User talk:Xoloz/archive6

Symptomatic relief for loneliness (experimental)

Hello Xolox,

I just saw your generous remarks. It's very kind of you to say that, thanks! Yes, as it happens you're right that there have been others who have suggested my going up for it, but very wrong about being in any way less noble. You're all simply blessedly kind, that's all; I'm quite thankful. If I decide to go up for it, it'll likely be mid-April.

You named your fish Splash?! LoL. That's a jolly good one. I confess to being quite jealous. ;-) Encephalon would make such a terrible name for a fish. Or a dog. Probably even for a kid, really. I can see now that I should simply have gone with DeathSeeker. Too late now, I'm afraid.

Well, see you around the wiki, then :-) —Encephalon 04:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop, Xolox! You're going to make me blush :-) —Encephalon 05:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey you! I'm stopping by to say a very heart-felt thank you. I really appreciate your recent support, Xoloz. Recieving enthusiatic support from people one has never so much as chatted with is quite nice; the same from one so well-liked and respected is highly cherishable ;-) I recommend it. —Encephalon 16:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hope you didn't jinx it though. :) I appreciate your support.Gator (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Xoloz. I wanted to thank you for taking the time to consider my RfA, which passed this morning, and particularly for your kind words. If there's ever anything I can help you with, just ask; you know where to find me. By the way, I too sometimes need to use the word conservative to describe as aspect of myself, and I always give a look over my shoulder before I do, just to make sure there's no one within earshot that might misunderstand. Cheers. ×Meegs 07:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

File:Re-exposure of elephant - lahugala park1.jpg

I think I'm the bird on its head.

Thanks for your support in my RfA. It passed, with a final tally of 62/0/1. I'm touched by all the kind comments it attracted, and hope I'll be of some use with the new tools. You know where I am if you need to shout at me. Flowerparty? 15:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

China orphans discussion

Hi. As a party whose judgement I trust, I wanted to see if I could get a comment from you at the unresolved discussion. I don't want to see this matter tossed back into the limbo of no consensus, so please vote under Agree with proposal or Disagree with proposal with the numbering and we'll see if this can be resolved. Thanks very much for your help if you have the time. --Syrthiss 22:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Settlement

Re [1] - It has been an illusion that a few editors involved in the dispute have been trying to create, no matter deliberately or not, that mainland China equals the People's Republic of China excluding PRC's claim to Taiwan and some other islands that are not geographically and historically associated. The real side of the fact is that mainland China is a term in prevalent usage to refer to the PRC (again, excluding its claim) minus Hong Kong and Macao, its two special administrative regions. — Instantnood 09:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand these terms are never clear to everyone, especially to people who're not quite familiar with all those boring background. Mainland China is a preferred terminology for cross-strait relations with Taipei, since both Beijing and Taipei (well, until Chen's administration) have to avoid the contact being portrayed as state-to-state relations, and at the same time pretending to be pragmatic, leaving the trouble of who's legitimate aside. It's also the standard terminology the PRC itself uses to call the rest, with Hong Kong and Macau are excluded, especially after 1997 and 1999 when the two, respectively, became part of it. IMHO mainland China categories should be created as subcategories of the ones for the PRC. — Instantnood 17:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In reality the nomenclature is nothing controversial even in the eyes of the governments involved, except that a few editors on Wikipedia refuses to accept such reality. The nomenclature most informed readers would want plays no harm as far as neutrality is concerned. It's not quite likely the media would be a good indicator, since they're not serving the same purpose as an encyclopædia does. They convey information that most audience can promptly digest. Wikipedia considers accuracy and neutrality to be much more important. — Instantnood 18:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. I appreciate the comments you left when you voted, and I will definitely keep them in mind. If you have any other suggestions as to how I could improve as a Wikipedian, so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! —akghetto ^talk 07:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous

It was a fucking ridiculous thing to say. End of discussion. Grace Note 07:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine. As long as we both maintain a sense of the ridiculous, we can both be happy ;-) Grace Note 07:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "Statement X is absolutely ridiculous" is a favorite catch-phrase of the Cabal, isn't it?

Describing a phrase as "a favorite catch-phrase of the Cabal" sounds as if you are promoting the idea that Wikipedia is run by Cabal and labelling a particular, pithy and quite commonplace saying as a sign of possible Cabal membership. Or have I misunderstood you? --Tony Sidaway 04:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Seduction Community...

