User talk:Xoloz/archive20

Welcome back

Welcome back. DRV definitely survived whhile you were gone. Heck, we even had one day with zero review nominations, followed by a second where both noms could be and were speedy closed. On the 5 October log, could you close the upper open discussion? As it is my deletion under discussion, I obviously can't close. I anticipate having time on Thursday to close the other one, but won't object if you tackle it. GRBerry 04:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar of diligence. :) --Coredesat 00:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

I don't feel the consensus was for delete. Bobsbasement 15:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread WP:Consensus. With due respect, since you've been here at Wikipedia for less than a week, I'm afraid your understanding of WP's policies needs the benefit of more experience. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History Undeletions

I request history undeletions on Dragon Dagger, Zeo Crystal, Quasar Sabers, Magna Blaster, Dino Gems, Dino gems, & Shield of Triumph. SNS 16:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV of User:BlastOButter42/Userboxes/User Despises RedSox

Hi there, thanks for restoring User:BlastOButter42/Userboxes/User Despises RedSox. I listed that one at DRV but the same userbox for the Yankees was at User:BlastOButter42/Userboxes/User Despises Yankees and the discussion was about both of them, so could you restore that one as well? Thanks, -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 01:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some more history undeletions

I would like history undeletions on Ascendant Justice, Pokémon Revolution, Pokémon Wii, Chris Seavor, FLUDD, & Perfect Dark (Game Boy). SNS 02:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netmonger re-creating deleting box from MfD

Hi,

I am reporting to you user that Netmonger has re-created this userbox which was deleted on the recent MfD here. Thank you. Wiki Raja 21:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus???

I was rather shocked by this. "Edit count is insignificant in determining the "value" of any Wikipedia[n]"? Is that from any policy? Who even said these awards have anything to do with determining value? The Keep !votes outweigh the delete !votes by a landslide, and not one delete !vote cited any policy. As far as deletion discussions go, the consensus was Keep, and I suspect you may have a personal feeling on the subject that might be interfering here.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:30, 10/15/2007

Is this appropriate?

There's been a deletion nomination now for the service award categories. As I said in my comment there, I see this as simply an attempt to have smaller aspects of the service awards deleted, since the deletion nominations for the awards themselves haven't been successful. Could you give me your take on this? Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:10, 10/16/2007

Papervision 3D

It seems that you deleted this page without any discussion or nomination for deletion that I'm aware of. Can you give me more information?Calydon 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Deletion!

I believe that your reasons for deleting 'Rexist Equilibrium of Life' are flawed. It is an original research and not a personal philosophy, but one that extends the old and popular philosophies of Zeno . You can check out Zeno's Paradox. This article, in no way tries to exult or increase the writers acknowledgement in anyway. Great philosophers and inventors give customized names to their definitions and terms; the same applies here. This is a promising novel philosophy that can create a significant benchmark in Philosophy and should be allowed to be open for discussion and academic influence. This is how great philosophies start and I can bet you to how few things like this show up in our modern age. Everyone can attest to the political, econonomical, spiritual and educational influence of great philosophers works,such as Plato, Parmenides, St.Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes, Pythagoras, etc. This is how they all all started by educating the public about their Philosophies and I think this is no different. I sincerely urge you to reconsider your deletion. Thanks

If you're going to delete The William Penn Society on a egotistical whim you should at least delete all the other societies linked on the Whittier College entry since they are as "unimportant".

How there can be entire articles on Star Wars martial arts styles and yet the 500 man strong Penns are unworthy of any recognition is beyond my grasp.

Regarding other articles you think worthy of deletion, see Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Wikipedia is a piecemeal project, and it is not possible to delete all bad articles simultaneously. The continued existence of one bad article does not justify keeping all of them.
Regarding "egotistical whim", the article was deleted according to Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, specifically provision A7 for failure to state a claim of encyclopedic notability. College groups are routinely deleted this way, unless there is something extraordinary about them.
Regarding your comparison to Star Wars... while I am no fan of some of WP's more trivial articles, a franchise that has grossed well over $2 billion dollars, and has a worldwide following of fans, is infinitely more notable than a "500 man strong" club. Your attempt to suggest otherwise actually made me laugh out loud! Thanks for the giggle, Xoloz 12:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for incorporating ultra-conservatism in your conservatism page but a different ideology needs a seperate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statist0 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection

