User talk:Xoloz/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Undeletion
This is a difficult question and appears to be kicking off in the deletion log as I write. I can see the pretty clear merit in the claim that what we're about is content and that we should be able to recover content that is deleted, even well within process, when that content is plainly the sort of stuff we want. I don't see any merit whatever in Tony's claim that this means it is imperative to short circuit a process that was probably going to undelete it anyway, valid AfD or no. We have our processes in part because they (should) remove the need for editors and admins to war over things that can be settle perfectly reasonably in the course of a few days community discussion. This is particularly true of VfU where admin intervention is pretty much always necessary and the only way admins can disagree is with their extra buttons; a means of discourse that is harmful.
So yes, I agree that VfU does, in exceptional cases, need to be able to review content and that this was probably one of those cases. I'm not immediately sure how to judge when this is the case, although it's usually pretty obvious when it's not the case although again I'm not sure why. I fear the effect of precedent, and I fear the effect of an admin making any comment on the content. Even if I were to make comment to the effect that "...and the content is irrelevant", I'd pretty much have to allow anyone else to reach their own judgement on that, and we'd have an instant-AfD-on-VfU. It was also why I delayed acting on your request until I was given a get-out clause. On the other hand, the blurb at the top of VfU makes clear that if someone has significant new information, they are encouraged to present it: a much more convincing prima facie case for undeletion could have been made in the Wolters case than was (indeed such a case has since been added). An admin could then have publicly observed that this information was poorly presented in or absent from the article and been fairly sure to influence the debate by so saying. So we can have content review without having to repeat an AfD, although it requires some smoke and mirrors.
I'm going to give some thought to the question, however, since smoke and mirrors would preferably be as unnecessary as unilateralism. Finding a 'third way' might be tough. Perhaps an interim measure is to word the introductory text more strongly to reflect what I said above, and also to follow your advice on explaining more specfically why to those who are anti-process. -Splashtalk 01:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] AfD John Larney
Please revisit the AfD John Larney discussion as we have determined that it is not a hoax nor is there any form of puppetry involved. Also the article has been cleaned up and verifiable sources have been added. Thank you. JesusSaves 23:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hermione1980's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Hermione1980 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Xoloz - Thank you for your support on my recent RfA. I hope that I can be a good administrator. If you need anything, please send me a message. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] RFC
Hi there! I have openend an RFC on Tony Sidaway's frequent incivility and poor response to criticism. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter. If I understand correctly from his talk page, you have recently tried to discuss this very issue with him, and it didn't really resolve anything. I hope that an RFC may be more fruitful. Yours, Radiant_>|< 12:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Greetings human,
I've seen some oh-so-slight suggestions from you that I was less than polite in the RfC for Tony Sidaway. While I don't think that I can aspire to your level of control, could you be specific with me? I've had plenty of other users try to stick it to me and managed to keep my cool, but I fear that with Tony I may no longer be able to detect my own bad behavior. Well, the small scale bad behavior, at least.