...is now a blue link. I kept the history of the userpage with the article via a combination of deletion, restoration and motion (although I botched it and deleted one time too many, thus engaging in a wheel-war with myself). I must confess I am a little reluctant to relist it immediately, since its creator hasn't been around for several days to defend it, so I'll leave that to your discretion. I dropped a note on their talk page. -Splash^talk 00:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No need to call them Puppets

Xoloz, please understand that wikipedia has a vast mostly non-editing, reading community that although may not edit very much, cares just as much about the content of the site. There's no need to call them puppets just because they don't edit much. It's Not respectful of them, so please don't.--Sgore 02:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Successful RfA

Thanks for your support and kind words on my recent RfA, which I am pleased to say passed with a final tally of 80/1/1. If you ever need any help, or if I mess something up as an admin, please let me know. Cactus.man ✍ 20:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm an admin now!!

Thanks for voting on my RFA and helping me become an admin. The final tally was 108-0-1 (putting me on the WP:100 list. I hope to do my best in upholding the integrity of Wikipedia. Thanks again, Gator (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This may just change your vote

Stephen Glicker started and Ran a Multi-Million Dollar company called supernova Inc. for 8 years. He recenty sold the company and even more recently the NDA expired so now we can talk about it. It has accounts with VISA, AT&T, MTV, Disney, etc... Here's the link: [2] I think that proves noteabillity. also I really hope I haven't been of any bother to you with my other post in here. If so I'm sorry, I hate making a bad first impression.--Sgore 20:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ixfd64

I'm curious as to which users you are referring to when you say he was "correct to unblock several of these". I perused the entire block log, and I must admit, I did see some unblocks that I considered correct, none of which are listed on the RFC page, however. Normally I wouldn't be so concerned, but "correct" and "several" seem incongruous together in this context. — Mar. 18, '06 [21:07] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Andrew Knight (patent agent)

You took part in an Afd relating to "Storyline patent" 9 months ago. I have just created an Afd page on a related article "Andrew Knight (patent agent)". You may wish to have a look at this Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Knight (patent agent). Cheers. --Edcolins 12:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My Rfc

Please comment on my Rfc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 01:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

re: David Freeman (2) MfD

Hmmm... I had assumed that at the point of relisting, the deletion discussion was now about the userpage. I apologize for overlooking the link on the MfD page. I should have corrected that. Looking at the discussion, at least one person argued for delete regardless of userfication. I think that comment was a bit hostile but technically we probably should have left the discussion open. But I'm not going to reopen the discussion on that technicality. If someone still feels strongly about the user page, they can make a new deletion nomination. I see no harm in having closed that particular discussion early. Rossami (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llamacon (2nd nomination)

Good morning. You participated in the Deletion Review discussion of this page. The page was relisted on AFD. I noticed that you don't appear to have commented in the AFD discussion yet. So far, there has been scant participation and it may have to be relisted. If you feel it's appropriate, please join the conversation. Rossami (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Latin

profluens de linguam Latinam es? pauci homines ille adrogare possunt. --David.Mestel 21:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"in lingua Latina" atque "illud" melius sit; triste est, quod pauci homines educantur in lingua Latina hodie... ;) —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 21:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. And there we have the reason why I don't type Latin around here very often. Plenty of very bright people are always around to scrutinize grammar! ;) Seriously, though, I could use some practice with an interlocutor, so I'll fire an email for you after I drink something to quiet my obsessive-perfectionist inner demon. Xoloz 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

paenitenssimus sum (scribere "paenitenssimus" non possum). sed nonne "lingua latina" accusativus esse debet? fortasse falsus sum (faceo GCSE hic annus). congrueo - tristissime est. --David.Mestel 22:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ad Xolozem: Magno gaudio tuam epistulam electronicam expectans remoror.

Ad Davidem: Potest uti "in" cum accusativo aut ablativo; cum accusativo, si est adhibetum quam præpositio directionis, cum ablativo, si quam locationis. Quandoquidem figura rhetorica est "fluent in Latin" vel "flüssig in Latein" et cetera, adhibetur ablativus. Non necesse esse pænitentissimus (tum positivum "pænitens" est, comparativum "pænitentior, -ius" atque superlativum "pænitentissimus 3" essent); conato laudandus es, nemoque perfectus est. Latina mea quoque inexercita est. =] —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz, nondum recepi litteram tuam...? —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 10:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries

It's my interpretation of the policy that OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries is a real organization (albeit of satirists), and is thus a candidate for speedy deletion under A7. That they are manifest solely on the web means the best method of judging their notability is using WP:WEB. Are you saying that it's your understanding of the CSDs that no article about a web site can be speedied? Non-notable John Doe can be speedied but his blog cannot? That they must all go to AfD provided they're civil, neutral, etc.? Why do websites get a pass here? I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative, but if my interpretation of the policies is troubling you, I'd appreciate knowing your stances on those questions in order to reach a mutual understanding here. JDoorjam Talk 22:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comment re: OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries

Thank you very much for your comment on my talk page. I wanted to explain the rationale I used when deleting the OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries article, not to prolong argument, but simply for the sake of explanation. I have a bad habit when I argue a point of forgetting which are conclusions the community has come to, as opposed to those that I've come to, and so often make premature leaps. Anyway, here was my thought process:

1. CSD A7 allows for the deletion of articles on non-notable organizations and individuals.
2. O:CM is a person or group of people, albeit satirical. However, the article addresses O:CM as a source of satire and not as a fictional organization, and so O:CM can be treated as a "real... group of people" per CSD A7.
3. O:CM exists solely as a web site, so in order to determine its notability, the best-fitting notability guideline is WP:WEB. (Interestingly, though CSD A7 calls out "group(s) of people", there is no notability guideline specifically for groups. At best, WP:BIO applies to groups of people, though I can't find anywhere that that's explicitly stated.)
4. O:CM's article does not assert the guidelines at WP:WEB.
5. O:CM does not assert its notability.
6. Per 2. and 5., O:CM is a group of people that does not assert its notability.
7. O:CM is deleteable per CSD A7.

I appreciate your putting CSD A7 into historical context; by the time I'd become an active editor, and certainly by the time I'd become an admin, A7 was no longer hotly debated. At most, it's grumbled about. So it's a good reminder that the policy was not created free of controversy, nor is it free from it now. It's also good to be reminded not to start whacking things with this mop. I'll try to treat it like a feather-duster for a little while. As for my undeleting the article, I learned from observing and participating a bit in the userbox debates that speedily deleting something in the name of efficiency is not actually efficient (to mention nothing of its divisiveness) if an editor then spends the next week saying "no, I won't undelete it, the world is a better place this way and it doesn't matter if you don't understand." And if you've made a mistake, demanding that you didn't doesn't change the fact that, really, you did. Except for Jimbo, we're all human. ;-) See you 'round the 'pedia, JDoorjam Talk 05:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Hi Xoloz! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / opposing / vandalising my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now still a normal user / an administrator / indefinitely banned. Your constructive criticism / support / foulmouthed abuse has given me something to think about / helped me immensely / turned me into a nervous wreck. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ask someone else / suffer and die / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

Makemi RfA

File:Stick insect02.jpg

Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Makemi 04:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you so much for supporting me in my recent RfA, which passed with a final tally of 56/1/0. I thank you for your confidence in my abilities. If you ever need anything or find that I have made an error, please let me know on my talk page. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks

Xoloz/archive6, thank you you so much for supporting my RfA, which passed successfully 49/6/3. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken people's suggestions to heart. I will do my best to live up to people's expectations. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please feel free to let me know! Thanks again for your much appreciated support.

¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

	My RfA
	Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :)	→AzaToth 09:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza's RfA

Thanks!

Hi Xoloz/archive6, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Adminship?

Okay, I just checked so I know you're not one. Did I miss your failed rfa or has it just not happened yet? Which is me saying would you like to be nominated? Steve block talk 18:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair play to you. I once had it in my head never to step up, but when the opportunity came vanity got the better of me. I can't think of owt that wants doing, but if I do I'll let you know. Steve block talk 18:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks

Xoloz/archive6, thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. If and when that day comes, I hope you will once again support me. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 07:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --HereToHelp 12:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

agreeing on style

Being a perl programmer means I understand style. I feel that self deprecation is not a matter of style, but of character. And I'm almost offended you think I should agree with you everywhere since we agree strongly on an arbitrary (unrelated) subject. Dig? ... aa:talk 21:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Replied to at interlocutor's talk page. Xoloz 22:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying...

Trying to take a Wikibreak, really. Making a half dozen edits a day instead of a hundred is a good way to ease into it! bd2412 T 17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case, know that we'll miss you enormously, and I'm quite afraid the place might fall apart! :( Enjoy yourself, of course! Xoloz 17:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi. I am sorry to bother you but I wondered if you might be prepared to take another look at my RfA nomination. The main reason that I ask this is because there has previously been some confusion as to my talk count and I also wonder if there might have been some confusion regarding the duration of my contributions. I would also like to comment on some of the concerns raised by others, which I have discussed on the nomination page, but which you may not be aware of.

