User talk:Xoloz/archive15

Hello!

Do you feel less lonely?

Zingyguy

Hi Xoloz, Could you kindly provide information on why you deleted the oob conference page. It is just an informatory page about the conference like every other conference page and not an advertisement for any company.

Charles e sexey

why may I ask have you deleted this Article, I have just put this on here and put a hangon notice on the page, and your over zealous editing is ridiculous, this is an historical article about one of the founders of marysville. and just as appropriate as the articles on other similar historical goldrush figures such as John Sutter or James W. Marshall. So you must either give me a very good reason why this has been deleted or make sure this gets restored IMMEDIATELY Jymbo04 22:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Xoloz,

Thanks for participating in my recent RfA. Even though it was ultimately successful (at 54-13-11), I value all of the feedback and have already benefited from the community's suggestions. Hope to see you around. - Gilliam 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey.

I was just surfing around and ended up on your user page. I see that you are lonely, therefore, I have chosen to tell you this:

• I like your idea(l)s, from what I read on your page.
• Have a nice day :)

→ Icez {talk | contrib} 03:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Garion96's RFA

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship which closed successfully last night. Feel free to let me know if I can help you with something or if I have made a mistake. I would also like to encourage you to vote often (just in case you don't) on other candidates since we need more admins. Happy editing, Garion96 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice Please

I've become, much to my surprise, the new default closer for deletion review. We've had a bit of a mess regarding a Daniel Brandt deletion review today. Please give me some advice on whether my contributions (most importantly at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Daniel Brandt and DRV) mean that I should not close this in a few days when it is ready. I think my least neutral contributions are this one (showing frustration with the wheel-warring and close-open warring) and this one (saying that there are legitimate arguments to be made that I haven't seen made yet). GRBerry 21:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

T&E dropped off because he is job hunting, and doesn't have as much time, and choose to give up this hour a day.

As long as this will be to wade through, I have hopes it won't be as painful as the one for the RM case. There the outcome was clear, but I couldn't stomach it, and spent a couple hours agonizing over a hunt for a better solution than a straight overturn.

I'm willing to close it, but it might be a good idea for you to close one or two just to keep your hand in shape. Someone else might object. Of course, Doug Bell is also available, and he and I are mostly sharing the load now. The new templates aren't that hard, and they even sign the close for you. GRBerry 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, GRBerry beat me here, but I was going to ask if you might keep an eye on the Brandt DRV and, should you have refrained from participation upon its having taken its course, close it. Though you are surely not our most visible admin, you are someone for whom the community has respect and whose judgment the community views (properly) as particularly good. Whilst I strongly support overturning deletion here and cannot presently imagine that any close as endorse deletion should be reasonable (were this an AfD, no consensus, it is quite plain, would be the ultimate disposition), I can say with a great deal of confidence that I would accept readily a Xolozian closure as endorse deletion (such closure, I am sure, would be accompanied by a reasoned justification). I'd personally not object to GRB's closing the discussion, but this is probably one on which any semblance of impropriety will probably engender much discord (I have to believe that an attempt to DRV a DRV would pretty much signal the end of the world). Joe 07:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Joe. I've dropped off the Wikipedia map (mostly) because I've had more pressing, reasonably noble, work that requires my near-total attention. I'm still around for emergencies. I'm pleased to see that The Jimbo appears to be much less "rouge" than I thought. :) In light of this, one might suspect that someone will close the DRV early as a clear restore. I won't: due process is the best solution to large-scale insanity. Xolozianly (!?), Xoloz 12:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Deletion Review

Hi Xoloz! Thanks for dropping me a line! Sorry for the confusion; I actually have not had a name-change since first registering this user name. I'm aware of the disaster that the DRV has become, partly because of my own actions. I had originally closed the DRV in part to help avoid those issues, but somewhat ironically, my actions worked to further the problems. I'll make sure not to apply WP:SNOW in the future when closing out DRV's. Thanks again for the message! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please comment

On whether you agree with this proposed principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war/Workshop#Purpose_of_Deletion_Review . I'm asking Trialsanderrors to comment too. Kla'quot 05:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Leigh Allen

Hi Xolox and thanks for writing. I agree with you that Allen needs to be in the article. The problem was that there were so many suspects listed--living and dead--and more info being dumped into the article every day, that a line in the sand had to be drawn. That's why I deleted all suspect info. The Allen info I wrote up is at least in full compliance with Wikipedia policy, which I think we both can agree is essential. Since you've apparently read the discussion on the talk page, you know I think a separate article should be made about the suspects, and only a summary of that article placed in the Zodiac article. However, I don't plan on doing that myself. My only goal now is to get more of the info sourced in the Zodiac article, and to keep more unsourced, original research from being reinserted. Jeffpw 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cue sports

Replied at my talk page; it actually turned into a three-way topic. Anyhow, would be interested in whether it addresses your concerns. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

