) between myself and Ace Class Shadow. If you could chime in with your opinion on that article’s talk page, so that we can achieve some sort of consensus, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream 10:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catch21

Thanks for your last e-mail and I completely understand why it was deleted!

I have included a revised version below, which I hope you will find is now more appropriate! Would it be possible for you to upload this one onto the site?

May I also ask if it would be possible to have the article located under the name Catch21 rather than Catch21 Productions when people search for it?

If you are ever able to come over to the UK we'd love you to come to a show.


Many thanks and kind regards

Doug

P.S. I definately feel like a lemon jelly sandwich now...

Deleted esoteric languages

Hi Xoloz,

I just revisited some old esoteric language pages to find they've been deleted! A quick catch-up on AFD history indicates a mass-deletion, which I'm glad to see you seem to have been against. (I found your comments here). It seems the decision was to relist the languages, but very little undeletion seems to have taken place. Is this process still going ahead?

One example I'm concerned about is this one: L33t programming language, which I strongly argued to keep in Feb 2005, (debate), which was successful. It was again nominated for deletion in Sep 06 (debate), and again it was kept. And now it just gets deleted as part of a mass deletion with no real consensus, and which certainly didn't go through the proper channel. I wonder where we're up to in reversing this process? Thanks! —EatMyShortz 16:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your quick reply. I see, so it was a copyright problem. In that case, people shouldn't object if the article is rewritten. I'll have a go at that then when I get some time. My concern was that there were a lot of other red-link languages which seem to have been deleted, but just browsing that list, those deleted ones don't seem very notable, so I'll let it be. Thanks! —EatMyShortz 17:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chidom/Permanent Record

Please undelete my user page. (I'm not sure why you would delete it without notifying me to start with.) This was one of my sandbox pages. Here's what apparently happened:

  • The then existing Mark Dalton (porn star) article was speedy deleted by User:Proto and the page locked to prevent recreation.
  • I listed the article at DRV (record of which is here; you closed it)
  • Since the page was locked for recreation, I began drafting a replacement article at User:Chidom/Permanent Record during the Deletion Review

After that, I'm not sure what exactly happened. It seems that the Permanent Record page was moved to the Mark Dalton article which created a redirect from Permanent Record to Mark Dalton.

What I think probably should have happened:

The history for User:Chidom/Permanent Record moved to the Mark Dalton (porn star) article; which will be confusing if not dangerous (this allows the reversion of the article to an earlier version of my sandbox page); what I did on my user page doesn't belong in the namespace, either.

Restoring my sandbox page and its history is important as I need to be able to revert to earlier versions of the page. In order to draft the Mark Dalton article, I blanked Permanent Record in order to avoid creating yet another sandbox. I had counted on being able to revert to an earlier revision of the page.

Thanks.—Chidom talk  01:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I was doing was drafting a new article in a sandbox; it would certainly be correct to copy and paste that material into an article; that's what sandboxes are for. The entire page shouldn't be moved from User space to Name space. The history of the draft of the article is irrelevant to the article itself; the history of previous incarnations of the article is relevant
Under your logic, the User:Chidom/Sandbox#Fred Bisonnes draft that I'm working on shouldn't be copied and pasted into an article on him; that's exactly what will happen (if I ever finish it enough to put it out there in namespace).
The article that was deleted should have been undeleted and the text replaced with the draft. Then my user page should have been blanked except for the {{userpage}} template. If the article had not been locked to prevent recreation, I would have been able to do that to start with.—Chidom talk  03:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. What was on that page was not an article. Please read Wikipedia:User page#What about user subpages?:

'If you need more pages, you can create subpages. More or less, you can have anything here that you might have on your user or user talk page.
"Examples:
  • "a work in progress, until it is ready to be released (this is typically not necessary, though some people do this)"

And Wikipedia:User page#How do I create a user subpage?:

"New users are encouraged to develop their edits in a sandbox, also known as a user subpage, but subpages are also used by experienced editors developing new articles or working on a major revision to an existing article.... Copy the source for the article you want to edit to your sandbox and perfect your edits there. Be careful when going back to the article that you do not inadvertently revert edits subsequent to your copying the page. Once you are more experienced you can forsake the sandbox for smaller edits and edit directly in the article remembering, of course, to proof-read thoroughly using "show preview" before saving the page." (emphasis added)

While I understand that the GFDL requires maintaining the history of an article, what was on my user page was not an article. The DRV was to have the deleted page undeleted; it didn't approve or disapprove my draft—that was given strictly as evidence of why the article should be undeleted.

