User talk:Xoloz/archive18

Deletion of Shoplet article

Hi, I object the deletion of the article about Shoplet that I wrote recently. In addition to its verifiable contents, the article also meets Wikipedia's requirement of notability. Below are links to independent sources and press coverage that established Shoplet's notability.

FOX 5 News

MyFoxNY.com Online Coverage

City of Hope Foundation

Top 100 OPI Resellers in the World 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 OPI.net - Office Products International

I hope that you reconsider and promptly restore my article.

Thank you. Nymonsoon 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of INCOM article

I wrote up the article on INCOM fieldbus protocol. It was marked for speedy deletion with an argument that it was marketing for the company. I responded on the article talk page stating that the article is just as good as many other fieldbus articles specifically Profibus and HART Protocol, and that the INCOM protocol is only associated to EATON, but the protocol specification is openly published, and that the article was not about EATON but about the protocol specifications. However, the article was later deleted by you. I was just wondering for the reason for deletion.

Thank you,

Existance is a struggle between life and death. I just like to watch. --Zeruski 15:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your article was a lack of independent sources establishing notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an omnibus compendium of everything that has ever existed in the world. To meet the requirements of notability, an article must have reliable, independent sources, articles in the mainstream press, coverage in the academic journal, or the like. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the reliable and independent sources and I now have a question that neither one of them did answer. For a article on a communication protocol which describes how it operates and its uses, which is used primarily by a companies equipment, what other sources but the Tech Spec on the protocol would be beneficial? (Note that the page does not discuss its benefits vs downfalls and does not even make a comparison to other communication protocols. simply gathers the most useful bits of information from the tech spec)

I'll try to rewrite the article quoting a few more sources but I would like to first know what additional sources I should quote?

Thank you,

Existance is a struggle between life and death. I just like to watch. --Zeruski 20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice DRV Close: Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians

I wanted to thank you for the well-written close of the Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians DRV. Specifically, I appreciate the recognition that the three "other" religions could be re-considered given reliable sources, but that no arguments had been made in favor of them. DenisMoskowitz 17:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Xoloz, I was actually wondering if you might address the significant amount of canvassing that occurred there and what affect, if any, it played in your decision. I would prefer that you do this by annotating your decision on the DRV page. If you are not inclined to respond there, please do so here rather than on my talk page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see the need to amend my closure. Allegations of canvassing are serious, and could lead any closer to "throw out" an XfD/DRV if they were serious enough. Anytime there is a genuine, credible allegation of canvassing, I put on my "really, pay no attention to numbers here" hat -- arguments are always weighed, but I typically incorporate some analysis of the "head-count" into my thinking, for reasons I've elaborated at DRV talk; in cases of alleged canvassing, though, I come very close to ignoring numbers. There was one other consideration, which it is only fair to mention here. In cases involving "userpage" content (boxes or cats.), I am sympathetic to view that canvassing is slightly less damaging: everyone who was transcluded/was included in that content already has an obvious, self-stated interest in the content. Notifying those folks of an XfD/DRV is of questionable propriety, but it is less troublesome than self-interested campaigns by an editor to solicit comments from "friends" who will support a certain view. Nevertheless, despite that reservation, my DRV analysis was carried out without reference to "numbers." In seeking a consensus, I found a "middle ground" within the extensive comments (and irrespective of the boldface !votes) that I felt endorsed the partial restorations I undertook. Of course, those categories may always be relisted at UCfD individually; I did not pursue procedural relistings, feeling that the complexity of the case was best served by leaving the compromise in place, unless an objector was sufficiently troubled such that s/he made the listing him/herself. If you dispute the result, you are welcome to do so at new individual UCfDs -- an invitation comparable to the one I also made to others (advocates of FSM): if they could find WP:RS to substantiate the genuine religious nature of those groups, another individual DRV would be in order. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I was just looking for more detail on the process for your rationale in this case, which I now have. Thanks for providing it. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill misconduct issues

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward Churchill misconduct issues. The result was a pretty clear No consensus, hence default to Keep; I've therefore restored the article's content from the page blanking. However, given the unusual situation, I don't know whether it's appropriate for me to unprotect it at this stage, and I felt I should consult with you before removing the page protection you applied. Walton^One 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've unprotected it for the time being. Please tell me if I've acted incorrectly. Walton^One 16:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I act correctly in relation to that AfD closure? Walton^One 16:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Ordinarily, as you say, I would have unprotected it straight away, but I was being cautious due to the BLP concerns (in my experience, BLP can be something of a minefield). Walton^One 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing - I'm on wikibreak from tomorrow until 14 August. Could you watch my talk page, just in case anyone needs urgent admin assistance? Walton^One 17:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For tirelessly maintaining Wikipedia:Deletion Review ... and occasionally suffering the resulting slings and arrows. AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any of these. Or maybe you just don't choose to display them? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:23990816.jpg

I speedy tagged it because it was uploaded for use on an article that asked for a free use image. It is not being used in an article now, and it is also watermarked. It is a picture of a living person, so it is replaceable. Cheers, --wpktsfs 01:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Lau (band)

Hi, I just started to crontribute to wikipaedia with my first ever whole new entry. I tried to make it look like other similar entries and even checked my spelling and my links. And, because I'm enthusiastic, I checked it to see how it looked oursite preview, and saw a "thing" indicating speedy deletion. So, being a newcomer, I looked up what that was. I read that putting a "hangon" could buy me time while I piece togther a response. Which I did. And by the time I'd done that, you had *already* deleted it. In the space of about an hour. So, some questions:

1) Did you read my justification? 2) Can I get this particular entry un-deleted? 3) Do you think that you are encouraging contributors by this behaviour?

