User talk:Xoloz/archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] History only undeletion of Brett Chidester

Thank you for doing it, there is useful stuff in the deleted article. -  Unsigned Char72 10:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About your deletion of 3MC Entertainment

What does AI/A3/A7 mean? Tom Danson 13:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GHe's RfA

Hi Xoloz!

Thank you for taking part in my RfA! Ultimately, it ended with a final result of (62/23/7), and with only 73% support, no consensus was achieved. Nevertheless, I will definitely look into Adambiswanger1's comments and improve for the future.

 G.He 21:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That hurt!

Particulary as the "overturn" arguments were as week as the "keep" ones. Ahh well, cann win them all. ^_^
brenneman {L} 16:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Guffey

Please don't delete the Paul Guffey page again before discussing. Thanks!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodgerbales (talk • contribs) .

[edit] time to mediate?

Hello, do you have time to mediate on Yoshiaki Omura? the edit war is continuing .. . I have requested a Mediation Cabal - and I guess they will duely get to it when they have time. Thank you.--Richardmalter 05:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Trencher (bread)

Good afternoon. You recently speedy-deleted the page above as "Housekeeping". It had been tagged as such by another user.

I do not believe that the "housekeeping" speedy-deletion criterion may be applied to a page which has useful page history. I believe that the documentation of a pagemove is an example of a useful history. This page already had an RFD discussion on-going. I have taken the liberty of undeleting the page as a contested speedy in order to allow the RFD discussion to continue. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Good evening. I will concede that it's no longer as critical as it used to be now that the MediaWiki software records the move in the pagehistory of both the origin and destination pages. That's a relatively recent change, though. And frankly, I think it's still helpful when attempting to sort out complicated histories when a page has been moved (sometimes repeatedly) to different titles. Having a confirmation of the pagemove is helpful. Sometimes, the corresponding evidence in the destination page is hard to find or has become obscured by other edits.
Leaving the redirect behind also serves to direct the original author(s) to the new location so that they can contribute to the right article rather than to either 1) get frustrated that their good-faith contributions are no longer in Wikipedia or 2) recreate the article in ignorance of the pagemove. We've always held that redirects are cheap. Even if they only add a small amount of value to the project, why should we pay the cost of deleting them and risking the unnecessary alienation of a new user - someone who doesn't yet understand what happens in a pagemove?
I hope that helps explain my thinking a bit more. Thanks for your patience. Rossami (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primož Jakopin

Hi, by which criterium he is not notable? He is notable for Slovene computer lingustics, not just as pure programmer. --AndrejJ 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please check the external links provided in the article. Your claim that Primož Jakopin is a a non-notable computer programmer is nonsensical. He is a renowned Slovenian linguist and a professor at the University of Ljubljana. --Jalen 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Hillman

Hi, Xoloz, thanks for the message you left on my user talk page (see User talk:Hillman/Archive14). I was on a one week wikibreak, hence my tardy reply. You pointed out "Please be aware that, generally, it is improper for a page to be nominated for deletion by a person not wishing to have the page deleted. Our deletion fora at Wikipedia are too busy to issue what are called at law declaratory judgments." Point taken, but please note that I did seek advice from some experienced admins specifally on whether an MfD or RfC was more appropriate. I only got one response, which was that an MfD would be better than an RfC! However, I won't try MfD again if a similar situation should arise in the future, as per your request.

I wonder if you could help me with something else? You left this message in the middle of an edit war over my user talk page (!) which occured while I was on wikibreak:

  1. 08:11, 2 August 2006 DrL alters various messages left by various users in my user talk page; User:KSmrq then reverted the changes
  2. 08:45, 2 August 2006 DrL reverts KSmrq's revert of the alterations, which KSmrq again reverted
  3. 10:33, 2 August 2006 DrL reverts KSmrq

I think this was potentially a serious violation, particularly since she has opened various proceedings against me alleging misbehavior and on about a half dozen occasions (as I recall), she has called for me to be summarily permabanned in various places, including:

  1. 10:43, 1 August 2006 message left on my user talk page
  2. 08:20, 1 August 2006 message left at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I happen to agree with her that possible violations of privacy constitute a serious serious issue at WP; the disclosures by myself to which she is objecting occured in the context of my attempt at User:Hillman/Digging to start a policymaking discussion precisely to try to obtain a sensible policy regulating "digging", in which one must find some reasonable balance between the conflicting need to protect personal privacy of Wikipedia contributors and the need to combat misbehavior such as "wikishilling", which roughly speaking means slanting articles while grossly misrepresenting one's level of personal connection to the topic of these articles, particularly when there is a reasonable expectation of personal gain, possibly including financial gain, by such activity. AFAIK, DrL learned of this from my participation in the CTMU Deletion review to which your message refered. Unfortunately, DrL rushed to initiate various drastic procedures before exploring less drastic ones, including a number of messages in the Noticeboard and this proceeding. She also retained a AMA representative, User:David.Mestel. I thought she had agreed to put the MediationCabal proceeding on hold, not to edit my pages in my absence, and to allow me to negotiate with Mestel upon my return, so this edit war is rather upsetting.

I am about to raise the issue with Mestel of whether his client has in fact agreed to postpone initiating further proceedings against me while I negotiate with Mestel, and whether she intends to abide by any agreement I might reach with him, but in the mean time, I seek page protection my user talk page archives since it seems that I may need to keep evidence of my motivations in discussing DrL's apparent real-life identity. Can you help me by protecting User_talk:Hillman/Archive13 (please check first to make sure she has not altered those messages again) at least until this mess has been resolved?

This whole affair is particularly frustrating since it seems that DrL and I actually agree upon the importance of protecting personal privacy wherever possible: our disagreement seems to concern whether it was legitimate to discuss her activity as an example of apparent wikishilling in my essay on Digging. I have stated that I am willing to try to work out some mutually acceptable compromise with her representative Mestel which will respect her personal privacy while not chilling a good faith attempt to initiate discussion of possible policy changes which would address the very issue which concerns her.

TIA---CH 21:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons article

Perhaps there is some rule against this but you should probably undelete the talk page as well, pending the AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haughty?