I think Doom 4 should get semi-protection because of all the recent IP vandalism. SNS 13:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names (3rd nomination)

Thank you for a good and well reasoned closure. As I was the nominator, it may not have been what I hoped to achieve, but certainly was the correct answer given then consensus. Thanks again, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for participating in my RfA, but could I ask a question, what percentage does a request have to pass with? i.e minimum 70%? Rudget Contributions 14:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is left to bureaucrat's discretion. A typical range for promotion is 75-80%, but that does vary somewhat. To be honest, the fact that you didn't already know this is another indicator of inexperience. You really need more time here before you take up the mop, to learn more about community standards and expectations. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should of checked here first, but thanks for the note anyway. Regards, Rudget Contributions 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA response (KieferSkunk)

Hi there. Thank you for participating in my RfA. I've revised my answer to Question 1 - I did things a little out of order there initially, and that appears to have caused some concern as to my level of experience and ability. Please take a look at my updated response - I'm interested to know if it changes your impression at all.

It is true that I have relatively few edits compared to other admin candidates, but I would encourage you to look more at the quality of my work and not just how much of it I've done. I take great pride in my contributions.

Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web Cache Coordination Protocol

is there a way for me to get access to the previous content of the page known as Web Cache Coordination Protocol? Looks like you deleted it back in August. Thanks. --Stéphane Charette 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Right, there really wasn't much there. <sigh> I was hoping for more background information. Time to dig. --Stéphane Charette 02:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Given your experience with the relevant policy pages, would you please consider joining the conversation at WP:NOT? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Can you undelet my article so I could move it to MyTalk/Draft

I just noticed that the article in mytalk area has been deleted, is there any way to get it back so i could move it into the mytalk/draft area?--Apelbaum 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Szantyr

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jamie Szantyr. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ThisDude62 01:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please un-protected this page considering Miss Szantyr is a performer with Total Nonstop Action Wrestling —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingMorpheus (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingMorpheus (talk • contribs) 01:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudget RfA

Dearest Opposer,

Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions!
Rudget Contributions 09:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of God (LA)

Does being released by Warner automatically convey notability? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I either had skipped over that line or had forgotten it. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successful RfA - Thank you!

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate your comments and will take them to heart as I learn the ropes. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was "when an important lack of knowledge is displayed is that it suggests a significant level of inexperience."

I am confused as to the areas of policy that you think I would get involved in without proper experience. I thought that the list of my contributions at the beginning of my RfA demonstrated sufficient experience in the policy areas that I want to help with. Could you please elaborate on your concerns? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to message on my talk page) - I went back and checked, and I can assure you that I did not misquote you. Your complete comment was:

Oppose for ban/block confusion. The reason, my friend W.Marsh, that some of us oppose when an important lack of knowledge is displayed is that it suggests a significant level of inexperience. This one issue has now been set right in the candidate's mind; but, if the candidate was unaware of one important facet of policy, he is likely to have other knowledge deficits. Since RfA is not a quiz, these problems cannot all be exposed now, so time is trusted as the elixir which solves most problems. After three more months of good work, the candidate will have earned the benefit of the doubt (at least from me); but, for now, on the basis of available evidence, I'm too worried he'll employ the mop with significant misunderstandings of policy. This is not a criticism of the candidate -- in my mind, anyway -- just an indicator that more time is needed. Xoloz 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As was mentioned in my RfA, I have been working with non-free images for some time, including many contributions to WP:PUI, WP:IFD, and clearing out the last of the {{Permission}} images on Wikipedia. At the time of my RfA, I had made 1,080 edits to the Wikipedia namespace and 247 to the Wikipedia talk namespace.
What I'm really wondering is what area of Wikipedia you think I would get involved in without proper experience. That seemed to be your primary concern, but I still don't know what specific area of Wikipedia you have in mind. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion

Mr. X,
I'd like your opinion on a recent AfD/DRv. I want to be clear I'm not asking for any action, just canvassing someone experianced so that perhaps everyone involved will have better information next time. I'll attempt to present the chain of events without editorial comment.

  1. I nominate Sudan Tribune for speedy deletion,
  2. The contested speedy is brought to DRv,
  3. Closed as keep by John254,
  4. I open a deletion review,
  5. Jreferee closes the DRv and re-closes the AfD.

