User talk:Xoloz/archive16

24-Hour Knowledge Factory

You recently completed the endorsement process for a deletion in review of the 24-Hour Knowledge Factory article. If you would, please send me a copy of the original article, as this was my work and will be of use to me in the future. Thank you! --Yuu.david 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadouken!

Can you tell me why Hadouken! (band) has been deleted by you. it was done some time ago, and since this the bristish rave/metal band Hadouken! have become VERY popular, this is shown by there plays on UK tv stations and radio stations. There also have an album nearing completion, as well as a number of very popular singles. This page should be allowed for re-creation Immediately, as personally i believe it to be unfairly deleted in the first place. Thank you.

I've brought this to DRV, Xoloz. Nothing against you, I actually meant to bring this one there earlier this weekend. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken, good sir, though how you an A7-assertion here (especially compared to re:Sound) is puzzling to me. ;) Best wishes, Xoloz 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexiy

20:15, 20 April 2007 Xoloz (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Alexiy Charamko" (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alexiy Charamko)
20:14, 20 April 2007 Xoloz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Alexiyno.ogg" (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alexiy Charamko)
20:14, 20 April 2007 Xoloz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Alexiy lol.jpg" (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alexiy Charamko)

Could you restore these for me please? Alexiy Charamko 12:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head. Aquarius  talk 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Sampson

You had no right to do that to me with out contacting me, I have been very busy, I have been meaning to do more work on it. I will be putting my page back on. It is not that dormant, this is my user account, please show me in the rules where I can't have my own sandbox wrestlers for records for possible future use? Govvy 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad now, I feel like there are so many people trying to destroy the wrestling project and my sandbox wrestler I was trying to work on, it was a place holder, but still, I was planning on working on it. :( *cries* Govvy 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Wrestling Federation, LLC

I was wondering if you can get me the last page of this if it existed. I pretty sure it was an article at one point. I just wanted to see what was there and hopefully build something with that wrestling organisation. Regards Govvy 23:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Govvy/images

two of my images I have uploaded have been leBOTtamised, I have made sure there are free use, but I am not sure what went wrong. What the bot has done. Thought maybe you could tell me exactly, but the Govvy/images is to help me keep track on the images I have uploaded, hopefully you can help out and explain something to me. Regards Govvy 10:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S My talk page is getting rather long, why isn't it being auto-archived? Govvy 10:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooo, my gallery of wiki images..... :~( *cries* again. Now how are you going to compensate for thaT? I will expect you will have to do a list for me so I can remember what I have uploaded!! Because I feel everyone is destroying my wiki experience!! :( Govvy 16:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you know

there are so many problems with wikipedia! Like that dam wiki war on the Wrestling Project, you got those trying to delete everything, claiming citation is needed, even know there is in a way, adequate citation in my view. You have wiki-politics going on... what the hell... then you got user pages, that have to be in a set ... standard... or something. I am personally getting fed-up with wikipedia, people are getting away from the basics and the whole project, wiki seems to be destroying itself from the inside out. I wont ever get a peaceful experience will I... Govvy 17:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

OK, that fine, I understand. I did actually look at the deletion review but I didnt realise G4 didnt apply, apologies for any inconvenience caused. Regards — The Sunshine Man 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Warner

Xoloz - Thanks for giving me another chance to add sources to the Josh Warner page. I have added quite a few!

I was curious if you are also able to undelete the Talk:Josh_Warner page and the

File:Josh Warner LIT Magazine.jpg

Image:Josh Warner LIT Magazine.jpg

image? The Talk:Josh_Warner page had some good contributions from other people that I was trying to work in to the main page. The Image:Josh Warner LIT Magazine.jpg I can re-upload, but I'm not sure of the rules - since it was deleted.

Shaunco 07:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring these so quickly!

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:User198/WWE/PPVS/ROADRAMPAGE

Link: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:User198/WWE/PPVS/ROADRAMPAGE

Hey Xoloz, did you get interrupted while closing the above MfD? :) You've deleted most of the pages per the MfD but left one out - and haven't closed it. Just wondering! Take care, – Riana ⁂ 11:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it mighta been something like that :) (I'm going for the lack of sleep explanation though ;) ) No problem! – Riana ⁂ 04:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in Translation?

Hi. We had been communicating with regard to the deletion of the category Jewish Figure Skaters, which vote was marred by the removal without my authorization of my comments from the talk page by another editor. I checked the rules, and notice that it does not fall within what Wiki views as acceptable behavior, but my focus is on the fact that it impacted the discussion. I don't believe that I've heard a response from you, so thought that I would drop in here to see if I missed it, and if so if you might direct me to it. Could well be my failing. Thanks. Best.--Epeefleche 22:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

[1] Please reconsider - and if you will not please give full reasons. I find the close inexplicable and would wish to contest it.--Doc^g 12:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As was pointed out at DRV, the gentleman in the article is arguably a participant in his own "fame" (thus, not an object of exploitation), and is the subject of media speculation regarding Chinese internet regulations. Those two points are sufficient to "win" on the strength of argument for those who wish relisting.