Are you? You might be. image:smile.png Wjhonson 06:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still envious of you being called haughty, but at least I've now joined the ranks of those accused of POV by a "a bona died, blood bought Christian" simply because they revert other people's POV. See User_talk:Wjhonson#Gary_Sellars here. Accused of posting "crap" with the "personal spin of thousands of homosexuals". "Your hypocrisy is duly noted." "Your pride ...is ludicrous"."... a page of fraud...twisted to the homosexuals perverted view of Christianity." "Homosexuals are hypocrites..."
What do I have to do to be called haughty though? Wjhonson 16:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favor

Howdy. I know that you're ridiculously busy, but I wonder if you might do me a quick mainspace-related favor; I will surely understand if you're unavailable/unwilling. User:Joehazelton requested an advocate relative to what he perceived as biased editing undertaken at Peter Roskam, and I took the case. When first I read his request—which, in pertinent part, asserted that two other editors insisted on inserting unencyclopedic or gratuitously prejudicial information into the article, in view, likely, of their political inclinations—I assumed, to be frank, that he was some kook who simply apprehended liberal bias behind every tree (Roskam is a Republican candidate for the U.S. House from Illinois, and he appears to be a stock religious right candidate; as you might guess, I've not a particularly high opinion of him); I found, though, that irrespective of their intentions, other editors tended to introduce unencyclopedic information and to disregard summarily Joe's comments and suggestions.

Many of the issues were recently resolved, but a few significant ones appear to persist, and so I've set out at Talk:Peter Roskam five questions that seek to address and resolve those concerns harbored by Joe (and, in view of encyclopedic principles, by me), on which I'd very much appreciate your commenting (you are, of course, well-known as a level-headed and thoughtful editor, but I think it also useful that you are, you readily concede, a liberal, such that any criticisms you might have of the extant article can't/shouldn't simply be written off as part of a greater right-wing conspiracy) in any spare moment you should have. Thanks in advance for any help you might provide; be assured, though, that I'll understand completely should you be otherwise inclined—without your disposing of XfDs and the like, I imagine we'd be backlogged beyond belief. Joe 05:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem; I wholly understand. I myself have difficulty becoming concerned about a hatchet job's being done to this Roskam gentleman, if only because he's likely deserving of such a hatchet job; I rather like to consider, though, that Wikipedia probably isn't the place at which such castigation should take place, and in any case I enjoy helping a user with whom my political sympathies do not lie. I gather you're of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, with which wing, as an anarcholibertarian, I've much in common (not least my support for Russ Feingold, who once, I am quite happy to say, wrote me a letter—my family and I were quite active in his 1992 Senate primary, for which his supporters at the outset were so few as to come into contact with him daily—in which he suggested that I should someday hold his seat...it turns out that I can't simply present such letter to the Clerk of the Senate to demand a seat, at the expense, ideally, of Kansas :( ). That's surely enough political talk for today, so I'll thank you for your reply and wish you well... Joe 05:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hey Xoloz, just a quick note to let you know I withdrew my RfA at 13/11/10. Hopefully (well, definitely, unless time starts going backwards) I'll have more experience next time I'm up on RfA. Thanks for your opinion :) --james(talk) 11:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Pets is userfied. Rfrisbietalk 16:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you very much for your quick help in restoring the StarCraft unit article histories. :) Czj 18:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shortness

reference

You know, on my first (uncommitted) pass I did have more in there, along with a "(more on that in the answers below)" ref... Actually expected some optional questions too. But I do understand what you're getting at, and it's something that I think i've made a start on in the last few months - less terse reverts, more comments on talk pages. Anyway, thanks for the feedback/wangi 00:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brooke SKye

Hey if I want to start a page on her, how do I go about this and what makes it acceptable?

[edit] RfA thanks

Thanks so much for voting, Xoloz!
Thanks so much for your support vote on my request for adminship! With a final vote count of (82/5/0), it succeeded, and I'm now an administrator! I am thrilled with the overwhelming positive support from the community, and sincerely thank you once again for taking your time to voice your opinion. Feel free to contact me with any comments/suggestions in the future!
—Mets501 (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craziness

Is it just me, or is it that between the Jtkiefer/Pegasus incident, the banning of Encyclopedist and former-administrator HOTR, and Crzrussian's desysopping, Wikipedia has gone a bit off the rails this summer? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My own personal view, instead of periodical crises, is something more along the lines of an ongoing crisis. Regarding the Crisis of the Third Century, I've seen theories by one Pat Southern that the 3rd century wasn't unique and Rome was always in crisis; it went from crisis to crisis and adapted as it went along. I think of Wikipedia as always in a state of crisis in terms of the vandals attacking it, and in an ongoing battle we can't win but we can maintain a certain level of consistent quality. Then there are these events, which go a bit beyond article space. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{WikiProject 911TM}}

I noticed you removed some references to the deleted (probably not ready for prime time) template, but there a few dozen more refrences. Do you of a tool which will take care of all of them? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deletion request

Good afternoon, Xoloz. In light of your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Black Tony, would you please review User:Blacktonys7? It is, as near as I can tell, identical content. It is not technically a re-creation since it existed before the MfD discussion. It was not tagged with the deletion notice but the author participated in the deletion discussion so he/she clearly knew about the discussion. Running through a second deletion discussion seems a bit pointless to me.

Since I participated in the debate, I probably should not be the one to decide on this particular piece of housekeeping. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Kelly_Martin

Hi, Xoloz! I've filed a request for arbitration which mentions or references you. Haukur 12:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Crews

I noticed you redirected this to List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7), but she was on season 3, and not on 7/ Could you check this and any other closes of BB contestants that you did. Also, may I suggest, when you put in a redirect, please copy/paste what article you're redirecting to, so its easier to review. Thanks. --Rob 04:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Sheynhertz-Unbayg

Hi,

I see that you've had some interaction with User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg. Please check out the following RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sheynhertz-Unbayg. --Batamtig 08:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] If you've got time...