brenneman(t)(c) 07:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Maryville Middle School
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School appears in danger of being trumped by a conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists. Please review the nomination and vote at your convenience.--Nicodemus75 05:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Hello Xoloz. Although, you did not vote support, I would like you to know that I appreciate your vote and good judgement to see some of the pov-motivated votes against me. What you said is absolutely true. And if you would like to know more about my edits, please check my contribs. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. Very nice to see your support for the Islamic views and efforts here on wikipedia. It is absolutely your choice on voting:) and I hope to see you around the 'pedia. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reaffirmations of adminship
See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 27 for a discussion of SethIlys's reaffirmation and the reaction thereto. The general agreement after that was that voluntary reaffirmations were to be prohibited. The only way to do one now is to voluntarily resign one's adminship and run again, an act which is likely to result in failure because people tend to see this as being flighty or unrpredicable, and not in a good way. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] re:Admin votes
Yes, any user can add questions for the candidate and it wouldn't matter if you were an admin or not. It seems to be important to phrase them in a carefully-neutral or positive-leaning light regardless of the expectation regarding the answer. I have myself challenged additional questions on RfAs when I think they are badly asked; the nominee still answered them, but with a (hopefully) freer hand. Asking about IAR is an interesting idea. I think you will usually get "I will apply it carefully and only where absolutely needed" rather than "yeah, I'll shoot first and ask later" but you might at times weed out a candidate whom you might not otherwise oppose. It might also yield some interesting philosophical answers that give insight into a candidates reasoning processes. But don't ask it on every RfA, or even every RfA you plan to participate in — I imagine there are some RfAs where you will already know that you are going to support. When an editor has gone through a phase of blanket-asking a new question, they have usually been bitten for it before long, but not when the question has only been asked judiciously. -Splashtalk 06:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- I thought I'd add that I sometimes ask a candidate additional questions, frequently asking about IAR and sometimes about other things, especially when I'm undecided about a candidate or if the outcome is in doubt at the time I get to the RfA. Sometimes the answer will help others make up their mind even if it doesn't help me. But I'm an infrequent participant at RfA. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Answers to your quesions
Good day Xoloz! I have answered your questions on RfA. Thanks for the time! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Coolness. Thanks for your support, and moreso for your excellent question! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tomf688's RfA
Well, it seems I'm now an administrator. I wanted to thank you for your vote of confidence, and, as always, feel free to drop me a line at any time. --tomf688{talk} 01:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Google stuff
Please revisit Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:Articles which are number one for one word Google searches (whoa what a long title). I've found and added some similar pages, so please check if your vote stands. Radiant_>|< 22:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
Hi, Xoloz. Thanks for the barnstar! I'm not sure what it was about yesterday that meant I got easily riled; there's really no excuse to get annoyed about what is, at the end of the day (and indeed, most other times of the day) just a website. Your citation in the barnstar is appreciated — it is also a challenge to be lived up to. -Splashtalk 12:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Admin
I appreciate the sentiment, but with my edit count (under a thousand, which surprises even me!), it would be a waste of everybody's time. Thanks for the thought, though. Lord Bob 22:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] My RfA
Success!!! Thanks for your support! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] My RfA
Success. Just not the normal kind Thanks for your neutrality! Can I stop mimicing the section above me now? Whew.
Really, I appreciate that you came and said your piece when it would perhaps have been easier to simply stay away. Thank you.
I hadn't realized just how blind I am to race, to be frank. I recall that when the fur was flying with N75, he was sure that I had done it to hurt him. Not only had I never even considered his heritage, I actually find it hard to keep something like that in my head. It just slides away, like a fried egg off a cast iron skillet. My mental classifications run more towards "taller than me" (aka almost everyone) or "has more hair than me" (umm, that would again be almost everyone.) After all the hysteria last time, I had actually forgotten he was black.
I notice that you used a different contruction for that in the RfA, but I'm going to stick with my local varient. The american way is a bit forced to me. I'm greenish pink, isn't that a colour? But I digress. How unusual.
So, thank you again, I'd hope that you continue to feel free to tell me when I screw up! - brenneman(t)(c) 13:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Haukur's RFA
Thank you for supporting my nomination till the end. I think I have never had as much praise piled on me in only six words. Your kind words were one of the things that kept me going throughout. Thank you for finding me worthy of your trust. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] PRueda29 RFA
Thanks you for your support! I really appreicate it. PRueda29 13:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] My RfA
This is just a brief note to thank you for your support vote on my successful RfA. See you around Wikipedia! — Phil Welch 22:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Johann Wolfgang's RfA
Thank you for voting on my RfA. I realize that I have not been here long, however other users said I would do just fine as an administrator, so I followed their advice. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 03:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] My RfA
G'day Xoloz. I just wanted to let you know that I have answered the questions that Aaron posted on my RfA. I hope that I can secure your vote. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Durin RFC
just wanted to let you know that as per the consensus on the talk page I have archived and locked the RFC. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Re: The Devil's Panties
I appreciate the help. Despite being around Wikipedia in some capacity or another for a few years, I am not fully familiar with every intricacy of it yet and made that mistake. The addition of the characters was not part of my initial page creation but I am going to make a point to go back through and clean up and possibly weed out any that seem incendiary and possibly limit the section to include only those that recur throughout the comic as a whole. Thanks again. TheMonkofDestiny 06:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] User:Xoloz/Schools
I've seen a lot of stubs on schools kept and subsequently not touched or at least not seriously expanded for over 3 months. New people may well have a page creation phobia, but very little improving seems to be done too. How does that figure into your argument on schools? - Mgm|(talk) 14:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to see a school task force as well. But I'm afraid the "minimum acceptable level" needs to be determined so hard work on improving an article isn't thrown down the drain by a nomination after it being cleaned up. Also, I don't see why some people say why very crappy articles should stay when admins can easily resurrect an article should someone be interested in starting work on it. I agree that articles can be expanded and cleaned up but some articles are just beyond help.