Thanks for you response - not what I wanted to hear exactly but I understand your position. The good thing is that such a postition raises the bar for entry into the project. The bad thing is that it raises the bar for entry into the project. But you know that already. To clear your mind on one point, I am not a member of the band in question, just a fan. Guess I'm done here.--Simon Marchese ^talk

Rationales

CSD I6 no longer provides a grandfather exception. --Yamla 16:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Postitguy posts

Lucas Salatta did not break any record , yet you consider your entry notable over a band in that guy's previous post or legitimate 'notable' website

i have no idea how you (Xoloz) qualify to be a wikipedia administrator, poor judgement which will not be forgotten...do you make money off of SmokeLong: Please justify how this site is more notable than Why Vandalism? [Note: I am not affiliated with Why Vandalism? journal, just an English PHD at a 'notable' US educational institution. Who are you?]
.................................................................

---original post you deleted--- ---compare this for example to the SmokeLong wikipedia page---

A few colleagues and I have been featured in this online journal.

reasons why to keep this page: 1. Why Vandalism? is a 'true and free online' journal that is notable for its temendous growth and notable contributor list, including notable supporting figures in the Chicago poetry scene and notable contributors and supporters in academia---since starting in February 2007. For example, I noticed SmokeLong Quarterly has a wikipedia page, which publishes a 'for-profit' annual (wikipedia could be implied as an advertising medium is this regard). Also, as an online entity, SmokeLong publishes only quarterly---hardly an aqequate publishing schedule for the nature of the internet as a publishing outlet. Why Vandalism? is a monthly with, so far, extremely impressive content in quality/quantity in our opinions. 2. It is important to list this journal as it is largely academic in output and is a non-commercial entity. 3. A couple articles are to be published on the web discussing online literary journals, with significant exposes on Why Vandalism? 4. Why Vandalism? is notable for some of its contributors, place in the Chicago street poetry scene, well-designed journal pages, non-ego, anonymous editorial staff, and free e-book publishing for authors. It is listed in many of the top literary directories on the web. 5. Using Smokelong, for example, again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmokeLong_Quarterly. I would like to stress that they bill themselves an online literary journal and the only reason of how I can assume that Wikipedia administrators would find this journal notable, and Why Vandalism? not, is perhaps the mention of their commercial publishing in print, which hardly has anything to due with "online literary journals." As far as page views, I'm sure that Why Vandalism? far exceeds that figure in comparison under the same time frame.

Thank you for listening to this long defense, but we feel Why Vandalism? is certainly a notable online journal with a most probable high traffic volume (as compared to figures of other online journals listed on Wikipedia) and an ideal example.

---

Why Vandalism? is a monthly online literary journal and E-book publishing house, which publishes poetry, fiction, and visual art from an international spectrum of authors and artists. The first issue was published in February 2007. The journal has published authors from those established in the art and literary scene to showcasing newer voices.

If you are associated with this "literary journal", your note does it little credit, as it was barely coherent. I believe your main compliant is that you find other things on Wikipedia than you feel are "worse" than your journal. Please see the essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You are free to nominate other bad articles for deletion at WP:AfD, but they provide no support for the proposition that your bad article should be kept. You are also welcome to develop a better version of any article (meeting Wikipedia's sourcing requirements) in a subpage of your own userspace. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 03:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna He

wait y are u deleting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody of Ithaca (talk • contribs) 2007-08-08 02:06:24

It was deleted, and then it was restored under a different name - Anna Mae He affair. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV for Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition

I just want to say kudos on your closure of the deletion review for Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition. I think your closure is reasonable, given the DRV discussion, and your closing rationale shows a lot of thought. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Very nicely done. IronGargoyle 17:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sonic Riders 2

I'll like a history undeletion of Sonic Riders 2. Also can you merge the history with Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity? That's where the history would be if the article had been made there (& then undeleted before it was moved to the announced name). SNS 16:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sportspeople's nicknames AfD

Thanks for your note. I appreciate that you acted in good faith and apologise for suggesting you were being pretentious. I still think the BLP issue is getting very silly and will end up strangling wikipedia but I know it's not your fault. I would guess that you'd agree with me that the idea of a well known sportsman sueing wikipedia because a commonly used 'nickname' appears in an obscure article is entirely absurd but I fully understand why you decided to use kid gloves in this instance. Best wishes. Nick mallory 04:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Redirects

(try saying that 3 times fast) i chancged the link to the larger article in the 1st place making the small 1 redundant. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you delete my page, Caleb Devitt

I made it very clear on my talk to contact me

e-mail me at hogarth_veranderfel@yahoo.com.au

Why wont anyone tell me what I have wrong on my page, all they do is delete it

C'mon mate be a sport and tell me next time

1:27 AM Saturday August 11 2007

CMD

Can you take off my account?

Alright then

Is there a way to take off my account to I'm no longer a member?

I'll go back to being a viewer

And yes I want to no longer be a member, I thought it over

Monkey discussion page

Hello, can you, please, undelete the discussion page of Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture? That could greatly help guiding the deletion discussion. Also, is it common to fully protect articles on AfD? At least, the AfD template states "feel free to edit the article", so one wouldn't expect it to be protected. As a matter of fact, this is the first ever fully protected article I've encountered! Best, Arcfrk 05:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that was quick! Arcfrk 05:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Good close of the above DRV. I was impressed. Viridae^Talk 00:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid DRV

Since all the evidence and arguments on this issue have been deleted, it seems to me that the issue should be reopened. Is the information stored somewhere else, for the record? --Leifern 18:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The arguments and evidence remain just as they are, in the archived AfD and DRV debates. The revisions themselves remain in the deleted edit data-base, and may be restored for discussion when appropriate. Absolutely nothing has changed since the article was first deleted.