An observation

I mean this in a friendly sense, and hope you will take it that way. In the discussion over Rklawton's possible adminship, you point to an exchange the two of you had some time ago. Looking over it, I was a little surprised to see this from you: "Meanwhile, getting sufficiently riled over this article to lose patience with an admin is not common sense, in my view." I understand that your exchange was a little testy on both sides, but I thought the gratuitous reference to being an administrator introduced an unnecessary power dynamic to the conversation and some might even read it as a veiled threat. From my knowledge of your general attitudes, I had thought such an approach would be out of character for you. I point out my reaction merely in the hope that you will keep such issues in mind as you go about your work. --Michael Snow 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand your perspective, and I trust that you would have responded appropriately to it being misapprehended (and clearly the conversation did not in actuality have that problem). It seems to me that mentioning it precisely in the context of a "You're just going to make things worse for yourself" sentence, as opposed to the "I'm experienced and careful and know my way around" tone of the previous sentences, may be the reason for my gut reaction here. Had the reference to adminship come earlier in the paragraph, perhaps that would have suited your purpose without being open to misinterpretation. In any case, I thank you for considering my observation in the spirit it was intended, and shall not belabor the point further. --Michael Snow 21:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the problem of bringing it up too early, that occurred to me as well upon further reflection. --Michael Snow 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you're wondering whether Michael Snow was the only editor whose eyebrows shot up when they read your comment, this'll put your mind at ease. He wasn't: I was amazed and astounded, and not in a positive way. Looking back at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xoloz, I see that you're another one of our existing administrators who seems to apply radically different standards now, at RFA, than you did then, back when you considered yourself ready to be an admin and put yourself up at RFA. This disappoints me, and it would probably have disappointed the editors who supported you had they been gifted with prescience. That's RFA for you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't think I'm being glaringly unfair, although it wouldn't surprise me if I were being somewhat unfair. June 2006 is a very long time ago in Wikipedia terms. I entirely agree with the comment in your acceptance that "sometimes, adminship is treated is if it carried real power, and I truly dislike that notion", while disagreeing about the implications of that position. I don't want to take up too much of your time with my nitpicking, so I'll leave it there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you opine about DRV theory

What should deletion review be, is it working, how can we make it work better? All questions I'd love to see your input on, that have been raised explicitly or implicitly at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#What is the role of deletion review. Could you opine? GRBerry 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

More DRV convos

Good grief. I don't even know Tony Sidaway, although I know he is famous in the Wikipedia community. Your post cleared up some confusions for me; I think our differences in the matter, then, is more superficial than I first thought. It's more semantics, then, say, looniness. Oh, and thank you for offering X-solidarity. It does get lonely sometimes......Xiner (talk, email) 01:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No way! I've never seen you support anyone for RfA before! Eh hem...I mostly agree with you there, although I rather fear most generalizations. What is due process to one person is someone else's process wonk, and yet another person's speedy deletion. Xiner (talk, email) 01:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good advice, and I'm not just saying that. I can promise you that if I'm trusted with a mop, I will keep an open mind where there's disagreement. Like I said in my RfA, I wouldn't have been here had some of my earlier articles been deleted; when I revisited some of those pages before I went for RfA, I saw some big changes. And yes, it does take courage to stand apart and be the lone voice, in fact what is distracting me right now in real life are two people who are generating plenty of controversy by shutting out dissenting voices. Xiner (talk, email) 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Xoloz. Thank you very much for participating in my RfA. Rest assured that I heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. Please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime, and get on my case if I should ever get trigger-happy, ok? I'm certain that won't happen, though. Xiner (talk, email) 03:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Teacher of the Year bounty

I have a little problem with understanding you want for the bounty. I was thinking of writing about education in Belarus, but the only "awards" I see for teachers on a national level is the title "Заслуженный учитель Республики Беларусь" (Honored Teacher of the Republic of Belarus). Please contact me and let me know what you wish to see. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I started on the article at User:Zscout370/Honored Teacher of the Republic of Belarus. I am planning to add more, but there is no way this could be featured, due to lack of information. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi. Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_19? I trust that you'll be an impartial judge, and will abide by whatever decision you make, including undeletion. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 01:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I was wrong. Xiner (talk, email) 02:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration

I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz 15:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Help Resolving a conflict

I have read the pages about this on wikipedia and I have came to you because you seem to be a person who knows how wikipedia is supposed to work and are most likely 100% neutral on this matter. I am involved in a rather intense edit war with two other editors of the article Miriam Rivera. In the last days the user User:Jokestress has quite reasonably asked for the article to be backed up with more reliable sources. Well I found them and that seems to have placated her. She has acted in 100% reasonable way in all of this. The problem arises in that she has asked in the spirt of resolving the conflict we were having other people who are not 100% neutral it seems to comment on the matter. These being the user User:Longhair and the userUser:Alison in particular who have not bothered to justify anything that they have done. Longhiar being an admin seems to feel no need to discuss anything and I feel is abusing her powers. Is there anything you can do? --Hfarmer 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Change in Template:DRV top

Just a heads-up that I made a small change in the {{DRV top}} (or {{drt}}) template: the level 4 header, with a (closed) marker, is now part of the template. So any discussion can now be closed by simply replacing the four equal signs on each side of the title into the the template text:

 ====[[Title]]====

is changed to

 {{subst:drt|[[Title]]|Decision}}

which turns into

Title (closed)

Hope that makes closures a bit easier. Comments and questions please here. Take care, trialsanderrors 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Long term abuse page for WoW

I noticed you were the admin who closed the MFD for Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels. You pointed out that "Those wishing to see a reduced (or radically different) version of this page are, of course, welcome to try their hands at writing one, as this is a wiki." I'd like to try doing this for historical reasons, but I need the original page content to do that. Could you perhaps undelete it momentarily so I can copy it to userspace and/or a file? Thanks in advance. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

deaths

I was restoring a ton of stuff removed without stated reason.88888 15:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I don't know what happened. I saw the large removal and as far as I was concerned I restored it. I can see that other edits seemed to be interposed. Who cares. 88888 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA.--Anthony.bradbury 11:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ted Schwinden

I think what happened was that I clicked the wrong link on Deaths_in_2007#24 and then I added it from memory. I thought I was adding it to the one that died but I added it to their spouse. I need to be more careful... but, luckily it's Ted Schwinden and not Sinbad *embarrassed face* --gren グレン 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