I couldn't begin to recall all the text that I've drafted on one of my user pages and then copied and pasted into an existing article or used to create a new one; I don't even know if the user pages I had at the time still exist.

I'd ask that you do one or both of two things: point me toward the justification for not copying and pasting material from a user page to a page in the namespace; and ask another administrator to chime in; maybe we need another opinion here.

As for the AfD, I don't think that articles should be nominated for deletion "as a precaution". Against what, exactly, are you trying to protect? Anyone who has an issue with the article can nominate it, what is the basis for your recommendation that the article be deleted? (However "weakly".) The questions about the "correctness of new sources" was addressed. If someone still had a problem with "whether they qualified the article under WP:PORNBIO", that person should have nominated the article and explained what their issues were. If that's your problem with the article, you need to say so, and explain specifically why you think WP:PORNBIO isn't met, not undertake anything "editorially".—Chidom talk  04:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts

On a completely different topic, I noticed on your User page that you had a section titled, "Xoloz Hearts the Public Domain". Two things: Why all initial caps instead of just the first word? And this: "♥" gives you this: ♥, which might make the heading more fun. Just a thought.—Chidom talk  00:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hi Xoloz!

I think it'd be good to combine the split pages into one once more. I think it's reasonable to have a new list of standards of some sort, but perhaps in chronological order rather than alphabetical (to make pruning the older ones easier), but we should definitely omit columns for "#edits" and "#months" to avoid the impression of editcountitis that RFA had earlier this year. Also, as you suggest, a more central (yet unofficial) summary would be more useful than the criterion of whichever user happens to be on top (obviously candidates aren't going to read all of that, and people tend to start at the top and stop after five or ten entries or so).

Yours, (Radiant) 17:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{deletedpage}}

No need to subst {{deletedpage}}. Subst is usually done to reduce server impact on frequently visited pages, but when used on a salted page, it just takes up a bunch of extra space on the server. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV on Tunnel Rats

Hi,

The deletion review on Tunnel Rats has concluded that the content should be userfied, so that you may source the article reliably. Note that the group's own webpage (and photos) are not reliable sources, as they do stem from a third-party, and represent a possible conflict of interest. They need not be removed from the article, but they cannot be the sole sources, if they article is to remain. The article needs press coverage, basically, to verify the group is notable.

Since your IP address may be dynamic, I have "userfied" the article to myself at User:Xoloz/The Tunnel Rats. Please feel free to edit the userfied version in any way you see fit. Once it is sourced, let me know, and I'll move it back to article-space. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I'll get on top of that as soon as possible. Thank you for making the deleted data available. The NN delete was incorrect for all intents and purposes, but you're right, it does need more sources. 211.30.71.59 13:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

userfying Spirou pages

thank you, yes I was still waiting for the last ones. In fact, if you got a mo', there is just one last one missing, La corne de rhinocéro and I'd be able to put the ordeal of getting speed-deleted all behind me.. and be very grateful. Murgh 18:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh. Yes i suppose I can't rule out the possibility of a mistype, but I thought I was thorough and would of course prefer to think the fault lies elsewhere. But nevermind, it's just the one basic page, and I can redo that. Thx for trying. Murgh 18:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is A7/G11?

Hello, On November 13 you deleted FreakingNews article: 04:03, 13 November 2006 Xoloz (Talk | contribs) deleted "FreakingNews" (A7/G11) May I ask for the reasons you deleted the article which none of the other wikipedians had reasons to delete?

Could you clarify what is A7/G11?