Clearly myself, BanyanTree, John254, and Jreferee have a variety of opinions on the appropiate actions here, as expressed at User_talk:Jreferee#AFD_close. Any guidance would be appreciated.
CygnetSaIad 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=============

I am wondering why you proposed the article "wiki film" for deletion? I didn't notice it - and as a consequence it was deleted. I actually found plenty of recent evodence for this phenomenon. would appreciate it to be undeleted. thanks, Comogard

Talk:List of English Americans

Per your DRV closure to restore List of English Americans, could you restore the talk page as well?

Also I was wondering if you could restore Talk:List of famous German Americans (and its associated redirect List of famous German Americans) which apparently contains archived discussion relating to List of German Americans. Thanks. DHowell 00:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My (KWSN's) RFA

Thank you for commenting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. I'll try to make some changes based on your comments. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your opposing comments on my recent RfA. I understand your concerns and will step lightly as I familiarize myself with both my new responsibilities and a wider range of WP policies. Dppowell 23:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a kind word

I know we don't see eye-to-eye often in the deletionist-inclusionist world, but I see we're 100% aligned on views on bigotry and I appreciate your eloquence in opposing bigotry. Carlossuarez46 18:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the thanks for the thanks. :-) I re-read your user page and I'd say politically we're quite aligned - too bad you're in VT not NH where opinions seem to count. As for disagreements, I only remember a few times when you overturned some decision of mine at DRV, but no one bats 1.000 - either you or I. :-) Cheers, Carlossuarez46 15:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rigadoun

Hi Xoloz, I was looking through the contributions of Rigadoun, a big helper at T:DYK/N. I noticed he ran for adminship (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rigadoun) back in April but has been patiently waiting for someone to offer a new nomination. I find his humility and patience to be very good signs, in addition to his excellent contributions across the name spaces. I asked if anyone had offered to nominate previously and Rigadoun mentioned that you had. I wondered if you'd like to co-nominate him? I've never done a nomination before (and I often suspect that everybody at RFA hates me) so I'd appreciate an experienced hand. Rigadoun will be away from keyboard for the next couple days, so we were planning to put the nomination up on Sunday. Cheers! --JayHenry 20:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently oppose myself (as I imagine you've noticed), and while I understand the need for opposition, I would feel tremendously guilty if I nominated someone and it went up in flames. Oftentimes, candidates would be better served by nominators who honestly said, "let's wait another month and work on X,Y, and Z" instead of nominating someone who's close-ish but not-quite-there. I frequently see RFAs where I'm irked at the nominators for putting a candidate through a painful process and then blaming wikipedia, when the whole episode could have been avoided by honest assessment from the nominators. Now that said, from everything I've seen, watching his contributions for so long at DYK, seeing his patience and civility, and a look through many of his contributions, I do personally think Rigadoun is there, but if you happen to catch anything... I just don't want to see him filleted because I missed something. --JayHenry 06:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Started the page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rigadoun 2. I'll be adding my statement a little later today. --JayHenry 15:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications on my RfA

I have clarified question #5 on my RfA, please check again to see if you wish to chance your stance per my clarification. Thanks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History undeletions & some other stuff

I'll like a history undeletion on Shrek 4 & for it to be merged with Shrek Goes Fourth (the announced name the article was moved to recently). I'll also like history undeletions on Puss in Boots: The Story of an Ogre Killer, L-Block, & Shrek 5 (& it to be a redirect to Shrek film series#Shrek 5). SNS 00:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll like the history of Shrek 4 to be merged from this edit with Shrek Goes Fourth, if I had asked for the history undeletion a few days ago (before the move to the recently announced name) the history wouldn't be seperated like that. SNS 05:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the whole history from that edit & older not just a few of those edits. Sorry if I wasn't clear. SNS 14:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Archive 3