Hi Xoloz :)

If you've got time would you mind having a look at this? Text is more or less as I think it should appear in finished article, pics yet to be added (just pics of boats), some minor tidying, acceptable? Any other comments? I would say I value your opinion, but I think the words would choke me :D . Just kidding! Rentwa 17:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Now more or less finished. Rentwa 00:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Okay, so anything written by nonclique people is deleted with no explanation, ever??...

Hopiakuta 02:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you close this AFD?

This one [1]

It's been five days since it started & I'm the one that is going to merge the articles (but I'm leaving tomorrow on vacation). I asked the nominator about it & he suggested I asked an administrator to close it. SNS 03:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I just ran into a problem while doing the merge. Every single addition is smaller then the previous one. I originally thought they were just smaller then the first but it soon became clear they were getting smaller in general. Can you tell what I'm doing wrong? SNS 03:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anarchopedia

dear sir

did not quite undertand why the article "anarchopedia" was deleted. after all, one can hardly call a vote 2x# a consensus ... is there a time for "pool closure" or anything of the sort ?

thanks for your time

Cold Light 03:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Please explain

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchopedia >;

< http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Main_Page >;

versus wiki.

Please see my above comment|question.

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 03:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Well, you've lied, &/or you don't recall deleting my pages:

Either one proves that the clique is: "delete everything".

< http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/user:hopiakuta >.

Hopiakuta 04:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] You've definitively

proven that you delete so much, that you don't have even the vaguest recollection:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizboll%C4%81h >.

When you're in a deep hole, you might consider not digging,...

Hopiakuta 04:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does A1/A3/A7 mean?

When you deleted 3MC Entertainment, your summary was A1/A3/A7. What does that mean? Tom Danson 13:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom, if you have a read of WP:SPEEDY it should clear it up - they are just shorthand refs to the criteria in that policy. In particular:
  • A1: Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes.
  • A3: Pure vandalism, including redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism.
  • A7: Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. Note: Please check the page history to make sure there is only a single author.
Thanks/wangi 14:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McFarland

Huh? Why did you AfD after restoring? Wjhonson 15:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NX-01

Hey. Just to let you know i removed a cat you added. the NX-01 was a pre-federation vessel and was part of the Earth Starfleet. It also didnt have a USS prefix (Enterprise (NX-01) on the Hull) MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea , Would you be able to perform the rename as i am unsure of how to do it? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Removing a cat is not recommended. Cats tend to be very impatient and have long claws and sharp teeth. It's much easier to remove a moose. Wjhonson 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help request

Hello Xoloz, I understand you are an administrator and in that capacity I am requesting your assistance. I have become involved in a very heated debate regarding an article I had previously nominated for AfD. During and after the AfD I have come in frequent conflict with User:Travb who questions my conduct on Wikipedia. I am not requesting assistance in any content dispute but I would very much like an outsider to review this matter and I would appreciate you looking into it. For some of the relevant links pertaining to this please see this and this. The thread on the admin noticeboard is getting to be a rehashing of the entire thing and no admins have responded substantially yet.

My sole concern here is the intimidating tactics employed by Travb, his telling me what to do and think, threatening to know I will be booted from WP (I know it is just intimidation tactics but that's just what concerns me). He uses derogatory terms to describe those who don't share his POV and dismisses them and employs tactics like keeping tabs on how many words I add and delete from articles and implying that when someone doesn't add anything to an article that they cannot delete inappropriate content. I have not been totally civil myself perhaps and I can feel myself getting more and more uncivil in this matter and I do not like that one bit.

Even though I have been on WP almost a year now, I am not too familiar with what steps to take in dispute resolution and I do not know where else to turn but directly to an admin. If you cannot help I would appreciate a nudge in the right direction. Apologies for the length of this post on your talk page. (PS. I also contacte User:Anonymous editor but he seems to be inactive, last edit June 17) Thank you, Kalsermar 01:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi admin, sorry to drag you into this. This users request was ignored by everyone but User:Jkelly on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_help_requested, who recommended a RfC, which I have started. I also started mediation, and ask two other mediators I worked with before to mediate the article.
Kalsermar, If you feel that I have treated you unfairly, and you need support, I strongly suggest an advocate , they have helped me and others before: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. You can also e-mail those who share your POV on the disputed page and work on strategies to counter my work. You are not alone on wikipedia.
Sorry again admin for bothering you.Travb (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two user templates

Greetings...

Template:User DAoC and Template:User OS:Microsoft Windows (textonly) were placed on Deletion review to have them restored to Template space, not User space. The whole point was to show that the process had been ignored and if the admin who had initially deleted these templates wanted them deleted, then the process should be gone through. The userfication of them has completely defeated the purpose. Is there any way that you can see clear to put them back where they belong so that whichever process is needed to move or remove them can be followed?

Please note, I am about to go through that process above with nearly 100 user templates which will be put up for deletion. I am not an admin, so I can't just skip over a necessary step. Please let me know.

Thank you. - LA @ 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:GUS it makes sense that they should be in userspace. How was Xoloz incorrect here? --Cyde Weys 16:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xoloz, I disagree with your deletion of 3MC Entertainment (and reasoning)

A1: It wasn't nonsense OR gibberish. I had a myspace link, a newspaper link, a website, AND a list of artists, singles, and albums. A3: Vandalism? EX-SQUEEZE ME???!!! I created an article. No vandalism whatsoever. A7: I think you misinterpreted my "request for deletion." I said, If my reasoning isn't good enough for you, delete it.

Tom Danson 17:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wangi/RFA

Thanks for your comments on my rfA, in the end I did manage to become an admin. Please let me know of anything I do that you've got an issue with! Thanks/wangi 00:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santorum

I just wanted to leave a note to thank you for the sensible and thoughtful closing summary you posted at the Santorum AfD. I was the one who AfD'd the article; it was the first time I'd nominated an article, and I found the whole process (and the discussion) educational. I was very curious to see how the summary would be formulated, because it seemed likely that there was political bias involved but there didn't seem a clear way to identify what votes (if any) were inflenced by politics. In the end, your summary used appropriate policies to make rulings, and left the dab wording to the editors involved, which seems obviously the right approach to me in retrospect. This is going to be a reference point for me in dealing with controversial topics in the future. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] CV

Thank you for the information, i appreciate it. --Striver 19:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harlan

Hi,

I'm here to return greetings (on my way out the door for vacation, actually.) I note with sadness your discontent with Wikipedia, and infer from the Ellison letter its cause. The only mitigating thought I have to offer is this: Bear in mind that an article is improved the more it is seen; long-enduring flaws in articles typically only survive because the articles go unread. A silent lie buried deep in dusty text is a wrong, but a minimal one, thankfully. Beyond that, this place does have room for improvement. We need editors of your caliber to help make sure that happens.