- I would for example delete "George W. Bush is the president of the United States" without shedding a single tear because that is a substub definition. Anyone who'd research the subject and create an article on the subject would VERY easily get this information and thus nothing would be lost by starting a new article from scratch.
- And I'm sorry, I'm not that much of a wiz with matchsticks and rubber gloves. Although it's probably pretty clear, I wouldn't mind if that was the case. Sorry to disappoint you there. - Mgm|(talk) 18:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- So perhaps the Bush example isn't the best, but it was the substub thing I wanted to get across. I'm sure you can find similar examples in school articles. - Mgm|(talk) 22:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thumbs up to a co-alumnus
Of no importance whatsoever, but I just happened to note you cast two votes on RfA's in the same direction as me (MONGO and Ann Heneghan). I don't usually vote on those, but occasionally when I know an editor (for good or for bad). Clicking on your page, I saw you got a minor graduate degree at my Ph.D. school (UMass); but then a real grad degree elsewhere :-). And that you are a good leftie and a feminist, per your user page. So I figure it all merited a smile and a friendly hello. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Just wanted to thank you for taking the time to respond to my RfA. I appreciate the comments and will work on improving my community interaction. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Joseph Lister
Hi - thanks for letting me know about the AfD. I have commented there but otherwise abstained. My interpretation of the google news search results suggest it is the reporting of a tragedy and not highlighting a shift in community feeling about school trips or caving. Regards--A Y Arktos 20:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Halibutt
Is controversial bad? And what exactly is controversial? Most of the objection raised by Cryptic and Radiant have been addressed. You may want to read Halibutt's responces there - to me they prove that he is a trustworthy person. Not perfect, no - but who among us has never erred? That he can ackowledge his mistakes, apologize and learn from them is to me a sign of a good editor - and a good person. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I see. I was also dissapointed with his action regarding the support template - although the most disruptive part of it (displaying the large delete notices) was because the closing admin has made a mistake in the tag (Halibutt explained it at the RfA page), and so what he intented to use (the red template) is really not that disruptive. Still, the recreation (6 times...) was not the right thing to do. On the other hand, this seem to be the only serious objection for his two years of contributions - and aren't we all human and entitled to some mistakes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Since you stated in your vote that user Radiant's opinons matters highly to you, and in case you are not monitoring the vote as closely as I am (being the nomiantor at all), I thought I'd let you know that Radiant has changed his vote to neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, but I doubt it would make any sense at all. Note that many people held against me my own behaviour in disputes that had ended a year ago or so. In a few months these past debates will not be erased... Also, many others opposed because I contribute mostly to Poland-related articles, which is highly unlikely to change, so I guess their accusations of nationalism will still be active (not to say valid). Anyway, thanks for your comment. Halibutt 06:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for supporting me for adminship. The RfA passed today. I look forward to working with you to make Wikipedia a better place. --Nlu 03:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you!
Hi Xoloz,
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Regards, JoanneB 14:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[edit] GraemeL's RFA
Hi Xoloz,
I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support and kind words on my RfA. I was very surprised at the number of votes and amount of and kind comments that I gathered. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I mess up in the use of my new powers. --GraemeL (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[edit] Ianblair23's RfA
G'day Xoloz,
I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It closed with the final tally of 57/0/0. I can only hope I can live up to the expectations that this wonderful community of ours demands from each of its administrators. If you ever need anything, please just let me know. Cheers! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[edit] Evil, pure eeevil...
Hey mate,
Feel like cleaning up something? I've wandered into the dark side of wikipedia, and while I'd like to fix some things up, I find I actually know very little. So, turning to the random person whom I suspect knows lots of things...