More RFA crossposting, yay

Ah, you do have quite a point about IAR. Perhaps one of the not-best-things an admin can do is misuse WP:SNOW. A great knowledge of guidelines and policies is close enough to a good knowledge of guidelines and policies plus experience, and assuming the absence of either may, possibly, hurt Wikipedia. This issue is under debate a lot—or at least was, since I guess people either agree with such votes or have given up responding to them. I'll trust your intuition, though, as I am aware of a lack of fruit if I were to do anything else. Gracenotes^T § 20:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I was going to say something about the gadfly thing, but then you'd have to respond to it, and so on and so forth. This issue has undoubtedly been covered before by... people. I'm a supporter of IAR, but those I know assure me that I'm the logical type ("accuse" would probably be a better word), so I haven't run into any trouble using it. Although, as you said, it might be useful to identify those that would have trouble—and indeed, to identify those that would use it at all. Gracenotes^T § 21:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

speedy deletion

Please take heed of what I wrote here : [1] and read the answer too. Please put back the speedy deletion tags as those pages should be deleted (as mere album tracks) - which, come to think of it, does not prevent you from creating a subsection on each song on the album page if that seems enlightening.Zigzig20s 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know how to redirect them. They weren't released as singles, they were only album tracks. By the way, I put the deletion tag because the same thing had been done with albums tracks from Melanie Brown's first album, which I had created and someone has deleted (see my talk page for more info). Zigzig20s 19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorted. Zigzig20s 19:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Reah valente

An editor has nominated Reah valente, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reah valente and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 17:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.

archive15, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance, or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools, please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

What exactly is the vital information? I don't get it. The Behnam 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The article 1333 in Ireland

• Please do not re-direct - this is part of major work on developing Years in Ireland stubs (some 164 articles at least have been added). They are stubs and thus meant to be further developed - to re-direct makes the articles worthless in terms of Ireland and Irish history on Wikipedia. Note that UK (England and Scotland) and Ireland and other countries do have year by country article series (although Swaziland is unlikely to!). Please give this a chance to grow with the other Years in Ireland articles. Thanks Ardfern 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets call it Q4

How would you suggest i improve it? Simply south 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, do you think i should discuss this on TeckWiz's nomination page? Simply south 23:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Its also on Coelacan's RFA page. Simply south 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think i should express not? I do do it because otherwise i feel people will end up reading and think "Hasn't this already been asked before?" What's your opinion? Simply south 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

I sent you some :) Haukur 01:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Faye Turney

Hey Xoloz. Did you revert my redirect as an editor or as a closer of the DRV? B/c I see a bunch of re-arguing, but I don't see consensus to overturn a reasonable close. Let me know. - Y (Y NOT?) 17:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with that. I think that redirect is a subspecies of delete much more than a subspecies of keep. And a good-faith properly rendered decision that resulted from much AfD discussion should not be disturbed until and unless there develops a new consensus to the contrary, essentially per Image:Consensus_new_and_old.svg. So I think it should stay redirected pending discussion and not the other way around.

How's your progress in learning Hebrew? :) - Y (Y NOT?) 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I am unschooled in the finer points of DRV and defer. Would a properly made "merge and redirect" close be binding? B/c this is essentially what this was - only there was nothing valuable to merge to the already extensive target. Just F.My.I. - Y (Y NOT?) 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

An article you restored is missing its talk page

Hi Xoloz,

Could you please restore Talk:Allegations of apartheid? It would come in handy for the AfD discussion that's happening now. Kla'quot 00:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Done :) Xoloz 00:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Heritage Alliance

The lead of that article as undeleted was unreferenced, and Guille stated it was false and defamatory. You really should have rmeoved the statement when you undeleted it. I am now going to go through an remove anything else which is uncited and relates to living individuals, it is likely to need watching for POV-pushing as there is a small but active anti-Guille group out there somewhere. I hate extreme right-wing politicians, by the way, but uncited claims of white supremacism are really not on, as I think you'll agree. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to question

Although I am certainly a British monarchist, I am also a pragmatic conservative. Since the eighteenth century, the United States has developed a distinct national identity, and it would no longer be practical to restore it to British monarchical rule. In terms of day-to-day politics, I am a very strong conservative and an economic libertarian, and I think that Bush's domestic economic policies have fulfilled that side of my beliefs. I also support his strong stance in international affairs and his fight against terrorism, which is the major threat to the free world. I hope that clears up your query. :) Normally I wouldn't soapbox like this on Wikipedia, but you did ask. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Darvon cocktail

You can't be serious. Sorry for the bluntness initially, I'm just flabbergasted that an obvious abuse of deletion policy occurs and because a few friends can come along and stand by it, it can be endorsed. Why have deletion review? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, I'm not convinced there was consensus on the DRV. Majority, perhaps, but not consensus. I'm apalled by the pattern I'm seeing as well. A relative minority of admins (compared to the entirety of the list) can do what they like, as long as all their friends show up. Goes against several guidelines to keep admins as just normal folks with custodial powers. I would have closed the DRV by putting the article up for AfD. I hope you don't keep making decisions like this. --MalcolmGin 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I do not take your action on DRV personally. Thank you for doing a dirty job conscientiously.