Those who wish relisting also had a majority of the qualified commenters, and could point to gross, obvious process flaws. On all three relevant vectors (arguments, numbers, and process), those who wished relisting held the superior position. There are no direct appeals of DRV. You may either initiate another DRV -- which will only make you appear to be process-wonking; or, initiate an RfC. Early closure here is very, very inappropriate. It offends no policy to permit a definitive outcome to occur here. A cycle of endless appeals, wanted by no one, is likely the result of such action. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see several out of process closes (at most there might be one - but relisting with recommended times aren't binding on other admins). Daniel's first close was after 5 days of discussion and was totally valid. I think he's right to feel aggrieved by any suggestion otherwise. WjBscribe 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was deliberately non-specific; I didn't intend to suggest his first closure was out-of-order, but didn't he later revert Drini? At some point, the general messiness of the situation means that pretty much everything is out of order, at the fault of no one in particular. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - he restored Drini's close after Matt Crypto (who had participated to the discussion) reverted Drini. You comment also seems to suggest that out of process closes (if there were any) were inappropriate but the out of process reopening was not. When it was the reopening that was done by an involved admin. WjBscribe 12:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No, I didn't revert Drini. What I did was revert Matt Crypto (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s revert of Drini's close (my action recieved universal support on ANI and DRV as a procedural one). There was only one close which could be considered even remotely "out-of-process". Daniel 12:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To both of you -- this is exactly why reverting closures (and making new ones) is out-of-process. The entire dynamic becomes too difficult for any average commenter to follow, rendering it unfair to all participants. I have no view on whether the first closure was out-of-order, and Daniel is entitled to reverse his own closure; however, everything after that was "out-of-process" -- the situation had simply become too confused to render a sensible result. Again, that is why I named no names: the situation was a mess, the fault of no one individual. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said "several out-of-process closes". Only two people ever 'closed' that debate - myself and Drini. You implicated both of us, and in effect named names. Daniel 12:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I see your point. What I should have said was "several out-of-process actions" to convey that I meant the confusion of both the closures and the reopenings. My apologies. "Actions" is itself not the best word, but I cannot think of another that encompasses both closings and reopenings. (That lack of vocabulary contributed to my original choice of words, which I do now agree is painfully imprecise.) Best wishes, Xoloz 13:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis are intrinsically "out of process". That's the whole point. --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony. If a wiki this big goes "out-of-process", the resulting chaos causes it to die. Best wishes, Xoloz 13:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't died so far.--Doc^g 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't been "out-of-process" (on the whole) so far, either. Best wishes, Xoloz 13:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S'pose depends what you mean by process. I ignore policy pages (indeed I never read them) and humbly do my best, using my judgement, asking advice and admitting errors - that's a process of types. I never do anything for reasons of process - always for reasons of improving content. I find that works - and I suspect many others do to. If we really used process - we would fail.--Doc^g 13:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use the exact same "process" that you do, Doc (except that I do read policy pages.) I happen to think that deliberation improves the encyclopedia, and I'm not afraid to allow/encourage it when consensus calls for it. For that, some folks pillory me as a "process-wonk." :) Oh well,... just do my best. I'm not sure what "process" you think would make us fail, but it might be some abstraction that causes fear in your own mind -- it certainly isn't correspondent to what I do. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that keeps a wiki this size from seizing up under the dead weight of stupid rules applied robotically is a healthy contempt for bureacracy for its own sake. --Tony Sidaway 14:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a healthy contempt for "rules for the sake of rules"; I firmly respect rules that promote deliberation and circumspection, however. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A healthy contempt for rules for the sake of rules? I think not. Here are three other nominations for deletion you made today, stating openly: "This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain".

* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Baseball Channel (second nomination)

* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men in skirts

* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enrique A. Pollack

If you thought the article should be reconsidered, it would be enough to put a note on the talk page describing the result of the deletion review. If anyone then actually wants to list it for deletion, they can do so. There's no need for a procedural anything here. Yet you do it. This is what I mean when I talk of the pre-occupation with procedure for its own sake. --Tony Sidaway 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I do those listing to save time! In each case, someone endorsed those deletions. That's means somebody wanted those gone. I suppose we could wait for someone to do the listing; but DRV rules give me the OK to do so, for expediency, if nothing else. I'm sure you're all for the most sensible time-saving approach, so I'm surprised you couldn't figure out that explanation yourself. Sometimes, you certainly seem to miss the common-sense motivations underlying process: I think you dislike it so much because you misunderstand it so deeply. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony is exactly wrong here, and Xoloz exactly right. Those are actions by a DRV closing administrator, reflecting the DRV decision that a prior deletion needed to be overturned, but that there was not a sufficiently strong consensus to just plain keep the article. That isn't procedure for procedure's sake, that is implementation of a group decision, exactly what admins are supposed to do when closing XfD or DRV discussions. GRBerry 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Prince

Can I ask your reasoning behind this article being kept please? The editors in favour of the article being kept - User:Lid, User:Suriel1981 and User:Theophilus75 are all members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, and the article is about a professional wrestler. The sources are this (trivial coverage by a wrestling fan site, doesn't meet reliable source requirements), this (less trivial, but wrestlers can pay for profiles), plus his name on a page on this site. No amount of block voting by members of the wrestling project should override the fact there aren't multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources available surely, especially as they failed to provide such sources? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you've lost me. My point is that there are no reliable sources that demonstrate notability, wrestling fan sites by definition have profiles on any wrestler no matter how obscure so having a profile on one is not an indicator of notability, and surely as this is after all an enyclopedia we should be relying on more credible sources than wrestling fan sites to begin with? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qian Zhijun

Qian Zhijun is back on DRV, after the AfD was closed early. As you closed the DRV discussion, you are likely to be intersted. DES ^(talk) 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xoloz, i've listed you as a party at the ArbCom appeal for the Qian Zhijun situation. Just a notification. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This situation is now at RfC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recall

What conditions would lead you to accept a petition for recall? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask? Do you feel I've abused adminship in some way? If so, how? Best wishes, Xoloz 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent DRV close was a travesty. Regular users are not permitted to close DRVs. Others have alledged this is a pattern of behavior. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to ArbCom in the Yanksox case, regular users can close DRVs (as long as they what they're doing.) So, my resignation wouldn't count much on that front. :)