Have a look at Credit history. Spammy-jammy, thank you mammy. Fell like injecting some actual content in its place? Then for more fun, try "What links here" and follow the trail of spam crumbs...
brenneman(t)(c) 06:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] RfA thanks
I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again, and enjoy your wiki-break. Jkelly 08:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cheers for your support
I too wish to say thanks for the support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. I'm a little in awe of it all at the moment, that block link is very intimidating! Anyway, thanks again, Steve block talk 09:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sean Black RfA
Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Black 07:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] List of Everybody
That's a reasonable point. I've struck my vote. I still believe the page is pretty pointless, but in userspace that shouldn't be a problem (unless it's an attack page or linkspam, which it's not). Yours, Radiant_>|< 15:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] CCW stuff
Yes, I had seen your comments to Essjay. I have been paying close attention to this entire situation, because WP cannot afford to lose too many editors like Essjay. I am not sure what else to do to convince him to stay on with WP. I have expressed my feelings, perhaps not as eloquently as I would have liked, and don't think anything else I say will make a difference. And I don't know how much help I will be with the "inside workings" of the CCW since I have recently withdrawn from it. I hope to see you around. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Userfying
I wrote up a response, but I had to erase it after looking at some of the ad hominem I had in there (well, mostly relating to Fuck the South (/me stops himself there)). I'm not thinking clearly obviously, I need a break. The main point in it was along the lines of it being just as offensive whether its in the User or Wikipedia space, and how you can find offense with pretty much anything. Plus, those voting userfy were those trying to be in the middle of the road, all of those offended wanted it to be deleted, they don't care what namespace it's in. If there's gonna be so much drama over a parody, wiki's not the place it once was. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't mind you having a copy of the article. Note I said I stopped myself from saying ad hominem... it's the fact that you agree with that page (world wide web, not the article on it) in full. Whereas CCW is a parody, and it should be obvious to everyone. I don't fear newbies coming here by mistake from searching, Wikipedia namespace is not turned on by default. The point of the AFD was to see what people want to do, and userfy was at the bottom of the list. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I consider the above comment by Redwolf (italics are mine) to be such a gross distortion of my views that I am almost offended, and I am certainly left to wonder how closely Redwolf read what I have written in the past. I do support FTS' views, but for reasons that are deeply personal, reasons which I took the time to elaborate extensively in several places at the time of the vote. To oversimplify my view in this way, even if it such oversimplication was accidental, is a disservice to my integrity. Interested parties, please inquire about my views on FTS, and I will be happy to rectify misunderstandings -- I would much prefer if interested parties come with open minds, however, and not preconceived cant. Xoloz 05:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Gross distortion of your views? Personal reasons? All you've said (in my view) is you're very passionate. (No, I have not read the giant AfD, nor have I read the equally large Essjay's talk page. I never intend to offend another wikipedian, so I would appreciate it if you did explain. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 04:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Redwolf and I had a misunderstanding about this, but I things are resolved. I didn't intend to suggest bad-faith or malice on his part. Any random talk-page scourer with questions about my views on the South, please do ask -- that part remains unchanged. Xoloz 04:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] CCW
Hence my suggestion it be placed in my userspace... I am prone to phrasing myself in unconventional and convoluted ways when it comes to religion, so I can understand how my point was missed... [[Sam Korn]] 16:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- γνωθε σεαυτον—just be careful when doing things. Just think through the consequences. Be bold, but be aware of others as well. This is your penance... ;=) [[Sam Korn]] 19:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] My apologies
I left a note above, but this should get its own section. I fully apologize for offending, I guess my bad mood as of late may be a factor, in fact I've been considering leaving for quite some time, but I'm just trying to stick this out, I'm sure things will get better (even if that is the last words of so many people). I have my models who have it much worse and must be much more frustrated than the recent waves of people leaving. Ah, and when I had that nostalgic comment (wiki's not the place it once was), I guess in the beginning I was low-profile, and I guess things are just happier if you remain such. Cheers, Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 04:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- And no, I don't dislike you. The only wikipedian I happen to dislike is some guy who you don't happen to be fond of either... We have a few common friends, and I never develop a hatred for everyone I argue with... there's just no reason. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 04:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