The "reasonable time" for tempers to cool that I had in mind was at least a week. I would also urge that someone other than yourself write the new DRV nomination, given the history here. It should be easy to find someone to do so. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What the f**k

What the fuck is your fuckn' problem? I didnt do a fuckn' thing and this got deleted: User:Ryanzilla13/No Hope Why did you delete my wikipedia page? IT WAS ON MY USERNAME I thought those fuckn things wernt allowed to fuckn get fuckn deleted All these months i've been trying to build a band page and know you know what I have to fuckn' say? I'VE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHER FUCKN' WIKIPEDIA ADMINS! By the way, (I'm Ryanzilla)

How sweet. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not MySpace, and your content was deleted through MfD as the community judged it was not helpful to the encyclopedia. Your obscene rant appears to justify their belief that you are not a sincere contributor. You are welcome to contribute in a polite and constructive way, but violations of WP:CIVIL, such as the above, will only lead to your being blocked or banned from the site. It is funny that you self-censored the subject line, only to write the expletive in full eight times in your message -- that made me laugh! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 03:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ACPSA....

As a heads-up, I'm going to try to uphold the prod on principle, as you removed it after the five days were up. If not, then I'll AfD the article. MSJapan 01:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I know the guideline quite well, and it says after five days the article should be deleted, period. Your claim of automatic undeletion requires that the prodded article be deleted in the first place (which it hasn't yet). What happens when a prodded article is not deleted would seem to be another matter entirely, especially when you didn't follow the admin guidelines, which say to address the concerns. Not only that, you object, and then foist it off on me to AfD the article, when it was your out-of-process objection that's goimng to cause the AfD in the first place. You're making more work for me out of essentially nothing. MSJapan 05:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've AfDed the article, but I'd like you to explain your judgment to me, because I don't see how an article tagged as "unsourced" for a year and "nn" for nine months has any basis whatsoever to be borderline notable. MSJapan 05:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

dropping by, I understand that we admins have discretion after the 5 days whether to delete or not, which is really no more than any other editor can do, who can remove the prod at any time before it has actually been deleted, even after the 5 days, if it hasnt been deleted yet. In fact, I think that according to WP:PROD we must check before deleting, rather than simply accept the statement of whomever placed the prod. The recourse naturally is to take it to afd if the prod has been removed, no matter who removed it. So it seems to me that Xoloz did right. DGG (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A. Edward Sutherland et al., PROD

Apologies for a long winded answer, but you've hit a growing pet-peeve of mine in the fact that there's a plethora of totally unreferenced articles (especially biographies) that are left unchallenged, so... let's start with the basics in my reasoning:

• Wikipedia:Citing sources (in the same vein possibly, but a bit of a stretch would be Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Verifiability "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." - and I by prodding these non-sourced biographies am challenging the material that is being presented;

Also from Verifiability: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references." Here we have not only edits, but entire articles that are not sourced. Again, the spirit here is to give the opportunity to reference the material without outright deleting the article.

Also from Verifiability "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people." The prod seems to fit this quite well, not leaving unsourced information for too long.

Moving on to Wikipedia:Notability (people):

• "Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be verifiable using reliable sources"

However, I'm really not questioning the notability of any of these unsourced biographies - in fact, as in the one that you mentioned, there's clearly no question of notoriety. It's a question of sources & verifiability.

Analogously, let's look at BLP Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - while obviously talking about "living" persons, gives some very good guidelines about non-living folks as well:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Unsourced' or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. Theoretically then, every non-sourced biography (living persons) should be subject not just to prodding, but to a speedy delete. However, since many people don't spend tons of time looking through the growing mass of rules, regulations, essays, suggested guidelines, and the rest of the legalisms that are constantly springing forth herein, I give them the benefit of the doubt in prodding the non-sourced article instead of nominating it for a speedy deletion; give them the opportunity to source their statements before the article is deleted.

Analogously to deceased persons, although the "immediately..." probably doesn't apply, I believe that the rest does. Unsourced materials should be given the opportunity to be sourced, or removed.

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive220#Biographies of living persons also has a discussion of the same problem. There does not seem to have been any resolution or action to remove any of the materials that are in question.

Second, and probably more important, whose responsibility is it to check references? The reader (i.e. me in these cases)? No, the person that put it up there. If I'm reading someone's biography, why should I have to go to other sites to find references to support it? I shouldn't - they should already be there. In fact, the BLP continues to state "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia... rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." It's not the reader's responsibility to go and research articles for verifiability and sources - it's the editor (or article creator in these cases).

There are quite a few biographical articles (living and deceased) where one could say, why don't you 'check to see if s/he has a profile at XYZ.com'. That simply isn't the point or the issue. The reader is not the one that should be doing that - it's the responsibility of the person that put up the material. It should already be there and if it's not, the policy is to remove the material.

So, I ask, why are non-referenced biographical articles (or any non-referenced articles at all) left here - and again, it's not a question of notoriety - it's a question of verifiability? You'll notice that if there's even one non-primary-sourced link I'll put the on the talk page and let the people over in that project deal with the notoriety issues. And you'll notice that I don't single out biographies - when going through Category:Stubs and User:AlexNewArtBot/CinemaSearchResult, I give equal treatment to all articles, if they're not sourced, they're prodded.