Could you explain why you deleted Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Archive 3 The blank article page was tagged with a speedy delete and also tagged with the hangon template. I believe that your speedy deletion of this page and the ignoring of the hangon tag is a extreme abuse of your admin powers. This is a talk page archive. If there is something wrong with it, please point it out. Do not simply ignore the hangon tag and delete the whole thing without comment!!!!! Dbiel (Talk) 21:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you are going to delete a page, it is your responsiblity to deal with the links to that page. Dbiel (Talk) 21:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. What is needed is the contents of the talk page. It is an archive issue and I believe the format of the title is correct Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Archive 3 if not then the following are also wrong: Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Archive 1, Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Archive 2 As to how/why it was originally created, it was as part of the Mediation Cabal case we were working on, dealing with an edit war and article protection. But then most of that is contain on the talk page that you deleted. Dbiel (Talk) 08:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the restoration. I noticed that the history of the article portion of the page is gone, this is not a problem, it just raises the question of proceedure, something I need to learn. There seems to be a slight difference between an article talk page archive and an article sub page which I still do not understand. Both have links at the top of the page to an article section and a discussion section.
Do the two sections actually reside in different name spaces that are linked together in such a way that they are always in pairs? What is the difference between an article sub page and a article talk page archive (not in terms of content, as that is clear) but in terms of mechanics and how they need to be created. If you could assist or point me in the right direction it would be appreciated.
Thanks again for the restoration. The above discussion is not related to trying to restore the history of the deleted page as the page failed to get used as hoped, but had it worked, then it would have been nice to have the history preserved. The question relates to other and future pages were the goal would be to turn the page into an archive after the mediation process was drawn to a close. Dbiel (Talk) 14:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of notice

The deletion notice for an editor was actually a joke placed by Nick. The page wasn't supposed to be deleted, but restored. Please don't chide the restoring administrator, because I will pay him back with a joke at a later date. :-P hahaha Miranda 01:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GlassCobra's RfA

My RFA
Hey Xoloz! I wanted to thank you for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I understand why you had to oppose, and thank you for the friendly advice that you gave me. Please feel free to drop me a line if you ever need any backup or second opinions! Thanks again. :) GlassCobra 03:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for voicing your opinions in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to take the advice the community has given me and wait till someone nominates me next time as well as improve my editing skills. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 Chat 05:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaspar

I wondered if I'd get any grief for that! The truth is, I wanted to indicate how close I considered it--I actually started writing a close as endorse, then did my own Google news search to make sure, and then decided I was obligated to restore it based on what I found. I did have some qualms about establishing an odd precendent, but then DRV has never really worked by precedent. At any rate, thanks for your note, and your very kind words, and cheers to you. Chick Bowen 01:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider snowing a DRV

Xoloz, please take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 6#Daniel Geduld. This is a self-nom by me of a WP:CSD#G10 deletion that I performed. A snow close of overturning me might be the right answer at this point. I trust you not to screw up the close and AFD nomination more than myself, if the time is right to do that. I'm not sure whether a snow close timing is better or not. GRBerry 05:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Naruto Geography

Hi, I was wondering whether this portion of WP:FICT applies: "Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability?" Also, WP:PLOT does clearly state that articles on plot elements need to provide real-world context, which fits with the aforementioned line in WP:FICT, and is in fact policy, which as I understand does trump the guideline of WP:FICT? Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subdolous (talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! Subdolous 18:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American baseball players

Hello, Xoloz! I've just seen your closing on the DRV for Category:African American baseball players. This is such great news.(Really, I can't tell you how happy I am!) I was awaiting the outcome of this DRV before opening a DRV for all of the related African American sportsmen categories that were recently flushed down the toilet -- in large part citing this CFD as precedent. Obviously, this reversal will weigh in "our" (those of us who argued for keeping them) favor in that review. I do have a question for you: now that Category:African American baseball players has been reinstated, will it also be repopulated? Cgingold 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi userbox

I see with some satisfaction that the Nazi userbox has been deleted, by you at its author's request ulimately. She has apparently left WP, it is her choice, but I think WP will survive. Carlossuarez46 03:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OhanaUnited's RfA

Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Celebrusia

Hi there - you deleted this per G11 - can I just ask if you took into account the points raised at User_talk:Celebrusia, User_talk:Calton and User_talk:Gilesbennett? Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 15:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV close

Would you mind closing this DRV for the reasons I listed in the DRV. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 21:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Hiding Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at 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}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Looking through my past contribs for summat put me in mind of you, so thought I'd say hello, is all. Hiding Talk 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

iPhone deletion consensus?