I'll keep trying to contribute to DRV where I can and get a better sense of it. I've also gone to look at User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff and see that you seem favorably inclined toward process when possible, and don't want to go out on a limb for this particular cause. Totally fair, and I respect that decision. It's clear that the anti-process crowd is getting bigger (they usually do). I'm about to ask badlydrawnjeff for his opinions on taking proactive action to try to cut through that 'cabal' somehow. It's clear to me that Wikipedia was created/founded with consensus in mind, whether or not it works in practice that way, and I'm idealist enough to at least want to make the effort to put the anti-process folks to some trouble to make their views stick, and to want to try to defuse their power structure as much as I can. In that vein, do you have any suggestions as well? --MalcolmGin 16:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. can you point me to the documentation that talks about the cutoff for "new users" and for comments made "out of order"? I'm having trouble finding that in the documentation about DRV. Or are you saying that the process you are referring to is organic and undocumented? If so, may I help figure out a good way to document it? Thanks much, --MalcolmGin 16:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just out of the way: to clarify MalcolmGin and badlydrawnjeff: there was no 'cabal' or 'group of friends.' In short, there was no conspiracy associated with this DRV. Paranoia, especially about editors or admins, is not becoming to Wikipedia. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy that for one second, actually. I stopped believing that a year ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to assuming good faith? Last time I checked, that was a policy/guideline too. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith until there's evidence to the contrary. The evidence has been clear for a while now. It's up to you if you want to see it or not, but it's a perfectly valid point of view. Xoloz did his best on this, even though he was wrong - I just should have pointed the discussion out to more people when I knew the same names would come out of the woodwork. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note use of quotation marks when referring to a 'cabal' indicate use of word that is not one I actually believe in. --MalcolmGin 16:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, I'm curious -- what is the evidence? I voted endorse and had never spoken to or heard of the other endorsers before this DRV. I voted out of what I took to be common sense. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not in the mood to dig through a year's worth of archives especially when you're unfamiliar with the parties involved. You don't have to trust me on it, but there's a reason there's a perception. If you voted due to common sense, then I assume you voted to overturn, as common sense tells us not to abuse the processes in place for a desired result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That was cute. I'm sorry if you think that common sense means processes, but I think common sense means making Wikipedia as good as it can be. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize it as 'cute' but ethical and principled. I don't feel that bypassing process is an appropriate means to making Wikipedia great. I feel that process is part of why Wikipedia is/should be great. --MalcolmGin 17:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia can't be as good as it can be if we're letting people delete whatever they want when they want. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The processes were enacted to stop anarchy, not to create bureaucracy. Deleting Darvon cocktail was not anarchy but people acting in good faith to make Wikipedia better. If something is stopping you from making Wikipedia great, you can ignore the rules and the processes. That rule is by far the most important and most under-played, misunderstood and under-appreciated rule of them all. And it's lack of being understood is showing up even to this day. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I understand the primary saving grace of Wikipedia to be consensus-building, not individual defiance of the essays, guidelines and policies that were also created in good faith by a number of contributors and admisn invested in building that consensus. --MalcolmGin 17:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So then maybe WP:IAR, though it was one of the first policies ever to be enacted into Wikipedia, should be disbanded. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely should. Even the guy who originally created it has noted that it's been twisted beyond its intent, and beside the point, IAR simply advances the community's immatuity. Not that IAR was ever cited when deleting the article in question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My point about us losing the original point of Wikipedia rests. I also worry about some of our abilities to assume good faith. This discussion is frightening me more about the future of Wikipedia than any miserable DRV ever could. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been frightened by the future of this project for a while now, even before this DRV. When a small group not only believes it can control content, but is given a charter to do so, it's bad news. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I’m worried about your paranoia and ability to assume good faith. And please don’t take this as a personal attack, as I love you as much as Elaragirl did. That said, I think we should agree that we will never agree on this subject and leave it there. I am wasting too much of my time responding on this talk page and not cleaning up an already vandalism-ridden Wikipedia. While on the subject, I do believe that this process bureaucracy will be the end of Wikipedia, as the number of vandals is increasing daily and they work much faster than our processes ever will. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken, and we'll leave it at that. I have other 'pedia issues to tend to as well, after all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to change the policies to suit and follow them scrupulously. Large volunteer organizations simply do not work without solid, reliable policy and procedure. --MalcolmGin 17:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, minor quibble, I don't think Darvon Cocktail should have also been salted. It should be possible to write a well sourced article, even if this wasn't it. --Kim Bruning 17:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first point -- I don't think it should have been salted. However, as it stood and stands, there were no reliable sources available per an extensive google, LexisNexis and university medical library search. In short, nothing outside of Usenets, newsgroups and forums has been written about the cocktail, so I don't think that it is possible for a well-sourced article to be written right now. That said, if Time decides to write a story on the Darvon Cocktail I wouldn't have a problem with a Wiki article. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to un-salting. I didn't do it myself, per RockStar, because of Uncle G's evidence that a sourced article is very unlikely at this point. If you'd like it unsalted, though, Kim, I'll certainly do it for you. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe you're right -- it's been re-created before so maybe we should keep it salted until something notable comes up and then it can be requested for de-salting. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can grasp that those are not normally very reliable sources.