I appreciate your honesty, but I am only available to be recalled by users feeling that I've abused adminship. It sounds like you only happen to disagree with one (or, perhaps many) of my decisions. Allowing for recall on that basis would be a tricky situation. I'm sure there is some regular user who disagrees with every decision ever made by anyone. If these "others" would come forward with evidence of an "abusive" "pattern of behavior," that could demonstrate the need for my recall. According to the terms of my promise at RfA, only one good-faith regular user is required to attest abuse of adminship by me. The bar is low, but subtle -- I have no intention of leaving just because someone doesn't like and/or disagrees with me. That's why I asked the question in the manner that I did. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no such statement in the DBWW decision. Could you point it out to me, please? If that is, in fact, acurrate, I have no desire to submit such a petition at this time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that exact wording in the DBWW discussion. However, Xoloz is more trusted to close deletion reviews than anybody else on Wikipedia. So the admins that are regulars at deletion review would be happy to implement his closures when admin tools are required. In fact, the only two user's whose close of the new DRV I'm currently inclined to trust are Xoloz, and User:Doug Bell (who has been inactive for over a month). The other regular deletion review closers have already participated in the new deletion review. GRBerry 21:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Xoloz is more trusted to close deletion reviews than anybody else on Wikipedia" — Really? Says who? I wasn't aware we had a DRV Trust Committee who says 'This user is more trusted than anyone else to close DRV's, their actions closing a debate are beyond the scope of criticism'. Please explain, GRBerry. Daniel 23:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xoloz by far closes more DRVs, and his reputation is that his closures are fair. Trust is not given, it is gained. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also trust Xoloz in his DRV closures -- Samir 18:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trosk

~~Am I missing something? You closed the MfD for this page as already deleted when it isn't deleted (and has never been deleted) Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ah, I missed that they don't want the main userpage deleted (yet it still has an MfD tag on it). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

I intend to close the Foul Mouth Shirts DRV as "overturn," unless new comments are made shortly. Given that you have stated that "regular users can close DRVs (as long as they what they're doing.)" I'd like to request that you restore the old revisions, unprotected, and replace the article with {{TempUndelete}}, but please do not protect the article such that I can effect the closing. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Paul Lewis, Jr.

Hello ... You moved James Paul Lewis, Jr. from Jim Lewis (convicted of fraud, 2006), but neglected to move the Discussion page, which Some Other Editor had also redirected (from Talk:James Paul Lewis, Jr., BTW) ... it probably occurred during the AfD that I was documenting with a {{oldafdfull}} tag (there was a lot of renaming/reverts going on, as I recall), which is how I stumbled across the discrepancy ... given that situation (and my fear of accidentally creating a circular redirect), I am loathe to attempt yet another redirect on my own ... would you please fix it? Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I recall, but I think move function (which usually provides a check-box for talk-pages moves nowadays) didn't do so, and I was too stupid to notice. Fixed now! :) Thanks, Xoloz 23:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revise WP:MOS?

Perhaps we should consider revising the MoS to counsel that the title of a biographical article be the name of the subject followed by the incident or event for which he or she is most notable or notorious. I can just picture all the prospective George W. Bush titles; we might even be able to waive BLP because he is almost surely, at this point, libel-proof. :) Joe 22:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "creative naming" were to catch on, my choice for GWB might well get me de-adminned for the longest string of profanity ever to appear in an article title! If the Evil One were not already a lame duck, I might consider the amusement worth that price! ;) Best wishes, Xoloz 23:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello, Xoloz. Thank you very much for your kind support on my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I feel thrilled and hope to live up to your expectations. If you see me doing anything inappropriate, please do let me know. Thanks once again :) ~ All the best, PeaceNT 04:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC) P.S Please don't ever feel lonely, I would love to talk to you anytime. You rule![reply]

My dear X-man! ;)

Smile a little, smile a little, all along the road;
Every life must have its burden, every heart its load.
Why sit down in gloom and darkness with your grief to sup?
As you drink Fate's bitter tonic, smile across the cup.

Smile upon the troubled pilgrims whom you pass and meet;
Frowns are thorns, and smiles are blossoms, oft for weary feet.
Do not make the way seem harder by a sullen face;
Smile a little, smile a little, brighten up the place.

Smile upon your undone labour; not for one who grieves
O'er his task waits wealth or glory; he who smiles achieves.
Though you meet with loss and sorrow in the passing years,
Smile a little, smile a little... even through your tears!

Ella Wheeler Wilcox

Have a beautiful day, dear Xoloz! :)