Kind regards,

VladG

Jenny Rom

Hi, I noticed that you deleted Jenny Rom as "spam". This seems pretty harsh to me. Kappa 19:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision update

  • Xoloz,
I've just finished my first rounds of revising the organized crime related articles and have added both exact sources (mostly from Sifakis and Kelly) and additional references which supports statements used in the article. I've added citations as best I could however I can break down each statement within the article and state its specific source if nessessary. MadMax 01:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finished the second set (mostly from references listed at User:MadMax/references if you'd like to take a look, however I'm unable to find any references to support the existance of Anthony Apacalo. MadMax 20:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completed the third set of articles, although I only have secondary sources listed as "further reading" (from User:MadMax/references) for User:MadMax/Alphonse Attardi and User:MadMax/Milton Beasley. Also I removed quotes attributed to the Encyclopedia of World Crime from the Milton Beasley article. MadMax 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done with the forth batch. MadMax 06:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fifth set is finished. MadMax 20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the sixth batch is completed. MadMax 05:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finished the seventh set. MadMax 21:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xoloz,
Just to let you know, I've provided resources for the Gas House Gang recently restored by VenerableBeed. MadMax 22:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalbury's RfA

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 02:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use.
~ trialsanderrors 07:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More via the alternative channel... ~ trialsanderrors 07:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV formatting minutia

Wasn't really sure who to ask about this but you seem to do a lot of DRV stuff, so you get stuck with it. I just modified the template people use to list DRVs, they should use a level 4 header, right? I'm not very good at this stuff and just wanted to make sure I wasn't screwing anything up. Thanks. --W.marsh 22:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving DRVs

I created a little sandbox with a simpler way to archive discussions. With hide boxes DRV discussions can simply be closed AfD-style, with top and botton substed templates. No more toggling between two browser tabs and copying and pasting diffs into the closed discussions. Let me know what you think! ~ trialsanderrors 10:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks wonderful! You're a genius! :) What are the templates you use? Best wishes, Xoloz 18:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't written the templates yet, right now they're just modified navboxes. But if that's something to pursuse, it would looks something like this:
 {{subst:drt|[[Stonerband]]|deletion endorsed}}
 [[[DISCUSSION]]]
 {{subst:drb}}
They could potentially be used for any XfD's. ~ trialsanderrors 19:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks
Thank you for the Strong Support

I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Xoloz, for your strong support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp23 14:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again, luckily becoming an administrator does not mean refusing my "heritage" as WikiGnome! ReyBrujo 20:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect User:Hillman plus User talk:Hillman

Hi, Xoloz, looks like someone unprotected my user page. Do you know why? I'd like to hang onto my Wikipedia user account but to keep my user page protected to prevent vandalism. (You may recall that my user pages were very frequently vandalized while I was trying to write my "Wikipedia exit statement".)

I see that some befuddled newbie (?) who has made precisely one Wikipedia edit left an incomprehensible message on my user talk page. It's unanswerable since that user didn't give enough information to guess why he thinks I might be able to guess what he wants from me so I moved it to his own user talk page. I'd like to avoid encouraging disgruntled users from leaving further weird messages of this kind, so I turned my user talk page into a redirect to my user page. Could you possibly protect my user talk page also? I'd REALLY appreciate your help! Thanks. ---CH 02:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the LONG delay in responding, but we can all blame the flu (flu, you stink! boo to the flu!) for giving me a miserable Thanksgiving week. All pages are automatically unprotected when they are deleted; subsequent recreations are not protected. That is likely what happened here. I'll reprotect for you -- should you start editing again (and please do!), we'll need to unprotect your talk page. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jakazid

Hi there. I went to the above page to find out some more info about the person behind this record only to find that it's got a weird protection page on it - one that I haven't even seen before. Would you be able to tell me why this is? Triangle e 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV's

When you get back to editing, there's some work to be done on DRV's where I !voted. ~ trialsanderrors 11:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you're back to editing. I did a field test of the new archive boxes at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 21 and moved the two templates into template space: {{drt}} and {{drb}}. I'll probably go parallel old and new for the rest of the month. You know anyone who could close the two debates from Nov 14 & 19? We both !voted on them and they're starting to rot. Hope all is well now, trialsanderrors 09:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while

Hey guy. It's been a while! Saw your input at Kafziel's RfA. Hopefully you had a great Thanksgiving holiday. I'm building an article in MS Word lately as I try not to submit stubs (I think it saves bandwith). Is that right? Plus, it is partially the reason I don't have 5000 edits either. Any hoot, drop a line sometime man. Catchya around. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 06:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DRV No Consensus