Apologies if this was too long-winded of an answer, but I'm starting to get massively frustrated at the massive amount of totally non-sourced articles that are just passed over without challenging the creators/editors to do the basic thing and source their work. SkierRMH 08:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

That was certainly a nice DRV closing statement. Thank you! >Radiant< 10:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm flattered :) however, if you think the changes in RFC are barnstar-worthy, perhaps you should take a look at User:Betacommand, who did the bot work. >Radiant< 15:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Anubis (Orbital frame) prod

Not sure if once a prod is declined the decliner is allowed to reconsider, but if so, please reconsider. The "sources" in the article both originate from Konami and are therefore not independent and reliable. Otto4711 12:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kathleen Doxer

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kathleen Doxer, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Doxer. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 13:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hawaii DRV

Sorry if mentioning my familiarity of the topic implied that I used my own judgment in closing the debate (I strictly hold a rule to myself not to use my own judgment). But I closed that debate early because consensus was pretty well laid out already. What I meant by "I am very familiar with this subject" was that I knew of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement and Hawaii itself. It was really more like a side comment rather than additional insight; I have personally never heard of claims of Hawaii never being annexed. I probably shouldn't have written that, it definitely does give a sense that the closer (me) used his opinion as well. Oh well, what's done is done. We all make mistakes. :) Singularity 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened here

Both K.K. Slider & K. K. Slider were deleted at some point with no reason given in the deletion log. I suppose I'll just ask for a history undeletion but I'm wondering what happened there... SNS 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just noticed only the first one was ever deleted. SNS 21:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Don Schrader

Man, last time I did this, I got my head handed to me. (blanking while in afd for blp concerns). - Crockspot 17:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Finger Jousting

In your clising arguement for the deletion review of Finger Jousting you stated that I harboured the mistaken belief that the five pillars of Wikipedia were negotiable. At no stage did I intend to do this as I understand that the five pillars are the "fundamental principles" on which Wikipedia is based. I would just like to confirm how exactly I did this as I do not want to make the same mistakes when making arguements in future situations. During the arguement I used the five pillars - particularly "Wikipeda has no firm rules" - as justification for my position and do not see how I implied that the others were "negotiable". I did repeatedly state that there could be exceptions to WP:RS but that is not a pillar or even an official policy. It is a guideline. It says right at the top of the page that there can be the occaisional exception. Regards, [[Guest9999 03:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]].

Thank you for your reply I found it very polite and will be helpful with my future contributions to Wikipedia. However, whilst I am sorry to press the point, I am still not sure where during the deletion review I said that the five pillars are not firm rules. When I refered to them it was with the intention of contrasting their infallability with the with WP:RS which - as a guideline - I felt was more open to interpretation. [[Guest9999 04:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]

Thanks for the help. [[Guest9999 15:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion review/Names of Omagh Bomb Victims

I must respectfully suggest you are in error when you closed this today with the comment "– Deletion endorsed. The fact is that this list had no sources whatsoever."

There are impeccable academic and national newspaper and coroner reports that corroborate the list that is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:W._Frank/Green_Zone#List_of_those_killed_in_the_Omagh_bombing ready for insertion in our article Omagh bombing

I believe that this source is adequate and sufficient of itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:W._Frank/Green_Zone#External_links

Is there a procedure for you to re-consider your close if and when you are in simple factual error?  W. Frank talk ✉  15:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

the following two comments were copied to this user talk page from User talk:W. Frank

The DRV result was not factually incorrect; there were no sources in the deleted text. I'm glad you have sources now -- nothing in the world prevents one from adding the sourced information that you now possess to the article, as I attempted to indicate in my closing remarks. You don't need a DRV for that purpose. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response.

The sources have been available for many months and it was the wikilawyering of the "team editors" that saw the list hived off to a separate (unsustainable) article with the relevant sources removed.

Would you be so kind as to make an appropriate remark to the effect that "nothing in the world prevents one from adding the sourced information that you now possess to the article" on the article discussion page at Omagh bombing to forestall more edit warring?

Thanks again! W. Frank talk ✉  15:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, your ability to add new sourced information is a fundamental principle of the wiki... as is other editors' ability to remove that information, if they provide a reason for doing do. What you're describing is an editing dispute over whether the list of victims should be included in the article or not. Neither DRV, nor any of our deletion processes, are particularly relevant to your problem. Have you tried Wikipedia:Mediation? I understand that this dispute might be frustrating for you, but I hope you realize that are valid reasons both for supporting the inclusion of the victims' names, and for supporting their removal. Wikipedia's articles for the sinking of the Titantic, the bombing of Pan Am 103, or even the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami would quickly become unmanageable if victims' names were added. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the manageability issue. That's why my contribution was "Overturn and merge into main Omagh Bombing article as per nom, preceding comment (by Bastun) and WP:NOT#ADVOCATE & WP:NOTPAPER - provided no such merged list exceeds 10% of the character count of the merged article. Concur with closer User:Neil's comments above, since, without context, the list of victims is not sufficiently encyclopaedic and that was, of itself, the ulterior motivation for its original hiving off."

The reason I am requesting you clarify on the Omagh bombing article discussion page is to forestall further mop wielding. Thank you for listening! W. Frank talk ✉  16:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

re: The Mimi & Flo Show

Why was it deleted? No one even contaced me. Did you even read my talk page? I assume you didn't, so I'll post everthing again. Here is my entry that got deleted. Check the sources!

---

The Mimi & Flo Show is the web's first choose-your-own-adveture- style, comedy webseries. It has been active since February 20th, 2007 and currently has 15 episodes and one made-for-YouTube video [http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhZY7BOY040 SAME DUDE] (uploaded to [http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhZY7BOY040 YouTube] Friday, july 27th). "SAME DUDE" is a musical-parody of R Kelly and Usher's "Same Girl". The story is about 2 girls from the midwest struggling in New York City and trying to become successful, but failing every time. The Mimi & Flo Show has been reported by [http://zoozoom.com/

1. type=story&id=582 ZOOZOOM], [http://9.yahoo.com/2007/03/01/ Yahoo's

"The 9"], [http://blogs.usatoday.com/popcandy/2007/03/ choose_the_girl.html USA Today's "Pop Candy"], [http:// starredreview.blogspot.com/2007/05/reviewed-mimi-and-flo-show.html Starred Review], [http://socialitelife.com/2007/08/20/ music_in_the_morning_mimi_and_flo_same_dude.php A Socialite's Life], [http://www.stereogum.com/archives/video/this-is-a-video-response-to- rkelly-feat-usher-same.html Stereogum], [http://allhiphop.com/blogs/ rumors/archive/2007/08/16/18425512.aspx allhiphop.com] and many more. As of August 20th, 2007, "SAME DUDE" has 590,000 views and counting. The show stars Frances Chewning as Mimi, Hannah Bos as Flo. The direction, cinematography and the majority of the editing and sound is by Jeff Maksym. The Mimi & Flo Show can be viewed at [http://www.mimiandflo.com http://www.mimiandflo.com] The design of the site is cutting edge, employing many new techiques in Flash programming.