Phaedriel
16:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV ownership

I find the attitude behind this concerning. It smacks of an established DRV regular trying to assert ownership of the process. I'm sure that's not the signal you would want to send out. There is no DRV cabal. Yes, there can be a problem with inexperienced people closing things, but only if they get them wrong, or inadvertently wade into controversies. That was not the case. I have reinstated the original valid closure. Thanks.--Doc^g 18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, if you want a user who has been here for all of two weeks, has been warned on 3RR and strange XfD closures already several times, and who seems to be a POV warrior, closing DRV, you've gone further afield of common sense than I would have thought possible. It is not "ownership," but valid oversight of a non-admin closure by an admin, per deletion policy and precedent. Any admin could do it, and I did; I'm reinstating myself -- don't go looking to start fires where it isn't needed. Do you want to take responsibility for closures this "unusual" editor might make in the future? Deterence, in the hope that the editor will gain more experience before asserting himself, is the right path. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, stick a note on the close saying you endorse it. I've no idea of your history with the use - all I can say is your action looks highly irregular and very possessive. I'm very tempted to revert you, but I will not get into an edit war.--Doc^g 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fellow himself already reverted me, and I have no desire to edit-war either. I have no history with user -- I just looked into his edit history after I noticed him removing warnings from his talk page. (You know, gee, you probably should have done the same thing before you reverted me!) If it looks "irregular", that would be because newbie POV warriors usually aren't BOLD enough to make closures that need to be reverted. Anyway, based on his comments at RfAr, he's a "process wonk", so you're bound not to like it if he does start closing! ;) Congratulations on helping nurture someone who could give you headaches in the future. I've save my hot air for the day when a newbie makes a bad close I need to revert. In the future, just remember that admin review is permissible and good, and have enough faith in me not to go searching for disputes. If I revert someone you've never heard of it, it is just possible I had a good reason to do so, huh? Best wishes, Xoloz 22:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just looked bad. I tend to judge edits on their merits rather then on who did it. His close looked fine - your reversion looked unneccessary. If clueless noobs start closing DRVs disruptively revert, shout at them, and block where necessary - and you'll have my 100% support. But, OK, I can admit errors, next time I'll come and question you before jumping in. OK?--Doc^g 22:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool by me. It's precisely because I don't want to have to shout and block "clueless noobs" that I take a somewhat "prophylactic" attitude. We all hope it doesn't come to that. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looked weird to me, too. I was wondering at the time, as I went out the door, "what's the point of that?" This isn't a bureaucracy. --Tony Sidaway 22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested to know that I warned the user he was a bit too new to be doing closings; he removed that note along with several others, on a variety of different topics. So, the point, Tony -- if you didn't grasp it from the above -- is a gentle prophylactic, so I won't need to yell at him when future bad closures come. Mind you, I'm not surprised -- You and I, Tony, couldn't really understand each other's actions if we spent two years arguing about them! As a matter of fact, we've more or less been doing just that! Best wishes, Xoloz 23:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing under this account for 6 weeks, not 2, and my 'strange closures' were part of the BLP battle that we all know about.

Removing your comment from my talk is not meant to be rude; just an indication that it's no longer useful after I've read it. The other comments I removed were personal attacks from User:JzG and notifications about the Irish neutrality during World War II AfD, which are likewise unnecessary to retain. The way, the truth, and the light 04:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification -- I'll stand by my basic contention that any user who closes BLP DRVs after being here for so short a time needs to be cautioned, and is behaving a bit strangely. Nothing personal -- I've been here two years now, and (at this point) I'm SCARED of closing BLP DRV's. ;) In general, I trust JzG, despite some differences of opinion, so I'm skeptical of the suggestion he personally attacked you, but I'll leave that issue between you two, where it belongs. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only DRV I closed was the Canadian Royal Family one, which was unanimous and no comments had been made for quite some time. The way, the truth, and the light 17:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat MFD on DRV

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat -- Ned Scott 05:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why the page for Actors Movement Studio was deletEd? please let me know i am not awaRe of the criteriA to creAte a paGE? or i do not understand it? (Actorsmovementstudio 16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Good evening/good morning

Dear Xoloz, thank you for your persistence and your gracious presence. I can't follow everything that's been going on lately (actually I can barely follow anything that's been going on), but I am glad you are here for us all. Take care, Kla'quot 05:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Me He

Hey there. How did you come to deletion endorsed on this? Reply here. The strength of argument clearly wasn't on the deletion side. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I didn't say so explicitly in the closing, there may be good cause for an article on Miss He. However, the content deleted was unencyclopedically granular: I hate to mention BLP like a sledgehammer, but there certainly is no reason for every twist in circumstance to be catalogued. The article read somewhat like a case summary from a law journal -- it needed severe alteration to fit Wikipedia.

Also, the thing only had one reliable source. The advocacy websites decrying this as a "nightmare" don't make the cut. Independent press citations might support a one-paragraph article on the case, depending on the legal significance commenters ascribed to it. I think consensus would hold that such an article merited an AfD, and I'd support it.

Given the storm over BLP, I would advise only the most careful effort to rewrite this, but I don't think it would be impossible. At the DRV, however, the arguments regarding quality (not BLP) were numerous and justified, in my judgment. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But "quality" is not a reason for speedy deletion of an article, either. This did not meet any rationale for deletion whatsoever, so why are we endorsing it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am a believer in process, I do recognize that biographies of living persons merit some special scrutiny. The issue of whether the deletion was "in process" was not really directly disputed at the debate: the deletion was out of process. Your adversaries argued "BLP trumps process" -- they didn't necessarily win or lose that point, because its determination was inconsequential to the result. A key third group of commenters provided the rationale I ultimately support: that, though removed out-of-process, the present form of the content is sufficently unencyclopedic such that it should not be restored. I know that rationale is going under your evidence file for "DRV is broken" because it examines more than strictly process -- however, this is old argument, and one that has the advantage of not involving incendiary BLP-issues, which were only peripheral to my conclusion. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the process of the deletion was definitely addressed - I was one of them. If BLP wasn't a factor, and the process wasn't followed, and it wasn't an AfD, and the content's worth was disputed, how, again, can you possibly come to an endorsement? This does not reflect the deletion policy one bit - this isn't DRV being broken, this is just a really poor closure that I really think you need to reconsider. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, the basic argument over "strict process interpretation" vs. "examination of article merit" is the fundamental tension that has underlain every speedy deletion, endorsed by DRV, with which you've disagreed at my talk. Think "Darvon Cocktail", for example. For the sake of clarity, I'll add that BLP was "peripheral," not irrelevant: it made concerns over article quality a bit more pressing, but I'm not about to endorse a deletion just because the deleter invokes it. Had it not been for the third group of commenters, the "forget BLP issues... this article is unencyclopedicallly written in the extreme," I would have overturned. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the BLP concerns, as demonstrated by numerous editors, were completely unfounded. Forget Darvon cocktail - that was wrong, but for other reasons. This was a well-sourced, neutral article that someone didn't like. You've done exactly what you claim you wouldn't, "endorse a deletion just because the deleter invokes it," and ignored those of us who saw no problem with the article. Why give the people who felt it was "unencyclopedically written" larger weight in this discussion? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not well-sourced, nor was it encyclopedic in tone. In those respects, QZ had the article beaten by the metaphorical mile. You've seen it, right? I'll happily email it to you if you like. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the article, it needed help but it wasn't poorly sourced or negative in tone. Regardless, there wasn't any consensus, certainly, nor strength of argument, to keep it deleted based on that merit, either by force of numbers or by process. That's the problem here, and this is becoming an extremely disturbing trend. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV does not take the place of an AFD. -- Ned Scott 00:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but long precedence has shown that completely ignoring questions of an article's basic encyclopedic merit at DRV is inappropriate. Xoloz 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then consider them in the AFD. -- Ned Scott 00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That argument of your generally succeeds when the questions of merit are significantly disputed, and fails when they aren't. As I've said, there is an article to be written about Miss He (perhaps). This one wasn't that article, consensus determined, for a variety of different reasons. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now another