Just to explore the issue a little further (and then I might drop it) Does the cocktail occur in any FAQ? Does it occur in many different places at once? Several sources that are unreliable by themselves might together provide enough evidence to lift the notability above some minimum threshold. Just checking to see how that gets interpreted at the moment. --Kim Bruning 20:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I just spent about an hour doing probably too comprehensive of a search, and I didn't find it in anything but what I described above (no FAQs, etc.). That said, I'm not a Google God and *might* have missed something. However, if I did, there's a good chance that it's not going to be notable anyway. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I found nothing on Google and nothing on Pubmed, but neither of those research methods is exactly comprehensive. A very thorough search should also be done of periodicals (most likely to find citations in verifiable resrouces in periodicals, probably fringey ones, though I'd check Rolling Stone, which is pretty well-established by now, as well as tabloids, but I don't know how verifiable they are). I'd also do research on topics related to Lester Bangs, who apparently is thought to have died from inadvertantly mixing himself one. --MalcolmGin 03:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done a lot of comprehensive research (probably too much), in periodicals, LexisNexis, Medical Journals, etc. and nothing has come up. Even if it is mentioned in any connection to Lester Bangs (which I cannot find), it would be a sidenote, whereas notability requires the subject of the article to be the subject of an independent reliable non-trivial third-party source. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, when (if, since my schedule's looking a bit rough in the next few weeks, honestly) I get to a real library, I'll add this topic to my other (Klinefelter's syndrome, intersex, etc.) topics and try to see whether there's anything we've missed. I understand the policies, Rockstar, I'm just trying to give the research a thorough shake on my own terms too. I don't expect to come up with anything you haven't found, but it won't hurt trying. I hope you don't take it as a criticism or lack of trust. Independent verification is not meant personally by any means. --MalcolmGin 13:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, please. Go right ahead and do research as I'm not Wikipedia's research guru and obviously could have missed something. No offense taken -- if you can find something that satisfies WP:N, feel free to recreate the article. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I ain't holding my breath, I just feel like I owe it to the original requester. --MalcolmGin 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ANI vs AN

You are among those who express non-support votes due to an ANI post. It may be worthwhile to note that WP:ANI and WP:AN serve different purposes. I contacted AN over the unusual edits. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. regardless of whether you change your vote, I would appreciate it if you would correct your explanation so that others are not misled. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re : Here's a thought

I don't think I will survive a second round! ;) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 11:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Xoloz. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 04:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

DRV

The DRV mominator for Satellite images censored by Google Maps recently withdrew the nomination and I believe the DRV matter may need to be closed. -- Jreferee 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Xoloz, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

undeletion

Hi Xoloz! Would it be okay to get Talk:Still Pending undeleted in addition to the undeletion you already made? If that's not possible, then that's fine; I don't think its that urgent.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 15:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I really appreciate it. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 20:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob the Goon

I saw your PRODding of Bob the Goon, and came to ask if you thought it would be alright to just redirect the page to Batman (1989 film). What do you think? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barack Obama.jpg

If you don't have OTRS access, you should not have removed the tag. I can not explain further for privacy reasons. MECU≈talk 21:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto... not sure why you did that. Cbrown1023 talk 21:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

An image in the public domain is an image in the public domain. No reason from OTRS can supercede that. I would like someone with more knowledge of the copyright issues involved to examine the issue, at the least. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... you seriously did not just say that. If the image was in the public domain, we wouldn't have deleted it. It was probably mis-labeled as being in the public domain. Are you telling me I can upload anything and label it as the public domain and it be in the public domain? Cbrown1023 talk 23:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No. What I am telling you is that the particular photograph in question looked exactly like Obama's Congressional Portrait, which is in the public domain. The image was not mislabeled; I'm virtually certain of this, which is exactly why I wanted someone with some insight to examine the matter. If you had bothered to read my message to Mecu on his talk before responding to me, your remarks would have been much more relevant. While I won't blame you for assuming I'm an idiot, next time, try to be better informed. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 13:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Autograph books DRV

Nice job closing the DRV a while back. In retrospect I really did screw up the close on that one, but the no consensus solution does seem to be the right option and accomplishes the same thing without all the confusion. Best, IronGargoyle 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My dear Xoloz :)

To one of my best wikifriends ever, I wish I could hug you in person, but I guess a virtual {hug} will have to suffice for now! :) So here it is! {{{{{{{{{{Xoloz}}}}}}}}}} It's great to see you again! :) Love, Phaedriel 10:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Psst! Check your mail! :)

I would appreciate your advice

Starting from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 18#Actors by comedy film categories, there is a wider issue I would like to ask your advice on. I am not very experienced in the CfD process and many of the arguments go way over my head. I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Categorization to try to find an optimal categorization for Category:Films. In the few months that followed a lot of opinions were given. I know there is a need for cleanup, as there is quite some cruft. The CfD process seems to work by going after fragments of the category tree which consensus considers cruft. If you see a way to present WP Films categorization with an overall cleanup plan on behalf of the CfD group, we could get a concensus that would make the whole process move faster, smoother and towards a clear aim. I am not sure which project or group is the proper medium for such an approach. I would appreciate any helpful thoughts or problems you foresee on this matter. Hoverfish Talk 16:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Insanity"

I am sure you can agree that using incendiary language like "insanity" is not appropriate for a discussion such as this. All I was asking is that you tone it back. I have no desire to turn Matt's RfA into a battleground with you. If you still fail to understand the role your comment on insanity plays in adding heat rather than light, then we'll simply have to disagree and I'll leave you to your opinions and me to mine. Thank you, --Durin 18:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfA

Thanks for your detailed response. I disagree with some of your standards, but no hard feelings. -- mattb 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your discussion with Durin