---

Here is my defense from my talk page.

I don't believe this entry shoud be marked for speedy deletion. We have had fan requests for a wiki-entry from people we don't know personally. Plus, none of the webseries' on this list... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_television_series have been deleted. Our show has been getting a lot of attention by the media and by both major and independent bloggers. If you delete our entry then you might as well delete all of the other entries on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_television_series entry. Please remove the flag on our entry.

You' added the entry to that list! Stephenb (Talk) 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion 1. There is no "Patent Nonsese". 2. It is not a "Test Page". 3. It is not "Pure Vandalism". 4. It is "Recreation of Deleted Material", but it was deleted as soon as I created it. At the time, I wasn't aware that I could contest it's deletion. I am doing that now. 5. It is not by a "Banned User". I had to create a new user because I couldn't remember my old Login info. 6. "Housekeeping" does not apply. 7. "Author requests deletion" does not apply. 8. "Talk pages whose corresponding article does not exist" does not apply. 9. "Office actions" do not apply. 10. "Attack pages" do not apply. 11. "Blatant advertising" does not apply. Our show is a pioneer in a new field of media and should be referenced. If someone else stole our idea for our show between the original entry's deletion and now and entered a wiki about their show, saying theirs was "first", it would be at the fault of the individual who was authorized to delete our original entry. As I previously stated, we have had requests for a wiki entry. I wasn't going to make another entry until I got an email from a fan who asked why there wasn't one. That is definitely not advertising. 12. "Blatant copyright infringement" does not apply. I own the domain and the content of the website.

I provided links to references within our entry for people to confirm that we are indeed an actual part of the pop-culture at-large.

With any concerns, please contact thecrew@mimiandflo.com

Be fair and just. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesusatan2001 (talk • contribs) 16:09, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] re: Stephenb "You' added the entry to that list!".

I know I did. I never said I didn't. If you read what I wrote, I was referring to the other links within the entry. What is your point? Tell me what about my entry doesn't comply with the "importance or significance" criteria. Also, why can The Burg", "Blonde Ambition", "A$$ Wipers, Inc.", "The Hardy Show","Matt Banke Show","Pure Pwnage" or any of the other entries remain, where as mine is selected for deletion. If the reason is just because we are not operated and maintained by a major corporation, then your logic is flawed. Please explain.

---

I never heard back from anyone. You guys have some things backwards!

Josh Warner Deletion...

So, I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but given that Josh Warner was featured on tonights episode of LA Ink (ep3), is it possible to undelete the Josh Warner page (or reinstate the discussion from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josh_Warner_(second_nomination). You can watch the full episode of LA Ink at www.tlc.com/fullepisodes.

Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaunco (talk • contribs) 04:05, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

You can raise the issue at Wikipedia:Deletion Review again. I know nothing of LA Ink; and so, cannot comment. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Shaunco 22:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Pearce (second nomination)

Appearance in the ODNB is a significant argument for inclusion, unrebutted.

I'm not convinced that squares with WP:NOTINHERITED. As I said in the AFD, he doesn't have his own ODNB article; he gets a short description as one of the parents of Alfred James Pearce. Everyone with an entry in the ODNB has the basics about their parents, so inclusion in that capacity doesn't automatically confer notability. Gordonofcartoon 15:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you wish, you may consider the line obiter dicta. The consensus was clear in any event. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

'The consensus was clear in any event

It was, but I thought the conclusion was supposed to be based on quality of argument, not majority vote. Of the Keep votes, one was an unsupported assertion, and three were based on the same misunderstanding about the ODNB. Gordonofcartoon 16:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charles Pearce. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gordonofcartoon 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Permanent North American Gaeltacht. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Permanent North American Gaeltacht. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I have reopened the deletion review on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_23#.5B.5BWikipedia:Deletion_review.2FLog.2F2007_August_23.7C23_August_2007.5D.5D), as now that I am at home I am able to access the thus far lacking sources. I have posted the most pertinant on the review page. It is a letter from the Irish Gaeltacht minister confirming our gaeltacht status, which was the main un-provable point in previous discussions. I move to have this article un-deleted. Thank you Danjdoyle 15:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

speedy deletion of gaeltacht this time

the letter used as evidence was published in "Searmanas Oscáilte Cumann na Gaeltachts" 2007, page 7, published by the Craobh Chláirseach Theamhrach" branch of "Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann", which is an international organization. I will put this on the review page if deemed necessary. Will I have to reopen this discussion again, or can I just keep going with this one? If this source (a letter from a goverment official, officially published in a booklet by a massive internationally respected group relating directly to the reasons for the page's original deletion) cannot be trusted, what can? Thanks Danjdoyle 15:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

deletion advice

So I would like your advice, as I'm severly confused about what is necessary. The original page 'Permanent North American Gaeltacht' was flagged for unverifiability of its official 'Galetacht status'. I produced officially published documents from Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann proving this claim. I also, in previous reviews, included news stories such as the irish televion station's online story about the site (now sadly offline), many other news sites (http://www.nwipp-newspapers.com/DN/free/324892792346375.php) or (http://www.gaelport.com/index.php?page=clippings&id=1900&viewby=date) and it's even on the BBC's website as 'breaking news' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/irish/blas/various_features/aralt.shtml) What more do I need to prove this is a reality (which was the original complaint) and that it's in the news as an impostant, notable thing (being the first Irish speaking area outside of Ireland)? I would really like you expert opinion on how I can bolster my case here. Thanks Danjdoyle 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hangon Tag "Error"