You're officially driving me nuts, Xoloz. What's with that closure of Allison Stokke? At no point was the BLP closure supported by policy, so how can you endorse it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The shared (I think) objective is to get the tabloid stuff out of the article. Endorsing BLP deletions from that perspective is just like endorsing temp. deletions to remove private information. Now, everyone can discuss the heart of the matter which is whether the lady is notable for her own doings. Granted, temp. deletions ideally shouldn't take 6 days, but this is a work in progress: finding ways to respect valid BLP points, without removing potentially good encyclopedic material. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So endorsing a full deletion to get "tabloid stuff" (whatever that means) out of the articles is what, exactly? Especially when there was no consensus for such things. There were no valid BLP points, that's the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that I wanted to comment that, agree or not, your closure rationale and notation was very easy to follow. But I might say that, as I found your rationale quite inspired and creative. LaughingVulcan 00:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you resolve a dispute for us regarding your closure at Talk:Allison Stokke? Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg

I'm curious to why you think this should be relisted on IFD. Was the original closure according to the most numerous opinion? No, but that is common on IFD so it is not really 'out of process' (people will try to counter well reasoned arguments with 'no it isn't!' and that is exactly the case here). You seem to agree with this in your closing of the DRV. The review itself is a replay of the IFD with a little spat about if the original was even closed properly. I have no reason to believe that the second IFD is going to be any different. At some point you have to just say to one side or the other 'you are wrong', and with questions involving copyright and non-free content we should err on the side of exclusion. Kotepho 04:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thought

Give this [2]. I suggest removing the lot and starting again. Otherwise it still contains the information for which it was speedied and the speedy endorsed.--Doc^g 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... It contains some extraneous information, but it was a fresh reworking from Haukurth. It's not clear to me that it is problematic, but I'll look through the full history for something cleaner. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I salute your courage at any rate.--Doc^g 20:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although perhaps not your judgement. The AfD is now becoming a re-run of the DRV.--Doc^g 21:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a larger sense, people are going to be arguing about the expansion of BLP for a while, in whatever forum they choose to do so... you would be well-served to adapt to it. It takes time for people to grasp new ideas, and this is no exception. As to the AfD, since Tony and company now insist that I comment with a deletion rationale, I am not in a position to act impartially there -- it is out of my hands. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/me passes a bowl and a towel.--Doc^g 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YechielMan's RFA

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A footnote to your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TV-VCR/Vandalism

You wrote that nobody provided evidence that "vandalism subpages are generally allowed." I'm not sure that they should be allowed, but I have observed that nobody raises much of a fuss about them. When (writing as my main account) I cited User:King of Hearts, I was referring specifically to User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels! The idea was, if an admin has been doing it, it must be okay. That being said, I support your closure and consider it to be well-founded in both policy and common sense. Best regards. Placeholder account 02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA ...

Wow! When you wrote "heap praises", you weren't kidding :-) I'm happy to inform you that my request for adminship was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Thank you again, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScottAHudson

Hello. Unfortunately, it appears that User:ScottAHudson has restored some of the content deemed inappropriate at the recent MfD you closed. Could you please do something to remedy the situation? Thanks. --Maxa megalon 2000 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've obviously been dealing with more important things lately, so I'll just move this down in case you didn't see it. --Maxa megalon 2000 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Maxa megalon 2000 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN DRV Closure

Xoloz, you did a hell of a MessedRocker Solution job closing that DRV. (messedrocker • talk) 01:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Baron

Excellent idea! David.Monniaux 05:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a brilliant solution, as well! Thank you so much for your ongoing protection of my page.

~ Carla Baron

NPOV violation and cover-up of criticism by Carla Baron

(Copied from BLP Noticeboard (diff), since she likes to delete criticism. )

Carla Baron, this matter involves an obvious attempt to cover-up criticism of yourself. Such coverups aren't allowed here unless the information is libelous or undocumented. Articles here include criticism. Your misuse of this BLP Noticeboard will not succeed and has only brought more attention to your agenda, which is to keep criticism out of the article.

This documented criticism needs to be included:

I suspect there are other third party sources that can also be used to bring balance to the article. If there are issues with the quality (RS, V) of those sources, that is one matter, but covering up criticism violates NPOV, and there is plenty of criticism out there!

Carla, what has happened here is that you have become the victim of Wikipedia's "Law of Unintended Consequences":

Unintended consequences.

If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels; we will not delete it simply because you don't like it. Any editor may add material to it within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually; more than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.