Ahh - thanks for contacting me about that. I wasn't too sure of the procedure, but felt it was best to relist based on the (apparent) overall opinion. The reason I closed as "no consensus" was based on the message at the top of the WP:DRV page, where it says: "If there is a consensus to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands. If there is a consensus to overturn a decision and apply some other result to the debate, it is applied. If there is no consensus, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process." (emphasis mine). I dunno if I misunderstood that, or if it's worded in a way which doesn't really convey the idea of it. Thanks - Martinp23 15:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P Glad it's sorted out now - thanks for your guidance with this, and helping me to get to now the WP:DRV system! Martinp23 16:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copy of page

Because I probably wouldn't be able to remember it otherwise. And, I'm not sure why you're bothered by the "last conversation." I think we simply agreed to disagree. Why must that be a hostile outcome? ... aa:talk 12:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfB

I pulled out of the ArbCom race a long time ago. Thx! - crz crztalk 12:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and echinacea

I hope your flu is better; I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA (even at peril of life and limb to do it), and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. One thing I'd probably like to do is help out at DRV, if you can stand the newbie toes in the way. Cheers! -- nae'blis 23:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

flu

hey, sorry to read you're ill. the flu can be a real drag. here's hoping to a speedy recovery (CSR?). best, ... aa:talk 05:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

 Oh, the humanity!

I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll continue to strengthen your trust in me between now and the next time around. Kafziel Talk 14:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft Professions - why and what now?

I voted for "Keep" on the World of Warcraft Professions aritcle. When the article went up for review, I voted to overturn deletion. I felt that several good arguments were made by fellow keepers that were completely ignored by deleters. But all this is beside the point; you closed it and kept it deleted. I'm just curious as to why? It seemed pretty close, and (this may be bias talking but) keepers looked like they had a better argument. Also, where can I go next? I still am unconvinced that it was closed for a good reason. Is there anything I can do now to try again? Or rewrite it? Or something? -Ryanbomber 17:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! -Ryanbomber 13:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DrL

Xoloz, feel free to unblock DrL to deal with the ArbCom case, though I'd appreciate it if you'd ask him to restrict his edits to those pages for 24 hours. And thanks for checking with me first. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xoloz and SlimVirgin. Maybe I should quit while I'm ahead, but if you examine the edits that Felonious Monk submitted for evidence, the 3RR rule was not broken. He is now using this block (and other mischief) to call for a partial ban of my account. The fact is that I am not the one that introduced these sources initially, but am only trying to maintain the integrity of the article. Three long-standing sources were removed by Felonious Monk (they dropped out without explanation in one of his editing flurries) and I replaced them (one I replaced twice, but not more than that). I just wanted to make a note of that. --DrL 19:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod at will

No problem, I closed out the 19th in what I feel is a very Xoloz-like manner (and that's a good thing in my world). Feel free to prod in the future if you need a third/fourth opinion, as I try to keep up with DRV but sometimes it slips my radar. -- nae'blis 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving DRV's

OK, I think I got it set up now. There is a bit of a transition problem because under the old system we archive by closing date and under the new system by nomination date. I don't know if you want to run December as a dual system or just discontinue the Recently concluded (2006 December) archive once we start closing the 2006 December 1 nominations. There is now a separate Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive subpage. I don't know if you want to continue transcluding it into the DRV main page, but I'd say a link suffices. The archive page has links to new monthly logs Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November as well as the old archives. The monthly logs are of course quite big now (roughly the same as a daily AfD log), so I put a warning there for those who want to open them. They are simply a list of transcluded daily logs. For recent discussions I linked the last 12 days at the top of the Discussions section.