You removed the hangon tag on my user page, claiming it was added in error. Well guess what -- the deletion tag that was added to my user page was the thing added in error! ---- DanTD 17:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

gaeltacht

Thank you for actually helping me. You are the only admin to actually answer my pleas for help as I'm swamped by the process. I have revised (heavily) the article, and have cited every word. Hopefully this is different enough! If you can recommend anything else to help my case, please let me know and I'll do it as fast as my terrible internet connection will allow. I don't know if MLA sourcing is OK on wikipedia, but that's what I'm used to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Danjdoyle/Permanent_North_American_Gaeltacht Thanks for all your help, and I look forward to your response! Danjdoyle 19:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(added news stories I didn't actually use as sources under the 'external links' section) Danjdoyle 19:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This made me think... (ArbCom)

Hi,

This comment of yours at the Gustafson ArbCom case made me wonder:

"If the ArbCom is to start desysopping people for incivility, Mr Gustafson would not be the first to spring to mind."

Who would be the first to spring to mind, and can you start the proceedings, please?

My point is, I suppose, that never having done a thing before is no reason to refrain from doing it, if it is a good thing to do. Mind you, I like Jeffrey, so I'm not disagreeing with your choice, but your rationale strikes me as odd (and a bit flippant) -- why not desysop for persistent incivility? Other than novelty, is there any reason that it is a bad idea?

By coincidence, I was reading the article on the Shuttle Columbia disaster, and was reminded of the term "normalization of deviance," which refers to the tendency, within institutions, for slight negative behaviors to become accepted and habitual over time -- establishing a "new normal" -- and leading gradually by progression to the adoption of more severe corruptive behaviors as typical. Could this be a problem within Wikipedia? Best wishes, Xoloz 00:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, naturally I don't want to name names just in case those people might get put in the dock, but there are a few who are much worse. I'm sure you have clashed with some of them. Of course, in principle, we should desysop for incivility - It is a requirement at RfA to be civil but in general people can (should they choose to do so) become foulmouthed after they become an admin with impunity. So in principle, yes we should. "never having done a thing before is no reason to refrain from doing it, if it is a good thing to do" - That's true. If it was to signal the start of a trend of desysopping rude people, then definitely, but I get the impression that Mr Gustafson has gotten under people's skin substantially because of his rather idiosyncratic behaviour which might be taken to be a deliberate comedy act. I got the impression that this was going to be a once off desysopping for incivility and didn't think it would result in a desysopping if another ruder but less idiosyncratic person was RfArbed. In which case it would appear that JOG would end up merely being a symbolic case, which is pointless since he deletes more stuff than most admins. As regards to the second point, yes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV

Reopening an old DRV for a wholly new purpose will only hopelessly confuse people. I have re-closed the old DRV for this reason

Now, it's not a brand-new reason, it's the same one. You closed it, early, as a "keep deleted", and then very shortly afterward undeleted it without explanation? It's at the very least a suspicious side-stepping of the process and at worst abusing admin privileges for personal opinion. The intellectually honest thing, given your proclaimed 180 degree turn in opinion, would have been to reopen it yourself to get an actual consensus opinion: why didn't you? One unilateral decision is at least defensible, but two diametrically opposed ones? Not even close. --Calton | Talk 23:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

MFD

I didn't realize I reposted the speedy template after Adambro deleted it. I was going through his subpage log and put that on one that didn't have a speedy. I should have looked at the logs and saw that I had previously posted one there and it was deleted. Sorry. SLSB talk • contrib 20:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime time cartoon

Hi, just so you know, this is actually a subject that does get covered in its own right. I've noted a few links at the AFD, but there's plenty of others. Like [1] and [2] these books. FrozenPurpleCube 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hooah

When I read, on your user page, "I'm a flaming liberal" - I wanted to congratulate you on being a liberal and also to ask what did you mean by 'flaming'? Did you mean the perjorative slang term for a homosexual? Or 'vocal'? - But then I realised I'd get told off for asking question's that aren't related to Wikipedia. To further extend my dilemma I also read, "Please write: I'm lonely" - I'm not sure if that was meant to be serious or not but that then compelled me to write. I do what most people/things tell me to do... So, anyway. I have written :-) Scarian^Talk 21:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Xoloz, no worries, I'll e-mail when ever I have chance today :-)

Btw, I do need some sort of guidance on how to deal with an established user who has serious ownership concerns? This guy... has a complete monopoly over all Nirvana and Nirvana related articles and there is nothing I can do... He doesn't let anyone edit the page except to remove vandalism. I don't think there is anything that anyone can do! I have left him a message on his user talk which he hasn't directly responded to. Anyway, hopefully I'll find time to e-mail you soon :-) Scarian^Talk 17:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Connie Talbot

Hi, you closed the afd discussion on Connie Talbot as No Consensus. I am not questioning your decision to do that, but I would value some advice please. Could you please let me know what a "no consensus" means? Does the afd discussion get re-listed to try and seek further consensus or does the article now remain permanently?

Running alongside the Connie Talbot afd was an afd for Bessie Curzons - whose "claim to fame" and notability was identical - ie, they were both loosing finalists on Britain's Got Talents. The afd for Curzons resulted in a "delete". I know and understand the two have to be treated separately as they are two separate articles; but we now have a rather odd position whereby one loosing finalist has been declared not-notable for a WP article; while another has.

Is it in order for me to re-list for afd an article which has resulted in no consensus? Or would that be seen as acting in bad faith?