As for Mr. Ellison, we Trekkies remember "City on the Edge of Forever," and his long-simmering argument with Gene. How any man could argue with Gene Roddenberry I don't understand -- I have a quasi-religious devotion to him. :) (Women, on the other hand, have many reasons to argue with him, by his own admission!) Anyway,...

We need you. I have adminship now, you know, and will happily chide any vandal you point out to me; Wikipedia would be a happier place if you were an admin with me! Best wishes, Xoloz 14:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz, my dear friend:
Congratulations on adminship. May you use it with the responsibility that I would expect from one of your high standards.
In the hope that we can continue to consider each other friends, I would request that you read The City on the Edge of Forever - the Original Teleplay that Became the Classic Star Trek Episode ISBN 1-800-325-02-0. If you read only the screenplay, I hope you can see it as I do. My opinion is that it is highly superior to the aired version. If you worship Roddenberry, you may have trouble seeing that he was consistently distorting reality (as I put it politely when I mean "lying like a fucking rug"), while my friend Harlan was "telling it like it is" which HE has never failed to do. Read with an open mind, my dear Xoloz, and you may find your opinions altered. If not, I certainly hope our friendship can survive.
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 03:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchopedia

first, thanks for you very complete explanation of the deletion

don't know where to palace the request for undeletion ... =)

by the way, on reliabe sources ...

[[2]]

dont know whether this can be aplied "as is", or if it has to go to the actual article (that is, the reliable sources article)

well, i´d like to keep the actual discussion to the request =). Could you explain to me where/how i do one ?

best regards

Cold Light 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

The only user who found the Orkney Portal controversial was User:Mais oui!. And as was typical for him, he engaged in attacks (his favourite being sock puppet allegations) until he got his way. Note that there is a Portal:Cornwall, and if there can be a Cornwall portal, I don't see why there cannot be an Orkney Portal. How many "keep" nominations were there compared with "delete" nominations? I am not convinced your decision was democratic. I request you to restore the Orkney Portal, and then maybe we can start the discussion (a bit less heatedly) again, should anybody wish to nominate it for deletion again. Regards, Mallimak 14:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Lloyd DRV

G'day Xoloz,

thanks for the word. I'll split what I perceive as your arguments up to better respond, okay?

  1. I didn't ridicule Blnguyen (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). I felt he'd made a very poor decision and I expressed same; I didn't say anything I'd regard as incivil if applied to me, and I made sure he knew that I'd started a DRV.
  2. Sheer numbers: yeah, Aaron Brenneman and I meant to talk to you about that not long after you started closing AfDs, but kept putting it off. If I recall correctly (and I may not), the "Administrator Discretion Zone" was originally a parody ... of something you once said. It's rather a shock to see someone actually argue that it not only exists, but that anyone who thinks otherwise is really the ignorant party. It's good to see you (if you're the one I'm thinking of) no longer subscribe 100% to that view. Personally, when closing AfDs, I make a point of never even knowing what the actual tally is. I'll delete an article if 20 sheep votes oppose one good argument for deletion, and I'll keep one if 20 sheep votes oppose one good argument for keeping — you should do the same. If the arguments for keep or delete are roughly equal, we don't count votes; we close as no consensus.
  3. "true admin": I launched the DRV as, in trialsanderrors' words, "an opinionated editor". I wasn't going to mention being an admin because it's not relevant (to do so implies that a non-admin's opinion is worth less). I'll admit I bit on this issue when trialsanderrors implied that my apparent lack of admins status meant I couldn't possibly know as much as the acknowledged admin, and it's quite obvious that this wasn't a good idea, given the immediate response of: oh, you're an admin, I suppose you think I should be impressed now by your "argument from authority". If I'd been completely certain that any position other than my own on the AfD closure was unreasonable, I wouldn't have bothered with DRV: I'd have undeleted it straight away.
  4. "Blnguyen did read the discussion": I phrased that bit unclearly, and in that gave a worse impression of Blnguyen than I had intended or was fair. What I should have said is that he didn't take — or appear to take — anything from the discussion he couldn't have taken from his own research; he drew his own (incorrect, in my view; we've kept articles on actors with less flattering profiles) conclusions from the IMDb profile without reference to what anyone had to say about it; and he mentioned the tally, a cardinal sin.
  5. "My position is not unimpeachable": I should certainly hope not :-). You closed the DRV as "deletion endorsed, article redirected to a better one", when nothing of the sort occurred. The reason I wanted the AfD overturned is that certain editors have a regrettable tendency to declare that any subject which fails AfD cannot have an article again, ever — Blnguyen closed the AfD as delete "because he's not notable", while DRV seemed to be saying "he's definitely notable, but the article was crap so we'll let it slide". I never intended the original article to stand as-is, but wanted to be able to re-write it and not have the wanna-be process wonks on my back about silly notability problems. So, I re-created the article and made a note on the DRV that I was doing so. Freakofnurture (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), being the helpful chap that he is, moved the article to Frank Lloyd (actor), which he felt was a better title. This would have been obvious to you merely from checking the histories of both articles.