This applies to all articles and to any subject, including pet ideas or favorite singer, regardless of who started the article. We need to cover the subject from all angles, and NPOV requires that both sides of the story are presented, so criticism is included. Many think they can write an article presenting a subject in the best light possible, only to find they have opened a can of worms and Pandora's box itself. Once the article is started, all kinds of negative things also become part of the article. So attempts to promote something often end up back-firing.

As we have often seen here, attempts to cover-up documented criticism only results in more unwanted attention and even better referenced criticisms being added to the article in question. We aren't interested in your idea of "truth", but in NPOV coverage of all aspects of the subject. Hagiographic articles are fine in the media or your own website, but are totally inappropriate here.

Your proper role here (since you have a conflict of interest) is to ensure that obvious libel or undocumented criticisms are corrected, and that is best done by participating at the article's talk page and convincing other editors to help you do it if they can be convinced by your arguments. If that doesn't work, then you can use this board.

The article should be restored, including the criticism. This attempt to violate NPOV and misuse this board should back-fire big. -- Fyslee/talk 13:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hello, Xoloz/archive16, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I promise I won't erupt all over this nice Wikipedia, and I will try very hard to live up to your expectations. Please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 19:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or drivers such as Paris Hilton.

My RfA

Dear Xoloz, thank you for you efforts to build consensus on my RfA. As you know, it was unsuccessful. I am not the type of editor to be disheartened by such a result, and have gained much experience.

I will run again, however I am concerned that I may see your name in the same place, for the same reasons. I would greatly appreciate knowing what I could do to earn your support next time.

If you have anything to contribute by way of improvements or comments, please don’t hesitate to tell me. Kind regards, Dfrg.msc 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review request for NWA Hawaii

You closed this deletion review request stating "no prejudice against a reliably-sourced recreation that avoids WP:COI issues." When I attempted to create a non-COI version (I had little involvement in the prior version of the article) that was essentially a stub, it was deleted again by the same editor and protected. You might want to give your opinion regarding this deletion review request for the stub. My suggestion is that the AfD process be used since notability is open to debate. Antonrojo 03:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hi there! I had a question about the DRV of "sockpuppet cleanup" (Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_31). You note that all the closings are overturned, but the relevant articles/categories do not appear to have been deleted/undeleted. Did I misinterpret you or should some bots be invoked to fix this? Cheers, >Radiant< 11:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only consensus at the DRV was for the relisting of every debate, not for the outright deletion or undeletion of anything. For a variety of reasons, I hoped to promote the notion that interested parties could bring forth the relisting themselves "at will" (Tony et al. have been pestering my "nominations by abstention" lately -- I've given up trying to talk sense to them on the issue, partly because their view results in less work for me! ;) I do see now, on looking again, that there was one category that needed to be undeleted. I should have handled that then, but I will now. As for the rest, you are welcome to nominate anything for deletion immediately. (If it were up to me, I'd just let you be the God of Wikipedia, so I won't stand in your way if you delete them summarily, but I don't recommend it! ;) Best wishes, Xoloz 15:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)

One issue with which we are presented with increasing frequency, as you well know, is how to evaluate discussions in which editors propose various applications of a given policy and ultimately remain divided over what course of action that policy counsels (consensus, though divined other than exclusively with respect to numbers, is generally borne out numerically, at least where !votes are grounded in an interpretation of policy that the community generally do not reject as absolutely unreasonable; how we are to determine which are rejected as absolutely unreasonable is, of course, another, ultimately recursive, matter), and under what procedural presumption we ought to operate. This issue almost surely will present itself at the Brandt AfD, where I think there will probably be majority support, but not a clear consensus, for deletion. BigDT, quite rightly, I think, and as I intended to do, has raised on the AfD talk page the question of how we ought to go about closing the discussion and whom we might choose to effect the closure; I imagine I ought to let you know that I suggested you as someone whose judgment the community might support. Of course, those who argue for a very rigorous construction of BLP might not approve of your being involved in a BLP-related closure, and so I wonder whether, if we are, per BigDT, to support closure by a team of admins through an admin chat (of which I'd be no grand fan but to which I would not have any profound objection; I suspect many others might feel similarly), you might consider partaking alongside Newyorkbrad, another generally process-inclined and well-respected admin who has tended toward the "deletionist" interpretation of BLP advanced by some. Such a situation might save us from a protracted DRV, and I expect that many might accede to any closure so engineered. If you've the time and inclination, I'll more fully flesh out such a proposal at the AfD talk page (should the rather busy Brad agree) and see if we might produce a consensus (again, I continue to think an admin chat closure to be substandard, and I continue to think that any closure other than as no consensus should be reasonable, but I don't think we would do all that poorly to find a procedure behind which the support of the community might lie). Joe 05:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Joe... I would be more than happy to participate in an admin closing discussion with NYB, and any other calm administrator... without having any idea where these folks stand on the BLP issue, I'd suggest Phaedriel, Bd2412, and emeritus admin Kim Bruning as other respectable, deliberative folks to approach. I'm sure there are many others possible, as well. The floridity of your prose always brings a giant smile to my face! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 23:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

census

how does afd reach a census ? how does one "object" to non-census or a census. i want to object to the non-census findings for Ben_Going thanks Sexyorge 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the word is "consensus." It's defined at Wikipedia:Consensus. The place to object to an AfD result is Deletion Review. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake. regarding AFD and C E N S U S

i totally apologize. i can tell for your user page, you must love fixing mistakes or typos. regardless thanks a whole bunch. i worked on a special census once, which could explain my utter lack of syntax and grammar (then again not sure). Sexyorge 21:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ben_Going. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Sexyorge 21:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HHO gas redux