Many Thanks. 87.127.44.154 07:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Negative information (response to your talk page comment)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007210235,00.html -- THF 14:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben Collins (triathlete) deletion

Any hints on why this listing was deleted?

Regards,

Loren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenpokorny (talk • contribs) 22:13, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

fring article

Hi Xoloz,

Thanx for helping on the fring article, would you let me know what to edit, I have been editing the article, and any tips and or a helping hand will be nice, tried to do it the best i can and am willing to do anything else you recommend. I think this article can be kept, it must just not be advertising, have tried my best to keep it in the style of other articles i have seen like skype

Anyway any help will be great. regards

simon - the "sock puppet" according to the last guy at the Afd page. lol Goplett 22:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Basilisk

Hi. You closed the Succubus AFD, could you also look into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons)? Thanks. BOZ 14:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toy Meets Girl

Hi, thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toy Meets Girl. However, you redirected to Robot Chicken and not to the suggested target of List of Robot Chicken episodes. Also there is the question of the other 43 episodes that I extended the AfD to cover. Are these in hand, please? Finally, the images are mergeable and haven't been? TerriersFan 17:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Zork magic

Would it be possible for me to get a copy of the Zork Magic page that was deleted? I'd like to move it to some other Wiki, like maybe IFWiki. Thanks --Mike Schiraldi 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Article Phex

Hi, I'm the author of the program Phex. It turned out that you deleted the article a few days ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=phex

I dont really understand the reason why a deletion was necessary? Phex is a legitimited open source program and the article has been already quite some time on wikipedia. I would understand a renaming in case some other name might fit better but a complete deletion without a reasonable explenation or discussion is something I completely cant understand. I would be happy if you can comment on this, or restore the page.

GregorK 08:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC) http://phex.org

BTW: All released sources and recent! releases are available here http://sf.net/projects/phex —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregorK (talk • contribs) 08:28, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Mike Blas had used the "prod" tag on the Phex page. I didn't know what this meant, and thought it was to do with a product or something. Anyways, Xoloz is just following protocol. The prod tag should have been removed, but it existed on the Phex page for about a week. I was really only watching for Vandalism. I don't think that Xoloz hasn't anything against Phex, he is just trying to help get crap removed off Wikipedia. However, I think the current discussion (and changes to Phex) make it pretty clear that this page should stay. I wonder how long the deletion votes are for? Bpringlemeir 15:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Opps, sorry, I didn't realize that it was delete. That is a bit trigger happy. I guess that is why Mike Blas started to delete all links to the wiki as well. I had thought that was a bit malicious. I guess page deletion doesn't show up on a watchlist. Bpringlemeir 16:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hi Xoloz,

I sent you an email. Did you get it? I was wondering what the deal was with this? Since I don't know anything about the deletion review process and since you made that move I was hoping you could explain it to me. Is that entry under official deletion review? I can't find any discussion of it anywhere. Thanks.PelleSmith 19:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!PelleSmith 00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV closure of Empornium

I made an edit to this [3], as I believe you meant to say "without prejudice", and having it the other way certainly could confuse someone! If for any reason my assumption was wrong and you did mean it the way you put it, please accept my apology and revert me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

cmyOS

Hello I noticed you deleted cmyOS. I was working with some editors to improve the article but the article was deleted before we got a chance. I looked at the talk page and did not see an outline as to why it was deleted so quickly. May I ask why you deleted it so fast? FallowFar 05:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Xoloz: Yes, the old one had been deleted for lack of references. At the time the last page was deleted there were not as many sources as there are now. I recreated this page after I found more sources and added them to address the issue. Is it possible to repost the page so that I can continue to expand the page and add more sources as I find them? FallowFar 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism

I have copied the material you stored in User:Xoloz/Matrixism to The Matrix (series) and provided a redirect from Matrixism to the appropriate section there. I'm not sure why this didn't happen immediately after the original AFD vote, which clearly reached a "merge and redirect" consensus, but am happy it's finally done. Thanks for storing that info in the meantime. StuRat 21:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiveopteryx

And you erroneously deleted the article "Archiveopteryx", with the note "(expired prod (nn))". Simple fact-checking would reveal it to be an actively developed project. I'm restoring the article from backup. WP:PROD. Don't do this again. Email me if this bothers you. And wow, you sure seem to like deleting things. Sean M. Burke 02:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

(More specifically: it's not clear why the Archiveopteryx article was nominated for deletion at all, because the deletion message was as quoted above, and WP:PROD specifically recommends against using "expired prod" as the message. -- 122.162.108.96 18:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Ah, I guess the "nn" is supposed to mean "not notable". If so, I certainly don't understand why. Other free email server software is listed, including ones that are _not_ actively developed (unlike Archiveopteryx). -- 122.162.108.96 18:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

4x gold school cricket

why did you delete my page??? i would like to have talk 2 u about ur Decision. Luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukehoskin (talk • contribs) 07:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

you have made some fair points. however, you clearly stated that all we had were alumni players. 3 off our players have reprsented south australia at indoor cricket. your statement saying that "article does need to demonstrate a level of widespread interest, at least within a substantial geographic region, or an influential group of experts (like an important scientific theory would.)" that seems to suggest that all webpages have to be scientific. yet you were talking about bekham? bit conto aye? look, 4X gold school cricket series would create some interest for people. your narrow minded american veiw on the world should not stop articles like this from being posted on this great encylopedia. it wouldnt suprise me if you even knew what a cricket ball looks like or how it is used, so i dont think your view on what type of cricket people would like to read about. thanks, i am looking forward to your resopnse. luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukehoskin (talk • contribs) 12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of IMVU