On closing, I explained the process at Template:Drt (open the box). Other than substing the {{drt}} and {{drb}} in tags you only need to add the daily log to the monthly log once you're finished closing. It makes a lot of sense to close from top to bottom, which is why I have a link to day minus 6 on my userpage (the topmost discussion at day minus 5 usually hasn't run the full 120 hours). That's also the reason why I missed out on closing them over the last few days, because by the time they appear on my radar you're usually already done closing. ~ trialsanderrors 20:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the system is set up for the most part now, there are only a few things to be decided:
  1. Should the archive still be on the main page?
  2. Should the active discussion still be on the main page?
With the new header editors can choose to look up "Active", "Recent", or "Archived" discussions as a whole or directly go to individual dailty logs, so there is really no need anymore to list any discussions on the main page. That would mimic the AfD system where the main page only contains instructions and links to the daily logs. ~ trialsanderrors 01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question about admin activities

Hey, Xoloz. I hope you're feeling better. I have a question about dem attic. Today I was skimming through the craigslist article, looking for information about the craigslist debacle (or, rather, the most recent one). I noticed that some of the content from the livejournal was mirrored to ED, and looked around. Turns out ED is running mediawiki, and some people I haven't been involved with in years. I digress. So what I'm getting at is I inevitably ran across the tension between wikipedia and ED.

I am not inclined to believe the ED's whole rant about various admins and jimmy, and so on. I imagine parts of it are true, and parts of it are just vitriolic rhetoric. However, I think the side of the story from Wikipedia is also probably a little skewed or exaggerated. I was thinking about trying to come up with a happy medium between both stories, but most of the "evidence" here has been deleted, recreated, and then protected. Making that difficult.

So, I figured the site was non-notable and had not been allowed its own article because of that and the rather belligerent behavior of the users over there (this is not to say that I agree or disagree). But when I actually looked at the numbers, I was startled:

Note that this search looks for references to ED (not just links), and excludes the site itself. When we do this, we get ~30,000 hits. Add to that the vast media coverage of the Craigslist scandal:

Sure, a few of these are not exactly the type of thing I'd list in a doctoral thesis, but there's also the Seattle PI, the BBC, The Reg, Der Spiegel, and numerous other sites. These are the ones I dredged up (some in fact come from the ED article).

Do we have some policy that says we won't add articles to the encyclopedia which are critical of the project? There was something of a flap about this in various papers when it was revealed that Jimmy was "editing history," so to speak, such as omitting details like the pornography distributed by Bomis (and this doesn't mean I disapprove of porn, rather I disapprove of the coverup).

What are your thoughts on this? I would personally like to re-create the article, but I suspect I'll be branded a rouge user. ... aa:talk 06:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote

I'm curious what you find questionable about my judgment. I hope you'll reply. --Golbez 16:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have several witnesses on IRC who can attest that I suspected your vote was directly related to my support of Kelly. I wear it as a badge of honor. --Golbez 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Xoloz, with all that is going on, I am hoping that you can take appropriate action with this new account. --DrL 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica

I was wondering what was up with the protection of the Encyclopedia Talk Page? Considering that ED is notable and has plenty of reasons (I believe) to be reinstated, it would be good to be able to talk about it. While protecting a deleted page seems fine, not allowing users to discuss the merits of the deleted page seems awfully 1984ish. I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but why can't we at least talk about the possible recreation of the page? I for one, along with many of my friends have no idea why the page was protected from deletion in the first place, and it's hard to hear admin and others' reasons and opinions if there's not a place for discussion of the topic. Anyway, is there a reason why we shouldn't be able to post on the talk page? I know that the talk page was speedily deleted a few times, and that when I recreated it and cited the speedy deletion rules to show that it didn't meet SD criteria it was deleted and protected. What's going on? The suicide forest 00:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian New Zealand's RfA

Xoloz, since your opposition to the above-captioned RfA was at least partly inspired by mine, I felt it pertinent to tell you that I have switched from strong oppose to neutral. Thanks.--Kchase T 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My userbox

Thank you so much for restoring my userbox. I actually was in the process of contesting the speedy deletion and complaining about the manner in which it took place. I read your opinion on such creatures and have even more respect now for your gesture. Xiner 21:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you obviously know him better than I do. The only contact I have had with him is on the DRV page, where it appears to me he is dismissing my objections without consideration. But that's between me and him. Cheers. Xiner 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't the holidays supposed to cheer you up? Don't be grumpy. Xiner 21:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself fat, ugly, and smelly, not unlike Jabba the Hutt.