Some concern about actions by administrator User:Omegatron. Given this and this, I'm a little worried by these actions [3] and especially [4] (salted page), which was followed by this slightly surreal exchange. Also, looking at this diff, I'm starting to lose some of my AGF. I considered taking this to WP:ANI, but thought it best to alert previously involved admins first. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks, EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page deletions

You undeleted the articles and specified that a merged section with good references should be created, but the same users who tried to get the article deleted are now trying to have the talk pages deleted, too (which includes the very references we would need to write a good article). Can you clarify that the talk pages for the previous articles should be kept as well as the article histories? The editors of the merged article need something to work with; there's no reason they should have to do all the research over again from scratch. Look through the References section of Talk:HHO gas, for instance. — Omegatron 03:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that the talk age of a deleted article was growing with additional sources not related to the deletion discussion. That's a G8 violation. It has since been moved to user space so I don't see the problem with keeping it there if the purpose is to merge it into the other articles. --Tbeatty 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article name exists as a protected redirect, I don't think there are any grounds to delete the talk page under G8 -- that applies to non-existent pages, and HHO gas is still around, with history undeleted also. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... What's the difference between having it in user space and having it in the main namespace? Why do you have a problem with one, but not the other? Even if G8 applied (which I doubt), speedy deletion is a shortcut for uncontroversial things that would be a waste of time to put through a normal AfD. It isn't some absolute rule that needs to be followed so strictly as to defy common sense. What is your motive for trying to get this talk page deleted? — Omegatron 14:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and undeleted the talk page as a clear error -- it's not a G8. As of right now, it is an R2, however, so someone might wish to move the original content back quickly. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move it. Hopefully I won't get sanctioned in the process. :-) Can you clarify in advance whether the same applies to Talk:Brown's gas? — Omegatron 22:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's also a redirect. CSD G8 is for talk pages of "nonexistent pages". Redirects do exist, and there is plenty of reason to discuss them (what should the target be? In light of new information X, is an expanded article now appropriate?) Admins should know better than speedily to delete a redirect's talk page under G8. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're continuing to do exactly that... — Omegatron 15:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't stayed abreast of this weird squabble, but I think "they" are now redirecting the talk page to the same target as the article's redirect. That's okay -- people can just discuss HHO gas at "Talk:Oxyhydrogen." If "they" start deleting the talk page histories behind the redirects, though, let me know... the content needs to be preserved for the record. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of French genocide against Algerians

please explain how you cane to the conclusion you did on this decision --Philip Baird Shearer 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your own last remark in the debate tells the story: the article doesn't belong at that title, in that style, but the content belongs in some form. So, restore the article, and (as a first blush at a solution) take the material to AfD. If AfD fails to address its problems, it will need to be renamed or merged, but not deleted. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xpression FM

Can you please restore the Xpression FM page: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=xpression_FM

I wanted to check something on it and discovered it had been deleted. I have been involved in some of the updates on this page and believe it is noteworthy.

The station is a member of the Student Radio Association, many of which have their own seperate pages: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Student_Radio_Association

Thanks

Seddonism 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article was the subject of an Articles for Deletion debate, which concluded that the station was not notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. The appropriate place to appeal the AfD decision is deletion review, though I would recommend finding new reliable sources attesting to the station's encyclopedic notability if you wish to have any reasonable chance of success in that appeal. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have done a deletion review. Thanks An editor has asked for a deletion review of Xpression FM. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Seddonism 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sound of one molecule of ice breaking

Not broken, per se. Flawed, maybe, but flaws are what make diamonds beautiful (not that 'beautiful' describes RfA either, but I digress) and humans human. That's one of the big things I was trying to get across about consensus in my statement: it's a very human process, not a mechanical one. RfA isn't broken, although like I said it won't scale well if we don't get some more bureaucrats to keep it running smoothly. At any rate, I have no current interest in reforming RfA, even if there is a better system (but I have not seen a better one as of yet). My description of the consensus system is not an idea for change but a description of the system as it works now, as I understand it, stemming from things like Polls are evil (incidentally, to which I wrote a counterpoint around the time of my second bureaucrat nomination, Voting is a tool). Sorry for the long-winded and rambling response. Andre (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking about what you just wrote, so I might chime in with a response later, but I can say now that a) I have no interest in abolishing the numbers, as they form an important quantitative portion of the system, b) although Voting is a tool is my creation, Polls are evil is not, so it doesn't exactly reflect my viewpoint... it's just something that influences the workings of our consensus system. Also keep in mind that Voting is a tool was written in such a way that, although I feel it has important insights, it's not my view in full either. I definitely agree about the "less loud" aspect. Andre (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as transparency, I deeply believe it's very important, and if made a bureaucrat will explain all decisions, and have numbers to back them up. Andre (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE Anti-Vandal Armies