Firstly with regard to my talk contributions and the duration of my contributions. I just wanted to clarify that I do have substantial numbers of contributions in the user talk namespace although significantly less in the main article and wikipedia talk namespace, so I do have a good history of interactions with other users but primarily on their user page (furthermore I have a good track record of warning vandals - something is often lacking for many vandal fighters both admin and non-admin). Regarding the duration of my contributions, I just wanted to clarify that I have now been contributing for 15 months in total and, although I have had a few "lean" months when my focus have been outside of Wikipedia, I had almost 2000 contributions before February and there have been 9 months when I have made 100+ contributions.

WIth regards to the concerns raised by other, which aren't covered by the above, they seem to relate primarily to my lack of contributions to the article talk and wikipedia talk namespaces and what this says about my community involvement and exposure to process. Firstly I would like to say that I don't think my contributions in this area are particularly low when compared to other current nominees and recently created admins who are/were heavily supported (I have provided some details on this in the comments section of the nomination) - as I said in the comments section this is not to say "they are supported so why aren't I", rather it is just to provide a benchmark to compare how common my contribution pattern is. Secondly I would like to point out that I do not typically revert vandalism in these namespaces which I believe play a significant part in the number of these contributions for vandal-fighter editors (especially in the article talk namespace). Finally I would just like to reiterate my personal opinion that, regarding edits to Wikipedia talk, contributing and understanding are different things (i.e. I do understand the policys and guidelines even though I have not actively contributed to them). With regard to my community involvement, I do have a fair number of edits to the mian Wikipedia namespace and also the user talk namespace as previously mentioned.

I understand that contacting you in this way may well be considered "campaigning" but I want to assure you that I am driven by good practical intentions rather than ego. As you will be aware, I am primarily a vandal fighter and I feel that the admin tools will allow me to far better serve the community in this area. Specifically I come across a lot of situations were there are very few editors on RC patrol and a lot of vandalism is being missed, this is compounded by the fact that AIAV is often not being heavily monitored during the same periods meaning that blocks are delayed and a lot of time is spent reverting vandals who have already received a final warning. This extra time spent reverting known vandals obviously mean that much new vandalism is missed - with the obvious effect on the quality and credibility of Wikipedia.

I would like to sum by saying that I feel I could make good use of the tools and that I have never done anything to raise concerns that I would misuse them. Cheers TigerShark 20:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for commenting on my recent request for bureaucratship. I deeply appreciate your kind words, and also the comments and feedback that you left me. I hope that I can improve and gain your support in the future. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your user page is very well written

I'm not going anywhere with that, I just thought I'd let you know that I like it. (I was going to wonder why someone with so many projectspace edits wasn't an admin, but I checked the list.) -- stillnotelf is invisible 04:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 11:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamophilia

Greetings, I couldn't help but notice that you based part of your decision for keeping deleted Islamophilia on the re-list discussion for that article according to User:Dpbsmith's logic, so I thought you might like to have a look at this NyTimes.com example of the use of the word "Islamophilia" from September 12, 2004. Netscott 17:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz, thanks for your response on my talk page. I'm generally in accord with what you've posted on my talk page but I just thought it odd that User:Dpbsmith didn't find any cite on the New York Times while I had no problem finding one... following his logic of being able to find mention of the word in the New York Times from 2000 till now, I've decided that the deletion merits overturning. Netscott 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite a previous move on my part for deletion of Islamophobia (due to serious WP:NOR concerns), I'm actually rather indifferent to the term Islamophilia myself (as I've just clarified on my Overturn comments) but now that I've followed Dpbsmith's test logic, I think a proper AfD should be conducted relative to it (and not speedy deletion). Netscott 18:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Our RfAs

File:1000000eme.jpg

Another newly produced robot thanks you for your handiwork, and excuses himself while he practices his new abilities. Back in action soon! -- Hoary 11:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Xoloz: Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 77/3/0. I hope I can perform at the standards expected for administrators. If I make any mistakes, or you need anything, please let me know. Prodego talk 01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

 

Hi Xoloz. Just a quick note to thank you for voting on my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I want to let you know that I will do my best to address all concerns that were raised during the RfA. I will also do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 04:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)