I knew there was a reason I could relate to you ;) Pleased to meet ya, I'm a seriously overweight (*cough*man-boobs*cough*), water-loathing (it makes my skin peel like I'm some weird kind of lizard) level 2 biohazzard (intresting diseases and how to catch them). But I read you are having the blues, so I came to cheer ya up. Got too much snow? Send some over to me, seems like we're in for a green Christmas at lush 5°C plus this year. And the flue and relatives, we'll take a advice from me, pass one to the other and both will be gone again rather quick :) Best wishes! CharonX/talk 23:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

By the flippant tone of your FWIW RfA and your opposition, I infer you do not like what you read. You are entitled to your opinions. I am wondering, do you have any personal perception of the demographics of members, admins, & beauros?

Also, have you over been involved in any XfD over race related topics? What is the most disappointing AfD that went against you. TonyTheTiger 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was an excellent discourse. It may be the best yet to appear on my talk page. With regards to my now withdrawn RfA, I have learned a lot from the RfA process. As a result, my ongoing efforts will take on a new focus. I will be attempting to get Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago energized to get some wikiproject space experience, I will try to spend at least an hour a day on WP:NPP, I will change my watchlist to shift the emphasis from editorial oversight to vandalism prevention, and I may make a few more changes. Hopefully, in the next 3 or 4000 edits I can get some more well rounded experience and be a better candidate. I will probably lessen my original editing, but have intentions of setting some policy on human name dabs and possibly on erotica related XfD. In fact, as an admin, I hope you read the talk pages for Playboy Online and related articles from my AfU. Do you have any advice on going about setting special policy for erotica related XfD?
I certainly have no intention of crusading for fairness, but rather crusade for betterment of this resource. My Playboy issue arose because about 1 year ago I accepted a 2 week trial membership. During this time I looked up several items of information on WP. I did not become a member, but wanted to look up some things recently and saw they had been XfDed. I know for my previously exhibited evidence that I am not the lone person interested in Playboy Online on the internet or even at WP. I had to think about what was wrong with the process. Basically, I believe that whether you are for or against an issue you should be pro informational availability on the issue. People who are against an issue such as erotica were sort of forced to be against information on the issue because of the way the pages evolved into touting erotica instead of providing info on erotica. I have attempted to take action to keep that from happening with a few of the many pages, categories and templates that were deleted. It is not a matter of fairness, but rather a matter of improving the encyclopedia.
I personally have not yet had issue with racism although was upset recently to see a KKK cross burning image on someone's user page. I believe that it is possible that people who are against racist, anti-feminist, or anythingist might similarly be XfDing information about issues under the guise of XfDing POV issues. I am just wondering if this might be happening.
Like you I have self-selected to contribute here. My purpose for being here is to contribute to information generation. However, I am learning that information preservation (vandalism fighting) is more important than I thought. I will look forward to your response. TonyTheTiger 18:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will be reevaluating myself in Feb or so to see what my new leaf has meant to my self assessment of administrator qualifications. I, of course, would welcome a third party nomination. I had been thinking that with my current pace of contribution I might be viable sooner. I will have to assess my situation in the future and see if I want to wait. Thanks for your offer. I am not quite sure what I would dedicated to after 5000 edits other than the project, but I have not seen the dark side of the RfA process, so I understand the consideration may be deeper than I understand.
Pornography, as differentiated from Erotica, is not an interest to me as I understand it. However, I had though Playboy fell under Erotica. Within wikipedia I have not ventured to Sexual fetishism, although my topics are varied, I was merely unerasing a topic with regards to Playboy Online. It is very unlikely that I will be producing articles where WP:PORNBIO is relevant. I feel if it were not for the aforementioned process difficulties, I would not have had to unerase the articles. However, I may have a foot fetish:-!
I have never tried to create anything more than the informational pages I recreated. In the past, debate has raged over the boundaries on notability of Playboy online models for bio articles. I am not involved in this debate. In the past, debate has raged over whether lists and categories of these biographical persons should be included in WP. My opinion after reading past deletion logs is what you see in the talk pages I have produced. I basically, feel that the current boundaries are fairly equitable given lists and categories for other professions. At minute levels there are points of contestation that are not worth my time as I pick and choose how to contribute. I am of the firm belief that some basic information should be available. In fact, those against Erotica/Pornography would probably benefit more greatly from the Playboy Cyber Club article as a resource about what precisely they stand against than those in favor of it.
I can not find the KKK page now. If I run into one again, I will know what to do.
I find the Afrocentrism article to be very high quality and interesting. User:Deeceevoice seems like she was a solid contributor. I am sorry for the loss of her. Is she blocked for a period or gone forever? TonyTheTiger 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catch21 Productions

Dear Xoloz,


I am unsure if you received my last message. Either way I have mislaid the copy of the Catch21 Productions article you sent me and was wondering you could e-mail it too me again so it doesn't have to be done all over again.