I don't think your closing comment: "The result was Delete. What should be mentioned in the iPhone article is probably already in the history. This split has led to an excessively-detailed quasi-ad, a clear violation of WP:NOT according to consensus below." is a fair description of the actual debate. The original nominator completely glossed over the notable issues around the price drop and launch day publicity. This was discussed at length in the debate but was never addressed by anyone advocating deletion for the article. In addition, "What should be mentioned in the iPhone article is probably already in the history." is not the case as there is NO mention in iPhone or History of the iPhone about the launch or the price drop. (Unless you are talking about the article history for iPhone, in which case some of the information will be there, but I believe the version on the deleted page was significantly more accurate and expanded.) I don't believe there was consensus in the debate, especially if you discount the first few "votes", which were made before I removed the template with "deals offered by Apple" from the article, which was what they discussed and took issue with. The sales section especially should have been kept and merged into iPhone if the article was going to be deleted. I'm not really familliar with the process, but I think the article should be undeleted until these sections can be merged back into iPhone or History of the iPhone... Would you mind revisiting the issue and reading through the debate once more, perhaps a bit more carefully? PaulC/T+ 19:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
The article as deleted was in very bad shape, that I recall quite clearly. The effort to split the original article had clearly resulted in the creation of a stand-alone "quasi-ad" that was unencyclopedic -- on that point, those arguing for deletion clearly carried the day, and I stand by that result.
However, I have no recollection of what content was in the history of the actual IPhone article. In all likelihood, I made that comment based on representations made in the debate, and my own cursory review. It is quite possible that I missed something. To allow you to salvage useful content from the history of the now deleted article, I will restore it as a protected redirect. You may then incorporate any new information into the IPhone article, secure in the knowledge that the redirect preserves the contribution history. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks for the help. PaulC/T+ 15:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your anti-userbox irony

I came across this page and read your arguement against userboxes. However, I then read your introduction, in which you list properties about you in a perfuntory, listing fashion. Properties in both content and means of delivery that could be delivered exactly the same in userbox form. What is the difference in saying you go to Harvard and putting a userbox saying you are a graduate of Harvard?

If you are going to protest userboxes, at least make an effort to use a more flowing style with perhaps some metaphors and some personal panache thrown in...things that can't be done with userboxes.

Well anyway, you said to write, so here you go. :)--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 05:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my misunderstanding then. Cya. (This is Hypergeometric)

Rigadoun

I almost forgot to support! --JayHenry 05:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xoloz, thank you for the strong endorsement in your co-nomination of me, I think it made for a rather low-stress RFA which was nice. I hope I don't let you down. Rigadoun (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio

I noticed that you protected the page Emilio because it kept getting deleted as nonsense. I would appreciate if you could please unprotect/undelete it -- I have just created a page on the Tejano musician Emilio Navaira, who is more commonly known as just Emilio. Is there a chance that you could undelete Emilio so that I could move the content of Emilio Navaira to Emilio, since he's most commonly known by just his first name? Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see my omnipresent friend, trialsanderrors, has already done the work. Thanks to him, and good luck to you. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres during the Second Intifada

Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada Looking for outside input into a long-term controversy over the naming and scope of this list. As you participated in the afd, please help us out. Thanks. <<-armon->> 11:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my rfa

RE

Thanks for the message. Concerning Melsaran, I did (repeatedly) enquire about the evidence (there were threads about it at WP:AN here and here). I admit that I overreacted somewhat on both those threads, as I was angry at the secretive and sudden blocking of someone I considered a good editor. This played a part in my decision to resign - partly because I was unhappy at the block itself, but mostly because in retrospect I can see that my own reaction to the situation was somewhat less level-headed than it should have been. I still personally do not agree with the indefinite block, on the basis that he never did anything inappropriate with the User:Melsaran account, regardless of what he may have allegedly done with other accounts. But the explanation eventually advanced by the ArbCom seemed plausible, and I decided to disengage from the matter.

As to the English law curriculum, I would certainly describe it as rigorous - my first reading list was somewhat intimidating. :-) Our system is a little different to yours, of course, since law is a first undergraduate degree here (and hence less specialised), and we have a divided legal profession (solicitors and barristers rather than attorneys) with separate post-graduate vocational training courses (the LPC and BVC respectively) - so the law degree is primarily academic, rather than preparatory to a legal career. (Further, one oddity of the noble institution which I attend is that we have eight-week terms, rather than the twelve weeks customary at other British universities - so we have to cover the requisite material in a much shorter time. Hence why I've had comparatively little sleep in recent weeks. :-))