I noticed your offer to resign your adminship on Durin's request, and have been watching that discussion with considerable interest. And I have concluded that you should be condemned to remain an administrator indefinitely, with all the limitations and strictures imposed by that condition. For you to be freed of those limitations and allowed to roam Wikipedia freely as an editor unconstrained by those restrictions would be a disaster of devastating proportions for Wikipedia. It is my considered opinion that you must not be allowed to resign. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's genuinely funny, I must say! :) Xoloz 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Having read a discussion between two of my favorite Wikipedians who are having a frank exchange of views, I would offer this: (1) It was George Bernard Shaw who first called the U.S. and the U.K. "two countries separated by a common language" though Oscar Wilde said something along those lines in different words. (2) Thank you for keeping your cool. Jonathunder 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's sad to see two people I respect very much having a dispute. I would have voted for Durin's RfB if he hadn't withdrawn it before I saw it, and I was very sorry when he resigned as an admin. I'd also be very sorry if you did, especially over what seems to be a difference of opinion, rather than any suggestion that you've abused the tools. Musical Linguist 23:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to echo that. I think you're both top-notch Wikipedians. Haukur 23:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Durin is not asserting that you have abused admin tools, only that you do not meet the criteria you set for others, it would not technically fall under your automatic recall trigger, in my view. Whether or not you choose to honor the request for other reasons is of course up to you, but being hidebound is rarely productive. -- nae'blis 23:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, folks, all! :) Nae'blis, I said as much to Durin at his talk regarding the terms of my recall. I guess he doesn't understand, since he feels "played." I suppose I won't be resigning, since Durin insisted on tying the resignation to a supposed failing of mine for which I see no evidence. I also supported Durin's RfB, and continue to like him, Musical Linguist. For my part, nothing in the dispute is personal.

Special thanks to Jonathunder for finally explaining the reference to me. :) More than anything, I kept the conversation going over there because I really did want to know! Trivia like that drives me nuts! Best wishes, Xoloz 00:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Systems

I saw that you closed the WP:DRV discussion on this category. If we come to a final agreement on recreating Category:Systems, should we just go ahead and do so? Dr. Submillimeter 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

James Boyce DRV

I think your point that it is unlikely to contribute meaningfully to internet search results in combination with the other points are good enought reasons to leave the content. -- Jreferee 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent discussionof Women television writers

Thanks, Xoloz, for your closure of that discussion. I was wondering if you could clarify your comment, "Taking the suggestion of several commenters (including original closer, Radiant!), relisting will be deferred in the interest of the wider discussion now on-going." I'm not sure what you are suggesting: that even though the category exists, we not use it? Also, where is this wider discussion taking place? I haven't seen any notices … Or did you mean in a general sense? Thanks again, for your closure and, in advance, for your reply. — scribblingwoman 15:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Xoloz, thanks for participating in my successful RfA. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: User:Ragesoss/RfA. --ragesoss 07:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Award

I'm ignoring all the rules and giving you one too--Doc^g 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHA

I'd like to know why you replaced a WikiProject with a redirect to a silly task force. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dobbs deletion not "nearly unanimous"

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bob Dobbs. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -Eep² 02:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Carleton Sheets

I agree that the two Sheets-related articles are a mess. Note my suggestion that we delete the PEI one and keep Sheets. He is a well-known infomercial guy (even I had heard of him), but controversial and often criticized. That needs to be reflected, fairly as per BLP, in his article.--Mantanmoreland 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Smashboards:Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Smashboards. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Deletion Quality 22:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Also, I did not recreate the page after the intitial deletion, thank you. Deletion Quality 22:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Well earned

Ooh ... shiny! Thanks! :)

And thanks also for your offer. Two other editors had previously offered to nominate me (in March and April), but both times I requested a postponement until such time as I was free of various personal obligations. I'll be done with them ... the obligations, not the editors ;) ... sometime in the second half of May. Would you perhaps consider nominating (or co-nominating) me then?

Regarding my username, (perhaps surprisingly) no one had as yet drawn a parallel between my name and "the Falcon". However, the character is not what my name actually references. It references a bird, but not the bird. The actual inspiration for it is a tattoo of a falcon (not unlike the one depicted on my userpage) whose dominant colour (about 60%) is black.

On a related note, I am curious about your username. Despite my efforts, I could not figure out what it refers to ... the only plausible reference I found is to Xolos. Am I close? Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. After some more prodding, I have decided to stop dilly-dallying, to take the proverbial leap, to venture into the unexplored corners of the universe ... err, well, maybe not the last one. In any case, I have decided to go for it (mostly because I'm now free for the summer ... yup, I finished earlier than anticipated). If you're still willing to (co-)nominate me, please let me know. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Oh, also, on DGG's suggestion, I started a page here so that my nominator(s) could preview my responses beforehand. I haven't answered every question yet, but I'm working on it. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

I see you restored Nicholas Beale for relisting at AfD. However, according to the log the talk page was deleted by not restored. Perhaps, you could restore the talk page so AfD contributors can see the previous conversations. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 17:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg

Hello, Xoloz. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Xoloz/archive7. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Runescape militia

Greetings! Earlier today, you executed the speedy delete on Runescape militia (db-web, A7). The page has since been recreated by the original contributor, with substantially identical content. I can't quite find a policy/guideline that covers this particular situation, and it's the first time I've personally run into this, so I figure I might as well ask before deploying the AfD.  :-) Thanks! RTucker 23:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability of academic papers

You wonder here about the notability standards for a single academic paper. I seem to remember this being discussed in the development of WP:SCIENCE, and is reflected in WP:SCIENCE#Criteria 2 "Widely cited". For papers in my field, I personally think 100 citations (aka a "citation classic") ought to be the bar. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 06:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that bar a little high compared to the bar on other sorts of material in Wikipedia? I mean I will do the research on this article but give me a chance.Alex Jackl 07:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Pete.Hurd, the relevant question is how that criterion of "widely cited" varies across fields: in cultural history (the field of which I am most qualified to speak) that bar is about right for American topics; but, much too stringent for African ones, where 30 citations would mean a masterwork. I suppose philosophy is the subject at issue, about which I can't hazard a guess.