Fair enough, I do see your point. Ultimately, this is probably a matter of personal taste - for me, the dull task of vandal-fighting is made more fun by using a bit of combat terminology. :-) But I think you make a valid point about the fact that excessive aggression in vandal-fighting provokes a more confrontational attitude between vandals and regular users; you're right that there are some vandals who can be reformed, and others who are mistakenly identified as vandals but were trying to act in good faith. I also agree that we tend to suffer from the growth of bureaucracy, and that there is such a thing as too many organisations and processes, which can get in the way of working on the encyclopedia. Nonetheless, although private anti-vandalism groups are arguably redundant, I believe people should not be penalised for having them; any group based solely in userspace, provided it has a constructive purpose, should generally be allowable, and shouldn't kill an RfA. Further, I don't 100% agree with the assertion that the use of paramilitary terms and concepts is a "large deviation" from the concept of an encyclopedia (except in the sense that it creates extra bureaucracy, which we possibly don't need). I've always considered the military structure to be one of the environments in which human beings function in the most efficient and productive way (possibly that difference of opinion stems from our different RL political views, but I wouldn't want to assume that, as I know comparatively little about your views on this matter). Sorry for my lengthy response, but I just wanted to clarify what I meant. Walton^talk 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want a massive controversy to appear simply because of a tiny organization a former Wikipedia user gave me. I am perfectly fine with getting rid of it. Captain panda 17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xoloz, thanks for your reply. I fully understand that paramilitary organisations on Wikipedia have the potential to be divisive, and that it would be inappropriate for the encyclopedia as a whole or any of its significant components to be organised along paramilitary lines. However, to note your example - I, as a rightist, would not join a "Wiki-Commune of Universal Peace", but if someone else wanted to start one in their userspace, I would certainly not object to this. I think there is an important dividing line between official Wikipedia groups/processes and private organisations based in someone's userspace. Generally I'm something of a "userspace libertarian", supportive of allowing editors to have whatever they want in their userspace, provided it doesn't constitute open attacks on other editors. So, although I fully respect your opinion about paramilitary groups on Wikipedia and the threat of polarisation, I don't see that a private userspace group with 4 members is likely to be problematic enough to merit an oppose for Captain panda at RfA. Walton^talk 13:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange coincidence - someone has actually nominated the Wikipedia Army for MfD in the last few minutes, see here. I was commenting on the MfD when I got your message. As to your comments, I think it's fair enough to hold admins to a higher standard of neutrality than other users; this has always been the case (for instance, my userpage used to be covered in controversial right-wing userboxes, but I had to remove them when I went through RfA). So I now understand your reasoning, although I still think the good that Captain panda can do for Wikipedia as an admin outweighs these issues. Walton^talk 14:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA. Hiberniantears 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

27 Club Talk page and redirect

Hi Xoloz, this is just housekeeping issue, I think, due to your closing of a DRV on this article. This RfD on 'The 27 Club' says that the redirect The 27 Club was deleted by Black Falcon on 3 July since the target went away due to AfD. It should probably be put back. Also Talk:27 Club isn't there; if it ever existed it should probably be restored as well. It should also have a banner about the AfD discussion that it survived. EdJohnston 01:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives

Hi. I read your note on my talk page and I beg to differ. The entire narrative portion of the article was copied verbatim from another website. It is of no consequence that all of the information was factual. The creative process that determines which facts to include and which to exclude is part of what makes non-fiction copyrightable. That the article had a list of members appended to the initial copy-and-paste does not alter the fact that it was a copyright violation. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks 19:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article contained two sentences, as well as the membership roster of the organization (in a different format than the original text.) What little creative element that was present might have fixed by re-writing, although I maintain that no legally-cognizable element existed. As I say in your RfA on this subject, simple declarative sentences are not copyright-able, if they convey only facts, with no real creativity. I'm sure the sentence "George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States" has occurred in print a million times by now, but it is copyright-able by no one. In any event, the article was a clear CSD A7 -- resorting to a questionable copyvio claim was not the best choice. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment. While we disagree on the copyright issues here, I cannot fault your A7 deletion. I was tipped off to the article by its appearance on WP:SCV, so I was focused on that issue. I don't usually tag for A7 when I see a copyvio (although I will usually add a spam tag if it's egregious), because people seem to take "nonnotable" more personally. But then again, I haven't yet had to think "Which is the best of the possible reasons for deleting this article?". (Hopefully, I will in a few days.) Thanks for your input. -- But|seriously|folks 02:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional affluent characters

Since you closed the WP:DRV discussion on Category:Fictional wealthy characters, I was hoping that you could help with Category:Fictional affluent characters.

The "affluent" category was nominated for deletion at WP:CFD before the "wealthy" category was brought to WP:DRV, and a lot of people discussing the "affluent" category recognized that it was the recreation of the "wealthy" category. User:Radiant! closed the discussion on the "affluent" category while the WP:DRV discussion continued on the "wealthy" category, possibly expecting that the WP:DRV discussion would lead to a decision as to what to do with the "affluent" category.

So, given the outcome of the WP:DRV discussion, would it be appropriate to delete the "affluent" category outright, or does it need to be discussed again in yet another WP:CFD discussion? (I have also contacted User:Radiant! about this, and I may try other administrators or WP:AN as well.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant! closed "affluent" as a "keep"? Or was it a "no consensus"? He generally is not kind to over-categorization, and he knows more about them than I could learn in a million years, so I'd defer to his judgment. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 1. Radiant! did not close the discussion on the "affluent" category as a "keep" or "no consensus". He only closed it because of the parallel discussion at WP:DRV.

Anyhow, it looks like Radiant! is only working intermittently on Wikipedia at the moment. I worry that he may take a while to respond. Should we wait? Dr. Submillimeter 19:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of WhiStle Radio

Hi seems that the WhiStle Radio submission was deleted because of a copyright infringement. I e-mailed to let you know that I am the author of the text in question, so no copyright infringement has occurred. Please reinstate the submission, thanks! WhiStle Radio 21:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paris by Nights

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article List of Paris by Nights, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Postcard Cathy 01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back in touch with me. I noticed what you said in your edit summary for the page and I have to admit I was a little confused. It turned out my first hunch was correct but as you were listed as the first person for the article, I took a chance! If you know who created the original article, please pass on the info about the prod. If not, don't worry. Something tells me they don't care that much about the article. Postcard Cathy 01:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UH DUH Should have looked at the article first. Now I see what you mean. Oh, OK. It looks much better now! Thanks! :) And now I will really read it and get an idea of why it is important! Thanks alot. Postcard Cathy 01:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]