'Course, what you were on about wasn't "did I close it right" but "am I being unfair in bringing my concerns to you", and the answer to that is: definitely not. I have been known to be incivil from time-to-time, and I'm working on it (I do, however, take umbrage at the idea that if one speaks the way Australians speak all the time one is being incivil, but I know you're smart enough not to suggest that). Your concerns are all valid, and I can see how one would conceive them; some I believe I've answered, some (as I hope I've expressed in points #3 and #4 above) were the result of my stuff-up. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 19:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. My reply above did sound pretty bloody awful, didn't it? If you'll permit me a moment to get rid of the taste of dirty sock (I should really go barefoot, and wash my mouth, before allowing the pedal extremeties to approach the mouth), I'll try to clarify.
You seemed to seize on "parody". And why not, eh? I'd have been offended, too. I made it sound like Yours Truly and another user sat down together and, sniggering, identified users to make fun of. It was more along the lines of "one of our new admins is explaining that the percentage value is the sole determinant for AfD discussions. Someone should probably talk to him." (I don't think we ever did; I know, to my shame, I never got over my inherent laziness sufficiently to raise my concerns with you) and, "he seems to be implying the existence of some sort of Administrator Discretion Zone ... hey, that's a useful phrase!" (though not so useful, it seems, since at least one user was unembarrassed to argue that it really exists). I'm not embarrassed to reveal this, because it's the sort of conversation admins — indeed, any long-term contributor or other person with a vested interest in, well, Wikipedia's interests — have all the time. I also see no problem in revealing this to you (although it would seem strange, if it was the sort of thing I no doubt led you to imagine), because a) you are much more Cluey now and may well have had discussions about the need to spread Clue yourself, and b) we didn't, and wouldn't, say anything so offensive that it could never be repeated. I'd hope it could be said that Wikipedia admins in general — and Aaron and I in particular — are not in the habit of nominating users in private only to make fun of them. (Please don't mention delete-vote percentages when I'm around, though; you're too good a Wikipedian to be setting off those alarms at this point in your career).
Cultural difference between Australia and the USA: crossed lines here. My post to DRV was not all fluffy bunnies and happy smiling faces; being an Aussie doesn't make someone telling you "that was a bad decision" any nicer. However, someone from the USA or Germany saying "the phrase 'piss-poor' is offensive" is not going to worry me overmuch. That doesn't mean I think what I said on DRV is not open to question. It means that, if I've done something wrong, it's not in using plain English (much as some people might object to it), but that I must have gotten the facts wrong. I'll accept "you were quite harsh about the decision, but I think you've misinterpreted his actions"; I'll laugh at comments that could as well be rephrased "in Australia you use words that I think are naughty".
Semantics and the DRV: well, to an extent, sure. However, I was always planning to rewrite, whether the close stood or not — the point of the DRV was to ensure that I didn't get clueless would-be process wonks on my back saying "you can't rewrite that article, AfD said he wasn't notable". Since nobody's complained yet, there's really no use bellyacheing about the way you closed the DRV. I won't rabbit on about that any further here. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kpjas' RFA

Hi Xoloz,

On Kpjas' RFA, you have voted oppose based on his apparent lack of experience, per Thatcher ("Editor is too inexperienced in wiki-process at this time"). In fact, Kpjas is already an admin on the Polish Wikipedia, and has 37,000 edits there, including 2,600 to WP space over there. You have opposed based on inexperience, but these facts clearly indicate plenty of experience in the required areas. Xoloz, I know you want what's best for Wikipedia. Without badgering you, I urge you to reconsider your vote in this particular RfA. Happy editing! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Or I wonder if you could elaborate on the reason for opposing as the statement "too inexperienced in wiki process" makes it seem as though you weren't aware of his past experience when opposing, and gives your position less credibility. Tyrenius 15:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
In general, I do not subscribe to the theory that admin experience on one wiki translates to another. Such an adminship does prove trustworthiness, but not policy-literacy, since every wiki is different. I understand the user is exceptionally long-tenured by time, so I don't strong oppose the user, and have no desire to revise my remark to "strengthen" my position. In a way, I hope the user succeeds; but, I believe the objection I raised is a valid factor to consider. I may annotate my remark with a reference to this exchange, though. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Interesting theory. Generally I support or oppose based entirely on trustworthyness. If someone is trustworthy by my definition of the word, then they'll make the effort to pick up on any of the remaining deficiencies, if any.
Apart from that, since Kpjas was actually involved in creating the wiki-process in a very big way (see Titoxd's statement), I'm not sure it's tenable to say he lacks experience in that field.
What's your comment on that? Kim Bruning 20:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate, Xoloz, that you did at least clarify your position. Thank you. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh right, yes indeed. Much appreciated! Thank you. :-) Kim Bruning 22:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santorum disambig question

Hi -- you closed the Santorum AfD recently and asserted that santorum should go to the senator. Santorummm has reverted to have it go to the disambig page. I would like to revert this, but I'd like to know first what force the AfD has in this disagreement -- for example, I assume that it does not permit me to treat his edits as vandalism, and revert multiple times. Is that correct? I would assume I need to debate the redirection on the talk page. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, -- I thought there might be some room for interpretation, which was why I asked. Thanks for the explanation -- I'll follow up on the talk page. I've also posted a note to his user talk, asking for his reasoning. Mike Christie (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bus Route Deletion Review

Thanks for the note about the mistake. For my part, I'm sorry for the comments I made about bias - these are no reflection on you. I was annoyed because I don't think that the original AfD was valid and I was incensed that the same thing had happened again. Thank you for fixing things up. (JROBBO 06:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Recent AfD decision

Greetings Xoloz. In the AfD Articles for deletion/Terrorists of Pakistani origin you said: “the consensus seems fairly solid”. It did not seem that this was the case. Are you positive that you did not have any bias as to your decision to delete as you show personal biases like these [3] [4]? Having this kind of stuff on you userpage history might cause some to believe you are not a fair admin. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, you did give a proper explanation of the AfD closure. Since you are open to recall, you might not want to display your political beliefs like this (especially the Anti-G.W. Bush userbox). Since you are an admin, myself among others here would hold you to a higher standard. I am sure others in the Wiki community feel the same way. I welcome your response on this. Thanks. JungleCat talk/contrib 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. In the time that I have been here, I have seen some people come under fire for trivial things. Recently, someone that I have much respect for was criticized in a certain process (I won't say which here) because of the stands he took. And also, the user cat you are in makes you a target (at least it seems that way). If you believe that you are doing the right thing in your admin work on this project, I will be the last to criticize you. Admins get enough scrutiny. Anyway, I just want the process here at Wiki to be fair and unbiased. Again, thanks for your response. Best regards. JungleCat talk/contrib 15:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
On a comical note (speaking of userboxes), should I put the "I support GW Bush" userbox on my userpage to counter your box? Cheers! ;-) JungleCat talk/contrib 15:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It's the cat thing again. Now if you were a Junglehippopotamus, things might have gone differently.... Wjhonson 17:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey now, despite my aforementioned family history, I do have my own cat, and he is very, very well-fed, thanks! ;) Xoloz 17:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thought you might get a kick out of this... ;-) JungleCat talk/contrib 17:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Feed the kitty?
Feed the kitty?