Thanks again for the support and the positive comments. Although I'm aware that you and I don't totally see eye-to-eye on real-world political issues (although bear in mind that the term "conservative" carries somewhat different connotations in the UK compared to its American meaning, since we lack the strong influence of the religious right, and tend to be a less politically polarised culture in general), I've always had great respect and admiration for your on-wiki perspectives and decisions, and you are certainly one of the few administrators in whom I have total confidence and trust. WaltonOne 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOTTIE

I admit I'm quite disappointed in your close, as I feel that the "Delete" crowd's arguments were both refuted and outnumbered. However, if you must stick with your decision, I would ask that you move it to my userspace, not EVula's, as I was the original author. Thanks. GlassCobra 16:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks again. GlassCobra 16:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] Just a follow-up on a couple of things: I've moved the article back to GlassCobra's userspace (back to the original location of the article), and made an addendum to your MfD closing statement.
I also undeleted WP:HOTTIE; R2 isn't valid when dealing with "WP:" redirects, so it's a valid redirect (not to mention funny). Not trying to wheel-war or anything, just letting you know. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erdros closure

While I have one disagreement of fact (that the numbers weren't commented on in the CfD discussion, when indeed they were, quite a bit), I think that that was quite the thought-out closure of the Erdros numbers. - jc37 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Thanks for taking the time to provide a well-written closure summary -- and I swear I'm not just saying that because I agree with the conclusion :-). I also apologize for the extent to which I may have contributed to the unnecessary verbiage of the deletion review discussion; it's a lot to read through. SparsityProblem 22:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intention to suggest that individual numbers were undiscussed at the CfD or the DRV. I only meant that the conglomerate nature of the mass nomination rendered such discussion less clear than desirable.
I am certain that your confusion arose from my closing, which was also much less clear than is desirable. :) Trying to sum all that argumentation into a few paragraphs is hard, and I'm just a not-so-Great Ape!
I have noticed your own work in deletion discussions has proliferated since we first spoke (regarding the semantics of "overturning") some months ago. This is fantastic! You provide a much-needed cool-head. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't argue with you at all, summing up in closure can be difficult to say the least (See this closure for a lengthy attempt of my own...)
and Thank you : )
Incidentally, I still think we should re-think usage of the terms. But I'll save re-opening that debate for another day : ) - jc37 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xoloz, is it your opinion that Kbdank71 had been correct to close the review of the category with "delete", and is it your opinion that that closure reflected a consensus? And do you believe that reflecting a consensus is relevant to the deletion review process? I won't address the condemnation of the category itself as "trivial", here now, because I had been led to believe that the issue was whether the closure had been correct. Pete St.John 23:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Curious: Are these more "I'm planning to request arbitration against you all" questions/evidence? - jc37 23:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I see that they are [1] - jc37 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning Arbitration, I don't at all mean to hide that. However, I don't think the question is irrelevant as it stands. Consider this from the Deletion Review:
  • Overturn deletion. There was no consensus to delete. The close was inappropriate. Paul August ☎ 04:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
My belief that the issue at hand, was whether Kbdank's closure was correct, and not whether the category is trivial, seems to be shared by others, who can be presumed better informed about wiki policies than I myself. Pete St.John 23:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then feel free to join in the relisted discussion. - jc37 23:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure eventually I'll find the relisted discussion, but as this will be the N+1st consensus scheduled to be ignored by admin fiat, I expect that I will have little interest in it. I think the necessity of Arbitration as the next step is sufficiently clear to me, but I have to ask the questions before I can say I did not get answers to them. I asked a specific question about the wiki policy Xoloz seems to have contravened; he can rebut me or not as he pleases. I myself try to avoid ignoring specific questions about public policy matters in which I have involved myself. But that's just me. (And I don't mean to imply he's had time to get to this; non-answering is not refusing to answer. We all have other things to do). Pete St.John 23:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Pete, I'll answer your question down here. My job in closing a DRV is to evaluate the consensus at the DRV, not to make independent judgments about what happened at the XfD. At the DRV, the consensus was that the issues needed more discussion, and they are receiving it at the relisted CfD. Reading beyond the bold-faced commentary, there was also a consensus that Erdos numbers were probably "trivial", though I acknowledged in my closure that full evidence had not been brought to bear on that question. At the DRV, on the basis of strength of arguments, there was also a consensus that the original deletion should not be overturned wholesale. There are several reasons for this last conclusion: Brownhairedgirl's excellent arguments regarding the proper purpose of categorization went largely unrebutted, various folks favoring overturning did so only partially (with reference to some, but not all, of the Erdos numbers), and others appeared to favor overturning only in the interest of further discussion, an opportunity which they received through the limited relisting. Considering all these factors, there simply was not a consensus to overturn the deletions altogether, leaving them in place and endorsed. There was a consensus for a limited relisting of the kind provided.
I can't speak to what the DRV says specifically about Kbdank's closure in any more detail. This particular DRV was very much "forward-looking" (as in, "what do we do now?"), rather than backward-looking (ie., let's scrutinize every detail of the XfD.) This can happen when several commenters propose "out-of-box" alternative solutions (eg., "endorse deletion, but listify".) The discussion does not focus on the particulars of the past, but looks for solutions in the future. That is my reading of what happened here, and it resulted in my close. I consider the close a solid compromise, allowing both sides of the dispute acknowledgment of their valid points, and doing the best to make the content useful and suitable to all.
One piece of advice, as a long-time ArbCom watcher: You'll want to pursue an RfC first. Otherwise, any request is likely to be dismissed as untimely. I certainly took notice of Arbitrator August's comment, by the way; I'm sure he would concede that his word is no more special than other Wikipedians' on content issues, and I'd expect he will see the merit in the compromise closure, whether or not he agrees with it fully. Best wishes, Xoloz 13:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