We'd very much appreciate it.


Many thanks

Doug

E-mail: lemjelly@o2.co.uk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.237.47.38 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for voting

I appreciate the feedback that I received during the RfA process. Unfortunately, I withdrew my candidacy. However, your participation is appreciated. I have made my New Years Resolution (effective immediately) to attempt to vote on at least 50 WP:XFD/week (on at least 5 different days), to spend 5 hours/week on WP:NPP, to be active in WikiProjects and to change the emphasis of my watchlist from editorial oversight to vandalism prevention. I have replaced several links that I had on my list to some that I think are more highly vandalized (Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, my congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., my senator Barrack Obama and Jesse Jackson). My first day under my newly turned leaf was about what I hope a typical day to be. I quickly found a vandal, made a few editorial changes to Donald Trump, voted at WP:CFD and WP:AFD, continued attempted revitalization of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago and proposed a new stub type as a result of WP:NPP patrol. I hope this will broaden my wikipedia experience in a way that makes me a better administrator candidate. I hope to feel more ready to be an admin in another 3000 or so edits. TonyTheTiger 16:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I will respond to your earlier talk page post this afternoon. TonyTheTiger 16:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Want to get another read on a situation

Dear Xoloz,

As someone whose judgement I trust very much I wanted to ask your opinion. There's an anon who has been adding an external link to Bear community (among other edits, which I'm ok with). He claims that it supports the text of the article and should stay, though he has also claimed on the talk page that "small sites need the google traffic to survive" and that by removing it the other editors and I are "trying to f2ck the bear community". In trying to discuss matters with him on his talk page User talk:213.97.16.111, things have continued along that vein. I admit I lost the moral high ground possibly with a pithy comment about caps lock ( ;) ), and so am really unclear how to proceed. There are at least three editors of Bear community who objected to the link, and I suspect that Thickslab (talk · contribs · count) and Bearcat (talk · contribs · count) would similarly object if I asked them. If he was saying this stuff to another editor I'd block him for NPA, but I don't know if I'm over-reading the situation.

If you could take a look I'd appreciate it. I'll caution you that the link is not entirely work friendly, and if you don't find chubby hairy guys attractive its definitely not Xoloz friendly. The two issues are: remove/keep the link, and has he overstepped NPA. Cheers. Syrthiss 14:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sir. It certainly wouldn't give me nightmares to know that. Why do you think I have that article watched? ;) Syrthiss 16:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎8) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Xoloz/archive14, thank you for participating in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. Whilst I am delighted by the result and a little daunted; I appreciate the various comments re lack of experience in some aspects and I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience and I should welcome your feedback on any Admin tasks I become involved with. Again, many thanks for taking the time to consider my RfA and cast your views. Feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. :-) David Ruben 02:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your participation in my RfA, which I have chosen to withdraw early at a final count of (10/8/3) as it was unlikely to gain consensus. I will do my best to improve in the areas that were cited as my weaknesses, and will reapply sometime in the future when I have gained more experience. Please always feel free to help me along with a suggestion on how I could improve, and if you ever need help, I am ever at your service. Best as always, Dar-Ape 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about my gay bear "ban":

that user is bad acting and doing unfair conpetition leting his friends to put his websites but bannig the rest. My link was perfectly valid. That guy is making his own dictational page and must to be banned for ever.

He probably told lies to you. All i did its in the history. I did put my link because was others with exactly the same thematic and he banned me lot of times. I told everybody his acting and other user corrected his anarchy. I did read the terms and conditions and did put my link valid extending with pictures a poor comment about stereotypes. And now that STUPID guy continue fucking me. Adding again his own link and deleting mine. I think he is the a bearslife magazine owner, a website without any info, unfinished and more commercial than mine. STOP HIM, BAN HIM FOREVER. HE CONTINUe DOING THE SAME DAY BY DAY MAKIGN DICTATORIAL AND ANARCHY IN THE ARTICLE.