AJackl, WP does use different standards for different topics/media. For an academic paper, citations seem like a reasonable index to me. You are free to argue that this paper is more notable as a "pop culture phenomenon" or something, in which case newspaper articles or television mentions would become appropriate indicators of encyclopedic merit. Xoloz 16:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Xoloz, you make a good point about differing standards and citations in other media, but I doubt there are any notable/reputable citations whatsoever to this article in question. At least, not as of this date. Smee 07:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

I agree- I think citations are a good measure. This is definitely not a "pop phenomenon" so that owuld not apply. This article may not stay as an article I was just using it as a citation and thought it would be better as WIkilink. I am not to a attached. Thank for your help! Alex Jackl 07:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD on Promise of Philosphy

I just wanted to know what prompted you to AFD the The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum page. I just started working on it today. And all of a sudden there is an AFD on it. Why no comment on the talk page or any question? I don't understand what warranted that in your view? I am not trying to be cheeky- I am really trying to understand... I love your User Page by the way. I apologize for initially putting my comment there. Alex Jackl 07:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my user page. It is really the immaturity and the vehemence of some of the other commenters and it was so quick I assumed your were part of that cabal. No problems, I appreciate you doing the good work for Wikipedia and for your honesty. I hope I can save the darn page. Alex Jackl 05:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Jewish Figure Skaters category; Meaning of Consensus; Appeal

Hi! Just saw your delete confirmation on this category, citing consensus.

I hadn't read the discussion as providing a consensus, but perhaps there is a special Wiki meeting for the phrase. If so, would it be possible to point me to that?

Second, is there an appeal process that I am entitled to pursue at this point, if after looking at any such source I remain of the opinion that consensus was not reached?

Many thanks.--Epeefleche 22:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've left comments for you, responding to your comments, on my talk page. Have a great day.--Epeefleche 21:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Another User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com Sock

User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com and his sock User:Asad Aleem, users who were recently indef blocked for creating hoax articles and deliberately adding nonsense to actual articles have created a new sock in User:Asad Entertainment. See his contribs. He has continued to add nonsense and create even more hoax articles. -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Karen Bausman

This section is copy and past "copy vio". A rewrite would keep it from CSD G12. I will check back in a couple of days to see if any progress has been made, otherwise I will tag it again.

"Bausman's indelible mark on contemporary architecture has been widely acknowledged. In 1994 she was awarded the Rome Prize at a White House ceremony . In the same year, she was awarded The Cooper Union Citation for Outstanding Contributions to the Field of Architecture. She was elected a Fellow of the American Academy in Rome in 1995.

In 2005 the city of New York awarded Bausman a Design and Construction Excellence contract as part of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's ambitious effort to improve the architectural quality of government-financed libraries, community centers, and other structures in New York ."

Bausman undertook some high-profile interior work early in her career, including the New York headquarters for private clients Warner Bros. and Elektra Entertainment Group, offices that serve as important incubators in New York's vibrant entertainment scene [12]. She also executed commissions for numerous private residences. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Coldspot (Wi-Fi)

I see you have closed and deleted the DRV. Firstly, I did not admit meatpuppetry. Secondly, could some of the content not be salvaged and moved to Hotspot (Wi-Fi), as the original article is now a redirect there? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 18:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

About DRV

Hi Jc37,

I saw the close you made at Category:Scary Movie... I won't object to it, because relisting is never really a bad outcome; more discussion is always good. You should know, though, that the close is unusual. While DRV isn't a place to reargue XfD, limited discussion about content (does it have basic merit?) is almost always customarily allowed. It's for this reason that even Arbcom [2] couldn't figure out how to express the role of DRV succinctly. I'm not here to criticize -- your approach worked to get a good outcome here, and I might use it in the future! :) I just wanted to warn you of the subtleties involved. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note : )

And while the question of "basic merit" is customarily "allowed", I wonder if it should be. In reading over WP:DRV, it's just too often been used as a place to "re-try" a discussion if one didn't like the results the first time.

And I really don't like the word: "overturn". The results should be "endorse closure" or "relist discussion". "Overturn" makes it sound like we don't trust our admins' discernment, when often it has nothing to do with that (new information, for example).

Anyway, thanks again for your note. Once WP:UCFD distracts me less, hopefully I can get back to being more fully involved in other XfD discussions as I'd like : ) - jc37 15:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV uses the word "Overturn", I think, because it is possible for the outcome to result in no relisting, but a definitive consensus to keep or delete the item outright. It's rare, and it requires a very "high-bar" form of consensus (75%-80%, as a rough measure only), but it has always been a possible outcome. Anyway, it is possible for comments to take the form of "Overturn and Delete", etc. Xoloz 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And to do so, again seems to re-instill the idea that one can "retry" a nom in DRV and get a possible "outcome". - jc37 16:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As for whether it is right or wrong to consider the basic merit of an article... as a longtime DRV closer, take my word on this one: if someone rewrote DRV policy to disallow that practice, a very large number of regular admin commenters would just IAR that stipulation out-of-existence. I'm no fan of IAR, and I prefer process-based reasoning personally (most of the time), but that outcome is just a fact of life. One must allow merit-based arguments, because they will be made by respectable contributors en masse regularly: if one started regularly discounting them on the basis of a firm "rule", it would result in major wiki bad-blood. Besides, every good rule-set I know of, including US Federal Code, allows for the application of ad hoc "equitable remedies in the interest of justice." Life cannot be strictly "by-the-book" all the time. (Mind you, in this case, its unclear what the book says exactly.) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If I had a penny for the number of times that someone mis-applied WP:IAR, I'd be rich : )