Hello Xoloz - I'm new to this site, and wanted to add some information about the Madtown Lounge - similar to other Madison, Wisconsin entries (such as bands, people, places, etc.)

What did I do wrong? Could you email me at madtownlounge@gmail.com when you get time.

Thanks, Allen Founder, The Madtown Lounge

[edit] Re: Moe's User Talk

Yeah, I still have trouble remembering to talk first and take action later. Partly it's a worry about forgetting to take action later if nothing comes of the talking, but it's mostly just forgetfulness. =) Thanks for the message. Powers T 15:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate it. Nandesuka 16:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boss Hoss

Recently, you closed the undelete request for the Boss Hoss article with "Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against composing a new (non-copyvio) article." What does that mean with regards to composing a new article? My main concern is that if I write a new (suitable) article that it will get deleted again by an admin per the previous conclusion and that I will have to repeat this process. Please advise. Thank you. — BozoTheScary 19:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification and the implied congratulations. — BozoTheScary 21:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scytho-Iranian theory

Xoloz, Scytho-Iranian theory was del. endorsed motivated by (→LogMeIn - closing (improper request))==> (→Scytho-Iranian theory - closing (del. endorsed)).

Would you please tell me what was improper, and what I should have done differntly to have it proper? Barefact 15:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elucidate deletion

As an advocate, I have been approached by User Seanb995 regarding the fate of the article "Elucidate." The deletion page seems to indicate that the article was a definition that needed to be moved. The history is blanked, so I cannot see the pre-deleted versions, but the complaint brought to me is that the word also referes to an artist of some notablility.

Elucidate is a part of Digitally Imported, and seems to have a fanbase based on a quick google search that quickly found the artist name on multiple myspaces and forums (note that the search has to be deliberately done to avoid finding the word's definition). Could we create an artist page with a wiktionary link at the top?

Thoughts? --\/\/slack (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing

Your note

Thanks. The new draft I already suggested is at User:Seanb995/Elucidate. Obviously (but not to his discredit), he does not yet have good knowledge of WP policies (it's at least partially copy-paste), but I'll make sure the article works before I give it to you.

If you think anything in the past creations would be useful to the new draft, please paste it into User:Seanb995/Elucidate under a "past article" heading so it can be used as needed. I assure you, I won't submit this to anyone until it's a decent article. As far as outside assurances, the AMA is still working on a complaint system, but the acting coordinater is Steve Caruso and issues you have may be brought to his attention.

Regarding notability, I don't think A7 applies here. "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead. (from WP:CSD)" Since the AfD didn't apply to the artist, I would suggest a re-creation with an article that meets article standards (if not notability) and then an AfD if you or I think its still warranted about notability. That way we follow process and my advocee can make his case in the correct setting. I'm not yet completely convinced its notable, but I think it deserves its figurative "day in court".

Does this sound good? Thanks for your help.

--\/\/slack (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restore request

Can you restore User:Template SUS? Cyde deleted it with no explanation, and I have asked him three times (on his talk page) to explain why, with no reponse. Thanks. --NThurston 12:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History Undeletion

You asked me to ask you directly the next time I wanted history to be undeleted, so I will do so. Can you restore the history of Mario Revolution & Legend of Zelda Revolution? I recreated them as redirects to Super Mario Galaxy & Zelda Wii respectively. Also I was wondering if The Legend of Zelda (Wii) could also be redirected to Zelda Wii but I would probably have to have a deletion review for that (especially since it's protected for some reason). SNS 05:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I should ask here or respond on my talk page but can you also undelete the history of The Legend of Zelda (Wii)? Thanks for all the help. SNS 16:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viva Piñata

Can you put the page under protection? Someone keeps vandalising it. SNS 00:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about that button phobia AfD thing

Sorry about playing a game of "I got here first". I was tired, what can I say? Either way, I don't want you to think of me as an asshole about this. Once again, sorry. 1ne 09:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Assistance on an article

Hey guy. You might be able to fix something for me. I did a minor edit to the Kaiser Burnout article, and now for some reason the references section has doubled. The first reference note starts at 7 now instead of 1. Maybe it is just my browser, I don't know. Could you check it and see what I messed up? Thanks. JungleCat talk/contrib 13:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it. I guess it was a glitch. JungleCat talk/contrib 15:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks!
Image:AMule.png

Thank you very much for your comments on my recent Request for Adminship. The request was ultimately unsuccessful - which wasn't entirely surprising - and so I'll be taking special care to address your concerns before running again.

If you have any feedback for me, please don't hesitate to leave it at my talk page. Thanks!

-- RandyWang (chat/patch) 14:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toeic bridge history undelete

I have a hard time believing that [5] is not a massive copyvio. I'm also checking with Mangojuice, who cast the sole overturn vote. ~ trialsanderrors 17:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My vote was based on the idea that the deletion was out of process, but there was not much reason to need the article back if it was just going to become a redirect. I don't think we should keep the history if it contains copyvios. Mangojuicetalk 18:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Weirdly enough (I only know this because I happened across it the other day), WP's guideline for copyvios in article histories is relatively lax, Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages. Taken together with the assertion of authorship made OTRS, I think the hist. undeletion is fairly safe, even if a little suspicious. If you find definite evidence, though, let me know. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Moving this ↑ back here to keep the discussion together. I don't have evidence that this is copyvio other than lines like "Educational Testing Service - a world leader in the field of educational assessment" which pop up here, but it's definitely spammy and we might want to discourage reverting to the spammy version. But I'll leave it up to you, I would say policy per your link makes this a discretionary decision and the requesting editor never returned to check on the outcome. I'll respond to your PS on my talk page. Thanks, trialsanderrors 21:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Canvassing for List of beat 'em ups