Hi, Xoloz. You recently speedily deleted the article about IMVU, citing G11 for blatant advertising. I know that it had been tagged with {{advert}} for a while, and that it had not been cleaned up, but I think that the core of the article was worthwhile. Consequently, I am asking that it be restored, so that I can redact it to meet Wikipedia's standards. Thanks, TJJFV 17:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have redacted the article, you can review it at User:TJJFV/IMVU. Further improvements to the article are needed, and I will continue to edit it, but I believe that the changes should address any non-NPOV concerns sufficiently to justify the restoration of the article. - TJJFV 01:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have recreated the IMVU article with the redacted version, as it is not a "Blatant example of advertising masquerading as articles" (WP:ADVERT, WP:CSD G11) (though I should admit that I do not think the deleted version was either). If you have a chance, please restore the article history. If you think there are issues that still need to be addressed, please let me know. Thanks , TJJFV 12:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Just an update: I submitted a request for 'History only undeletion' to WP:DRV - TJJFV 13:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Further update: The article history was restored as a result of the request on WP:DRV. Please let me know if there are further issues you think should be addressed. Thanks, TJJFV 16:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Not a problem at all. I saw that you were busy working through the DRV page, and figured I could try using the relevant process. Thanks again for aiding me in getting the article back up. - TJJFV 16:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello again! I'm not sure how worthwhile this is, but I noticed that when IMVU was restored, Talk:IMVU was not. I personally don't care, but as others might, should this be restored as well? I don't recall seeing anything about this on the various policy pages, so I figured I'd ask you. Thanks, TJJFV 00:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Caitlin Upton

Why is this article not being allowed to be edited and improved? How can there be a proper AfD discussion when there's no article and only a terribly written stub burried in the history? --Oakshade 02:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Marlith ^T/C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith ^T/C 16:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) Good timing on that one! I'm not "into" big boxy templates, so I'll smile back this way -- :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Xoloz 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo GameCube Preview Disc

Can you restore the Nintendo GameCube Preview Disc article & any images in the article? It was only deleted on a uncontested prod & it can be argued that it is notable because it was the first (& as of this date only) preview disc by Nintendo that was sold to the public. I'll also like it's redirect, Nintendo Gamecube Preview Disc, to be restored too.

I also request a history undeletion on Minus world & Minus World SNS 15:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

		Thanks...
	Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA. Even though you didn't support my candidacy, I did greatly appreciate your comments, which I will certainly put to good use in improving myself as an editor. I do plan to make another request in a few months, once I have improved upon your concerns. Thank you again, and happy editing! Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Akatsuki members

I don't this DRV should have been closed early. Normally 11 hours and 21 minutes would be trivial, but the !vote was split even (or 1 !vote in favor of endorsement, if we ignore the nominator's !vote), and I had only just notified the AfD participants a little more than a day ago. Please re-open it (or allow me to do so, with your consent), preferably leaving it for an extra day or two. I disagree with your closing rationale regarding the current status of the deleted material, and I don't think the point was discussed at all in the DRV. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I have closed almost all (not previously speedy closed) DRVs, at relatively the same on their fifth day, for the past six months, and for the last six months of 2006 before that. Adequate notice has thus been given that this is standard practice at DRV, and prior to your request, I have received not one challenge. When closing, I also consider the possibility of allowing an extra day (or five), but I do so only where I believe more time will result in greater clarity. In this case, especially given the objections your mass notification caused, the closure was appropriate, and reopening would be very bad. With the history undeleted, all material is available for further streamlining.

If you wish to protest my response to you, the appropriate venue is RfC, but I expect my interpretation of WP:NOT a bureaucracy will be convincing, either to you, or to the community. Best wishes, Xoloz 07:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My objection wasn't strictly a procedural one. I object to your slightly speedy closure because I think it was (slightly) inappropriate, not solely because WP:DRV says that "[a] nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days." I'm not happy with your slightly speedy closure of the List of Norwegian Americans DRV either, especially given that the numbers (contrary to your closing statement) were against the decision in the DRV as well as the AfD, but at least you clearly articulated a reasonable rationale, albeit a contentious one. Contentious DRVs have to be closed at some point, but IMO (and per well-established precedent) they shouldn't be closed before editors have a chance to participate.

I would suggest temporarily restoring and relisting the article since, although it wasn't discussed, it seems like an appropriate compromise. If the 32 editors who !voted to retain the article were editing under the influence while the three deletion advocates really had the trump card, then surely a more careful, in-depth AfD discussion would be appropriate? I would be happy to patch the article up (adding sources to hopefully satisfy some of the more trivial concerns) and nominate it myself, but I expect the procedure would be taken better with the consent of the DRV closer, despite the inconclusiveness of the DRV.

I don't understand your RfA comment, perhaps because my experience there is limited. Are you suggesting (rather, quasi-suggesting) bringing the issue to light under policy and conventions or user issues? My understanding is that the latter is meant for clearly disruptive behavior, rather than controversial actions. I don't know whether or not it is considered appropriate to list issues pertaining to specific DRVs with policies/conventions. If it is, what page would the RfC point to? Please elaborate. — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Off to bed for now; hope to discuss this further. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly response. I'm concerned that most of the info is likely to be removed as overly detailed clutter, but perhaps it won't be a problem. Per your comment, I'll suggest forking again if this does become a major issue. I thought that the canvasing was reasonable since, though the canvasing might have swayed the DRV in a predictable way, the AfD participants were IMO a representative sample of the community (keeping in mind that the representativeness of a sample isn't necessarily determined by the closeness of the discussion) and might have drawn editors with more knowledge of the subject. But in hindsight, perhaps it was a bad judgment on my part given the number of AfD participants. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Permanent North American Gaeltacht

It's on the Main Page right now! I think this additionally vindicates your actions. Keep up the good work. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Air Barrier Association of America (ABAA)

Just curious, but why did you opt to delete the newly created article Air Barrier Association of America (ABAA). They are a valid group (refer to http://www.airbarrier.org/), and it seems that the user is just trying to create something new for the first time. --Ioeth 21:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)