Hi Xoloz, I just wanted to say that I'm not sure yet whether I agree with the conclusions you reached in your DRV closure, but that (as others have noted), it was a very fine bit of work. You made a very a thorough assessment of the issues at stake, and the arguments presented, with a lot of sincere acknowledgement of the good faith concerns of both sides of what had become an unfortunately heated issue.

Personally, I'd much prefer that there wasn't going to be another CfD, but I'm quite happy to see one taking place as a result of such a generous and careful assessment of the issues. I discussed this recently on my talk page with another CfD closer, and I'd like say again that in contentious cases it really helps considerably if the closer can take the time to provide extended reasons for the decision in contentious cases. If Kbdank71 made a mistake in the original CfD closure, I think that the biggest one was in underestimating how the closure of such a contentious debate needs to be clearly explained, so that all parties can at least satisfy themselves that the decision fails the test for judicial review of being "perverse and irrational". There are several editors whose closures I have admired in the past for being thoughtful and clearly explained explanations of contentious subjects, and I'll make sure to remember that next time I make such a list I'll have your name up there with jc37's as one of the very thoughtful ones.

Oh, and I'll sit out the new CfD. I've said enough on this subject. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more saying well closed ... or even "I think I disagree, but well closed". :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both very much. I have no stake in the issue, and only hope the DRV result will aid in the resolution of any discord. Xoloz 17:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Husond RfB

I removed your two messages to me and my one reply to you from that RfB. The personal attacks, lack of assumption of good faith, and discussion that had virtually nothing to do with the RfB were inappropriate to the RfB. If you have an issue with me, I encourage you to use appropriate forums for doing so. Husond's RfB isn't such an appropriate forum. If you still feel motivated to respond to my comments with regards to Husond, then I respectfully ask that you a) keep personal attacks out of it, b) assume good faith, and c) keep the discussion entirely relevant to Husond. Even if you don't respect me, which is evident from your commentary, let's both at least respect the RfB process. Thank you, --Durin 19:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


From my point of view, there were no personal attacks in either of those messages. There may have been assumptions of bad faith (depending on one's point-of-view) of equal measure on both sides. My original reply to your comment was a defense of Husond, and should really remain visible on the main RfB. Alternatively, you could remove your reply to Husond, which inspired my defense, and which was (I believe) itself a failure to assume good faith on your part.
(Addendum mid-composition). I see Husond has reverted you. I am fine with this also, as I agree that there were no personal attacks. I respect you as a human being, but I continue to experience bemusement at what I perceive to be an overly-defensive posture you often adopt. It is also clear that our semantic fields are very different, as I often feel that you've failed to read my remarks closely, and you perceive personal attacks where I neither intended (nor can discern) any such thing. It is a puzzling situation, and I'm not sure anyone can bear blame for it. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spam

[2] might interest you, since your name is being taken in vain.--Docg 23:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, Doc, why did you choose to title this heading as "spam"? GlassCobra 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

may you help me

Can you link me to the tut that shows one how to make a box with infomatoin

eg nintendo thank you