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 26#List of beat 'em ups

What's your protocol on this? User:A Link to the Past canvassed the participants of the original AfD, in what I consider non-neutral tone (see e.g. here). WP:SOCK says On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible, but the recipients aren't meat puppets in the normal sense. I also don't know how this could be reverted. ~ trialsanderrors 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More History Undeletions

I made Talk:The Legend of Zelda (Wii) redirect to the talk page for Zelda Wii. Can you undelete all of it's history? I'll also like a history undeletion on Treasure Trove Cove & Freezeezy Peak. SNS 19:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] trash money

hi, can you explain why my page on the band, trash money, was deleted? i realise you may not know who they are, but they are a notable band, and information on them is of interest to followers of many other bands, such a sneaker pimps, client, and of comedians the mighty boosh. how can it's content to be seen to be nonsense? it was written well, and very informative. the links took you to genuine pages. if a band like the siblings can have a page, when they have only remixed one song how can trash money not be seen to qualify? i also like very much that you ignored my request to advise before deletion, as the page was still in development, i am relatively new to wiki, but of course, you ignored that, deciding just to delete. thanks a lot.

[edit] User:Mr. Scott Brown

Hi Xoloz,

You have recently closed the discussion for deletion of user:Mr. Scott Brown, and deleted the user's page. This was a premature deletion, as it did not warrant speedy deletion, only a few people had voted, and the user had not been notified of the deletion. Please restore this user's page until a full discussion can be made, and the user is aware of the issue (I had left him a message just around 12 hours before your deletion, which isn't enough time). Happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I closed the debate after the regular five-day interval (I know some guidelines say 8 days now, but I stick with the older standard, also written down somewhere in deletion policy, which is common practice of other regular MfD closers as well.) I noticed your comments in sympathy to the user, but I also noted that they were not the consensus view. It appeared that the consensus did not feel extending courtesy to a suspected sockpuppet was warranted. I see no reason to dispute this conclusion. The number of commenters was quite typical for an MfD, rarely as "popular" as its AfD cousin.
As always, though, I am open to any message from the user concerned to restore temporarily his content for his use. I also have no problem with your userfying the content, if you really desire such. I think my closure was proper, however, and I stand behind it. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You closed the discussion and deleted the page after an ususually small number of votes, it has not been proved that this user is a sock, and the user was only notified of the deletion hours before the deletion. This is completely out of process, appears to be a good example of WP:BITE, and I'm not sure how you can "stand by" such a deletion. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Emprically speaking, you are simply incorrect to say that the number of comments was unusually small. Three definite deletes + nomination + Splash's inferred support for deletion is more than most of these discussion get, as could be shown through an objective analysis.
As to the rest, we simply disagree regarding the level of courtesy due this user, or rather about what consensus said on this question (I have no personal view at all.) I found a consensus contrary to your expressed view, and you object. Such disagreements happen from time to time, and there is no reason for either of us to think the other is being absurd. (I take it from the tone of your reply that you cannot understand my position, which is unfortunate, but I assure you that I am rational person, just as you are.) You are always welcome to take the matter to deletion review; personally, I'd find that a bit odd, given my willingness to undelete temporarily for the user in question, if he asks reasonably (a willingness I have for every userpage MfD I close in deletion.) Nevertheless, if you wish to dispute the close further, DRV is the place. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you appear to have ignored or not to have checked the talk page of this discussion, where a further comment by another user seemed to indicate the user was not a sockpuppet. Given this evidence, the concensus was hardly clear, because there was no consensus: a few people were in favor of deleting, some because it was believed the user was a sock, but this has not been proved, and some people objected to the claims of sockpuppetry, while it was pointed out that process wasn't followed in this MFD. As a rational person, you can certainly understand that deleting a user's page without informing the user is out of process. WP:BITE certainly applies. --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You asserted that WP:BITE applied and that the matter was out of process in the debate itself. These assertions were not supported by consensus, which seemed to hold that notice on the userpage itself was sufficient. While I did briefly check the talk page, you're quite right that I gave little weight to anything there, as relevant claims should be made in the debate proper. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because only irrelevant claims should be made on the talk page. Huh? As for your comment that " These assertions were not supported by consensus, which seemed to hold that notice on the userpage itself was sufficient.", please reacquaint yourself with WP:MFD#Prerequisites. As the prerequisites state, "Nominating a user's page for deletion without discussing the page with the user, either on the user's talk page or on the talk page of the page in question, is generally frowned upon, except if the user in question is permanently banned." Since this user is not banned, the prerequisites were not met, and deleting the page was out of process: a three-person "consensus" (when there are other views) does not outweigh MFD guidelines, and the MFD guidelines specifically state 8 days. I may indeed bring this up at Deletion Review, but the administrator who deleted the page out of process, in this case, you, should also be contacted so that incidents like this will occur with less frequency. Also, please do keep in mind WP:BITE. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(de-indenting)

One last tiny bit on this. My understanding of English is that the phrased "frowned upon" is much weaker than "prohibited." A consensus is perfectly capable of forgiving a requirement that is only "frowned upon." I continue to believe this deletion was perfectly in process, and your stridency in this matter surprises me. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to this matter, Xoloz. I don't agree that a "consensus" of such a limited number of votes means the requirements on MFD can be ignored, and I certainly don't agree that such a deletion was "perfectly in process", but there is little else I can do at this point. If you choose to delete userpages knowing full well that no effort to even contact the user has been made, I cannot stop you from doing so. It's a little sad that this user was welcomed to Wikipedia with multiple vandalisms to his page, moreso that a well-estabished admin chose to give him an extra-special welcome by deleting his userpage without warning. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, Xoloz. Like you, I have no wish to continue our "argument", and you have made some valid points. Deleting pages is a tough job, and a lot of what we do are really just judgement calls; I don't agree with this particular judgement because I feel it was made too soon, but I know you are a fine administrator and normally do a good job. In fact, the user could still turn out to be a sock or other undesirable user, and I don't want (or didn't plan on) sending you endless messages when we've both got many other concerns on this site. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Stephen Colbert MfD