Warning removal templates

Hi, I was browsing Wikipedia and I saw that the {{wr0}} template series had been deleted in November. Do you happen by any chance to remember where was the discussion about it? I am just trying to see which arguments were raised for the deletion, since there was a TfD discussion just a few days before that reached a keep consensus. Thanks a lot and happy holidays! -- lucasbfr talk 00:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect

Please unprotect my user page --Truthpedia 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Defiance of Your Directive

The article you merged and re-directed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Thompson (researcher) (2nd Nomination) has been re-created. Thought you would want to know. Morton devonshire 02:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was addressed, procedure was followed.[2] --NuclearZer0 00:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-)

¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.



Happy editing!!!--¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 02:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 12:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration

But I feel sad and somewhat unfair... The blocking was a mistake, and the administrator who blocked me obviously have not read the block policy, which states bot should be blocked only at running and for up to 24 hours, but that admin blocked me 10 days after my last bot edit, and for a period of indefinite... Could you please reconsider you vote, thank you very much. Yao Ziyuan 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.

I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)[reply]

Offensive User page image

In our December 13 conversations I mentioned an offensive userpage image. You replied Userpages with images of the KKK may be eligible either for speedy deletion (CSD G10), or consideration at MfD. There may be good reason for the use of the image. The aforementioned African-American user Deeceevoice (whose works, if not always her interpersonal relations, I admired) used a Klan picture on her page as an "empowerment/shock" tactic, similar to the employment of the N word in African-American authored works. Even this proved somewhat troubling to many (for an analogue, consider the African-American activists who asked for a total ban on the N word -- even among black performers -- in the aftermath of Michael Richards' recent stupidity.) Ultimately, her userpage was personally deleted by Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales. Please refer any such userpage to me, and I will pursue appropriate remedy.

I have finally stumbled across the offensive image again at User_talk:Gamaliel. Let me know if this is considered contextually offensive and what actions might be appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your !vote comment on my RfA, which, by the way, did not succeed (23/15/17). I think you started a bit of a trend which at least gave me the moral satisfaction of more supports than opposes. David Mestel(Talk) 17:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support on RfA!

With the RfA complete and over, and a day to recover on top, I finally feel able to click a few buttons and write a few comments. Of those, there's about a dozen editors I hadn't come across before, whom I particularly want to write a comment to.

Our paths haven't much crossed, so I was curious about someone I'd never knowingly met, who nonetheless considered me "absolutely trustworthy". The more so since your talk page makes clear you keep exceptional and high standards on RfA, on a "better safe than sorry" basis. It means a lot to be considered appropriate for the toolkit, and I want to pass on thanks for your words of support. RfA can be a rough thing; support by a self-declared conservative respondent, and one I'd never knowingly met, was quite heartwarming early on when I wasn't sure what to expect. I'd like to live up to the best of standards with due care - that's probably the best and most relevant "thank you" I can think of.

As a new user of admin access, I might well benefit from guidance for a while to come. I trust my existing approach overall, but its an area one doesn't really want to make even a single mistake, and where the judge is the eyes of ones peers. So advice would be a Good Thing.

To start that off, I've already asked for advance guidance from other long-standing admins active in a couple of areas that I'm likely to be involved in long term - dispute handling, and suspected socks. Seemed the responsible thing to do. As time goes on, I might want to come back for advice on various issues and how I might best handle them. If you feel like watchlisting User:FT2/Advice sought, I'd really appreciate it :) a consultative page is my first step in ensuring this new access will be taken as responsibly as possible when circumstances arise.

Separate from all that, I look forward to seeing you round. I'd be interested why you felt I was deserving of such outspoken support, but that's more just my own interest, more than anything :) Do keep in touch, happy editing in 2007, and once again - many thanks! :) FT2 (Talk | email) 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, and for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi

In October why did you delete the Madness Combat page? I was usefull and Madness is one of the most popular flash animations on the web,i would love this to be restored-please consider this.


Hadouken!

I'm trying to read up about this band, but you keep deleting the page. Annoying. History will prove you wrong.