User talk:Xcali

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Vandalism and vanity

what denotes vandalism and vanity in your opinion???

  • A fair question. I'd call vanity anything that a person enters about themselves. As a general rule, any entry about a person with two sentences or less is probably vanity. Anything about someone born in the last 20 years is likely to be vanity. Anything describing someone/something as "up and coming" or "budding" is likely to be vanity. Articles listing only hobbies/activites without accomplishments are vanity. Anything falling under Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
Vandalism is deleting housekeeping tags from pages such as the {{delete}} or {{vfd}} tags. It's also cluttering the WikiSpace with patent nonsense, personal attacks, deleting relevant information from an article, inserting comments ("Hi mom!") into articles, etc.
These aren't all inclusive lists, and exceptions to all of the above apply.
I should probably add that my philosphy is "When in doubt, leave it for others to look at."
Xcali 22:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Vanity is not an accepted reason for speedy deletions, especially on almost decently written articles like Semper Tyrannis. Sorry, but you'll have to list it on VfD. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet limit

My personal limit is 3. If less than 3 sockpuppets have voted, I'll either not vote or vote based on article content. But if an article has to rely on sockpuppet votes then by my personal definition, it doesn't deserve to be kept. Personal "attack limit" was just a throwaway in that one particular edit. RickK 21:57, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] tyrants

Can you help? Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of tyrants user:Philip Baird Shearer is asking what category of deletion under Wikipedia:Deletion policy I am arguing under. The list is, of course, inherently POV, but he's pointing out (correctly it seems) that this isn't a deletion category in itself, and that POV should be argued in the talk page. If he wins this argument - then 'list of horrible people' and 'list of great holiday destinations' would also be legit (and that's just moronic). But I don't know how to answer him... --Doc (?) 12:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD Nominations

Annoyingly, nominating an article for deletion is actually a three step process. Please follow the steps at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. Also, make sure to use the vfd2 and vfd3 tags listed there to enter your reason for deletion and place the page on the deletion log. That's how other people will be able to see the nomination even if they don't happen to go to the page in question. I've gone back through your edit history to format the entries you've already tagged and added them to the log for July 8. Thanks for helping to keep the place clean.

--Xcali 23:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that- ah its all changed since my day when you just stuck candidates for deletion on a special list page... seems very involved nowadays... I'll try to follow procedure in future... quercus robur 19:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep up the good work - kill the rubbish! A curate's egg 18:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stubbery

Thanks! In the ten minutes it took me to figure out why {{substub}} was no longer a template, the article had magically fixed itself... Long live the stub-sorters. +sj + 04:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionism, speedies

Being a dicdef does not make an article a speedy deletion candidate. Please stick to using vfd. +sj + 04:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sofia Sanchez

That article is funny. See Talk:Sofia Sanchez, where I tried to put an explanation. Last week it was Elizabeth Sanchez and Alberto Vargas I think. This week, Sofia. Antares33712 15:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA, thanks!

Hi Xcali! Thanks for your support on my RFA! Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Self-induced abortion vfd.

Thank you for voting to keep the article on self-induced abortion. I understand your concerns with respect to the article, and promise to continue working to develop and improve it. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 15:28, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

[edit] VfD for Comparison of web browsers

Weyes,

Did you mean to nominate Comparison of web browsers or Comparison of web browsers (security)? From your comments and the placement of the article's VfD tag, I'm guessing it's the latter, but the former is the one pointed to in the VfD discussion.

--Xcali 21:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks for the alert. --W(t) 22:02, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)


[edit] Sanjan

Let's combine the VFDs for S.W.M. and Sanjan (religion). silsor 19:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry to disturb, but it is obvious from their responses that the author of the Sanjan stuff and Halifax fully intend to continue using Wiki as a promotional platform. Evidently their "highly exclusive sect" cannot afford normal means of advertising. Do you know the process for recommending a user ban? Kevin/Last1in 20:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletes

Vanity is not a criterion for speedy delete, no matter how much you (or I) would like it. Nor is dicdef. You claim to want to lighten the load on VfD. How about lightening the load on speedy deletes by informing yourself of what are legitimate criteria for speedy and what are not. Denni☯ 01:38, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Riker comment

Apologies for misplacing my earlier comment on your user page rather than your discussion page. Moving too fast for my own good. --Durin 13:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Judith Alice Clark

At your convenience, could you re-read the article. I did a complete rewrite. DS1953 06:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with your point that the last sentence does not clearly give the reasons why the radical left considers her a political prisoner. I posted some thoughts on the article's talk page. DS1953 16:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] And yet again

Hey Xcali, what part of official policy don't you understand? Being part of a community means following community standards. As Wikipedians, we all have the opportunity to participate in setting those standards, but I think it ill-mannered to ignore those already in existence. While I share many of your deletionist viewpoints (I would happily speedy most of what comes up on the speedy candidates page if I had my druthers), I cannot support your anarchistic approach to speedy-tagging whatever seems to suit your fancy. Denni☯ 01:48, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

  • Come on. Like I have to remind you of the vanity articles (and dicdefs) you've tagged for speedy. Really. Denni☯ 01:58, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
    • Hey buddy, I'm on your (deletionist) side. I just prefer to observe protocol. Denni☯ 02:10, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
      • I'm not asking you to leave. I'm just asking that you play by the rules. I don't understand why it is that gets your shirt in a knot. Denni☯ 16:52, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thanks for taking the time to participate in my RfA. You mentioned the RfC that I initiated against Rangerdude. FYI, it was withdrawn when he consented to participate in mediation, which is now pending. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 220 Oak Street Tenants Association

You marked 220 Oak Street Tenants Association for speedy deletion. It doesn't seem to fall under any of the criteria for speedy deletion; could you please explain? (Not that I think it should be here, but it's not CSD, I don't think.)--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theory

There's a difference between a scientific theory and the common term "theory" used by the public. Scientific theories are laws that cover entire phenomena, while for the average person, "theory" means "guess". There is no difference between "scientific theory" and "law" to the scientific community. See: Theory#Science and Theory#List_of_theories --brian0918™ 22:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silly window syndrome

The material you kicked for copyvio was a vandalized version of the page. I didn't revert it, though, because the copyvio notice says "DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE!!!!!111one shifty one" --Orborde 05:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving, ma'am?

I've seen some of your deletionist arguements, and while I can see how some people would be scared, and threatened at the way you wish to keep this place safe from vanity and vandalism. All the same, I want to thank you. For every vandal and vanitist (?), we need a speedy deletionist. I applaud you. Please, don't go. Chercher E. 1 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

[edit] verses

Hiya,

you recently voted to delete Matthew 2:16

however, a proposal by User:Uncle G covers a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)

[edit] I was wondering...

...where you were, exactly. VfD is different with out you and RickK. Good luck in your future endeavors, and hopefully you'll come back here. All the best (if you get a chance to read this). --Scimitar parley 21:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Systemwars.com

Hi. You voted to delete Systemwars.com and it was deleted. However, Tony Sidaway has decided that your vote and the consensus that agreed with you was insufficient. He has recreated the article in violation of policy and relisted it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemwars.com (second version). Please take a look. - Tεxτurε 15:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] If you are still here . . . .....

you raised some questions about the Richmond Barthé article 6 months [who's counting?] ago, which I am echoing today, but I am unsure where to go with it. Any ideas? Carptrash 04:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)