Hello,

Next time, please see to it that you discuss the pertinent issue with the given admin prior to undoing their administrative action. Thanks. Best, El_C 19:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if it was done in the interest of humor, that's fine by me. Paint me confused, though. El_C 20:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] an afd question

hello mr. xoloz - i wonder if you might consider closing the Lonelygirl15 afd early, because its a clear keeper, and i think the sooner we can remove the notice, the better the article looks...! Thanks for thinking about it! cheers, Petesmiles 09:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axe Murder Boys DRV

I'm a little confused over this one, Xoloz. By the count of what we have there, we have 4 overturns (myself, Toronto, rtphokie, and King of Hearts, who had his conditional "assert notability or keep deleted" met) and 4 keep endorsements (Geogre, JzG, Levine, Nandesuka). As stated up top, "If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process." What happened? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi,
That's an interesting reading. I took King of Hearts' comment to mean that something new had to come forward in order for his opinion to change. I'm aware that you believe notability was unconditionally asserted in the first place; however, KoH (the deleter) clearly disagreed. Although you did comment beneath him reiterating your view, he did not concede the point. Thus, I read his comment as "keep deleted" (in favor of a rewrite, maybe?) If I have misread, simply have KoH contact me, and I will reverse the closure. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you've misread it as much as I don't think he's reading what constitutes nobility for an A7 properly. I'm more surprised that you took it that way than him, honestly. If someone says "assert nobility," and the article asserts nobility, how is it supposed to be taken? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
As I understand my role as a closer, I have a duty to abide by the intent of the commenter; it is not my job to super-impose my judgment (or yours) over someone else's words. I care about what KoH's meant, not about whether or not he's "right." I believe in consensus, so, by default, the consensus is always right.
So in events that there isn't a consensus? In events that KoH only wants the article restored if notability is asserted, then there shouldn't be much interpretation here - notability is asserted, thus the article would be restored in his mind. Perhaps he doesn't agree with the assertion, but that's not for him to decide by rule.
Incidentally, I've heard your view that DRV is broken somehow. Obviously, I disagree. DRV is, remember, only a forum for deciding if discussion should begin again. Parliamentarily, DRV functions as forum only for deciding cloture. This is why majoritarianism is a fine form of consensus in DRV only. If a majority wants to discuss, then discussion opens; if the majority is finished speaking, the matter is closed. The alternative, to require a 70% consensus to reopen discussion, is more draconian. Note that matters always come to Deletion Review only after discussion has closed (unless somebody makes a huge mistake in procedure.) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think, and with all due respect to you, as you're only doing your job, this is an excellent example of how broken DRV truly is. The fact that we can overturn based CSD policy on a majority vote for one article based on the actions of one administrator is really rather shocking to me. The alternative on DRV is not 70% on anything, but rather a simple view of the arguments as to whether the deletion processes were followed properly. In an actual discussion on this DRV, as an example, we have at least two editors showing that the process was not followed, and no one having any good argument about it. That's how it was broken here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Hindu politicians

This cat on the Sept 2 DRV should be speedily closed since there is a simultaneous CFD going on. I'd do it myself but it's a contested discussion and that's for now a bit above my pay grade. ~ trialsanderrors 03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winhunter's RfA thanks

Hi Xoloz, thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which was closed as successful today with a finaly tally of (56/0/3). I will be very careful at first to avoid any mistakes. Please feel free to leave a message in my talk page if you have any comments/suggestions about me in the future. Once again, thank you! --WinHunter (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JPD's RfA

Thanks, Xoloz, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I will be trustworthy as an admin as well as an editor and live up to the confidence you have shown in me. JPD (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two more requests

Can you undelete the history of Espio & Blathers? SNS 21:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hoopy's RfA

Hey guy! Go sign that stuff JungleCat talk/contrib 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Gotta watch each others backs, it is a crazy world out there (and gettin' worse). I'm not paranoid though. Shhh... not too loud... JungleCat talk/contrib 19:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freaklüb deletion

Re: your removal of Freaklüb from the Deletion Review, "Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against a sourced recreation." According to WP:DRV: "If there is a simple majority to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands. If there is a three-quarters supermajority to overturn a decision and apply some other result to the debate, it is applied. If there is neither a majority to endorse the decision nor a three-quarters supermajority to overturn and apply some other result, the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process." (my italics)

Now, reading through the discussion, I make the following votes for endorse or overturn:

  • Overturn. -TruthbringerToronto
  • Overturn, send to AfD trialsanderrors
  • Overturn and list on AfD Eluchil404
  • undeletion Rossami
  • Overturn badlydrawnjeff
  • Endorse speedy Just zis Guy you know?
  • Endorse speedy at time of deletion Lectonar
  • Speedy endorse deletion User:Zoe
  • Endorse without prejudice against recreation ais523

So, 5 overturns and 4 endorses. Not the 3/4 majority required to overturn, but neither the simple majority to endorse. So doesn't the final part apply, "the article is relisted on the relevant deletion process"? I'm not totally familiar with the Deletion Review process, so not entirely sure where it should then be relisted, on the Deletion Review again? Please advise as to the reasons for your saying "Deletion endorsed" in this case, contrary to the votes I count, which indicate there were less endorses than overturns. (maybe you've counted them differently from me). --duncan 18:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three More History Undeletions

Can you undelete the history of Zelda Revolution, The Legend of Zelda Revolution, & Zelda DS? SNS 22:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

Thanks for the rewelcome! Wow, your userpage is mind-boggling: you're so much of a minority it's not even funny. Let me get this straight: you're colored (African-American or mixed), male-feminist, Buddhist, disabled, fetishist, overweight, multilingual lawyer. And with a decent sense of humor! Do you have conventions? "The National Association for the Advancement of African-American/Mixed Male-Feminist Buddhist Disabled Fetishist Overweight Multilingual Lawyers", with an easy-to-memorize membership roster. Wow! And I thought I was weird. :D

More seriously, have you ever read any of Charles R. Johnson's writings? He's the only other African-American Buddhist I've ever heard of, to be honest, and he's a great essayist.

I hope Harmonious, Insane, Splash, and you are all doing well. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)