And just because an editor is "long-term" or "respectable", doesn't make them any more correct or incorrect than anyone else. We just presume in hope that their lengthy term of editing means that they hopefully are more acquainted with guidelines and policy : )

As for "major wiki bad-blood", I'd rather WP:AGF (whether naive, or no) and hope that such a thing wouldn't occur : )

Your last comment about life not being strictly by-the-book is, I believe, why [[WP:IAR exists, in the first place. : )

(While the smileys are intended, I note that they end every line... I sometimes wonder if smiling can be redundant : ) - jc37 16:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, one can "retry" a nom at DRV for the right reasons; not just for the sake of reargument, but because of new information or new arguments. In particular, a very good reason to use DRV to re-evaluate an original nom. is if there is proof of abusive suckpuppetry at an XfD. Sometimes -- not all the time -- relisting in those cases would be foolish, even counterproductive (same sockmaster will flood once again), and outright deletion may be in order. On the other hand, if a rewrite and sourcing has been super-extensive, there may be no need to relist, and an outright keep may be in order. My point is that the form of the comment has a good purpose. If people misinterpret it to give more license than it does -- well, as you say with IAR, people will do that! :)

Agreed that IAR is misused; unfortunately, we're stuck with it, per Jimbo's edict. I don't agree with AGF'ing that a wiki-war won't happen over DRV, because I have evidence to the contrary... I've seen it too many times. :) I guess the short way of summing up our difference here is that we have a very similar set of principles, and I'm just a bit more "shell-shocked"/experienced in DRV and therefore more accomodating of various factions. Whether my perspective should be considered wiser or just more fatigued is very much an open question! :) (Like your message, it's safe to assume smiles everywhere here; the only sane attitude toward wiki-philosophy is to laugh about it!) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "retrial" in that case, would be whether a relist should be appropriate due to "new information". And sock-masters can flood DRV as well, I presume? : )

Lately We've seen several process and program pages up for deletion, which caused a "mad scramble" to correct the "problems". I'm not a fan of that form (I prefer attempting talk page discussions), but in reading over the DRV talk page(s) it's to the point of almost being a perrenial issue (the retrying of nominations). So perhaps that is the appropriate fire to light. I dunno, but I do think that some change should occur. If, as you say, the majority are ignoring guidelines, then either the guidelines need to be changed, or the habits of the Wikipedians involved need to be changed. I'll have to give this some further thought... - jc37 16:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The only further comment I have to add is that, objectively speaking, sockmasters do not, in fact, flood DRV nearly as often as AfD. (shhh... I think there is a general misperception among mal-doers that DRV is *admin-only*, which works to our advantage. This misperception may arise from the fact that, in the old days, there was a 250-edit suffrage requirement to comment (not nominate, though) at DRV, and spammers would be summarily blanked.) So, yep, retrials at DRV for sockpuppetry are really an entirely different experience than an XfD could be, on average.

For the rest of your speculation, let me know what conclusions you reach. I've beginning to think "quests for reform" are just cyclical and inevitable at the wiki. Every practical system would probably work pretty well; none would be perfect. Change is a universal constant, though; so, if it comes, then, so be it. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"quests for reform" - that made me smile. As for "cyclical", look at RfA, for example : )

That said, the renaming of Categories for deletion to categories for discussion went fairly well. So I dunno.

And you surprised me about the socks. It's a shame that the developers can't just create an "auto checkuser" to watch Specific Wikipedia:space discussions pages. (XfD/DRV, RfA, and featured content, in particular.) - jc37 17:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV (continued)

Hi,

In continuation of yesterday's discussion, here's a case from the log I closed out today [3] As you can see, it's just a relist, so why bother saying, "Overturn"? Well, while you do have faith in our admins, the admins can make mistakes. In this case, the clear consensus view was that not enough commenters had seen all the evidence produced in the debate. The best thing for the original closer to have done would have been to have relisted the AfD, according to the consensus view. DRV didn't beat up on the poor admin -- it is just useful for him to take note of the consensus view that he made a (tiny, but significant in terms of fairness) mistake. Acknowledging that admins can err is not the same thing as demonstrating low faith in them generally. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, the same result could have occurred by merely saying "relist". "Overturned" could really have "gone without saying", in that case. Unless the result is "endorse", all other results are essentially "overturned". Is smacking our admins with a word really necessary? : ) - jc37 10:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't consider it a "smack", so much as a reminder. You know, maybe our differing opinions here stem from my low opinion of myself -- being an admin, I know I'd probably need someone to point things out to me relatively explicitly! ;) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think we all can use "gentle reminders" at times. But per WP:EQ (and a myriad of other guidelines/policies), I just don't think that we should use such a potentially divisive word. - jc37 01:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Divisive? - I'm probably stating the obvious, but it's my POV that "overturn" is a dispassionate descriptor; at law, the word is neutral, depending on the context (it's just as likely to mean "nobody's fault, but this needs to be looked at again" as it is to mean "Wow... somebody really fouled up!") I have absolutely no idea if the general public's connotation is different; it's hard to say which of us has the outlying view in the absence of empirical evidence. I do think there are far more severe violations of WP:EQ at AfD every day. Did you ever have the pleasure of meeting now-inactive admin User:Duncharris? Funny guy, but he used "f-ck" in editorial exchanges more than anyone I've ever seen. If you think "overturn" is divisive word, I think he'd have made your head spin! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 02:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While we may relist a discussion, when we overturn, we overturn another's action. So to "overturn" is to take an action against another's previous action. This is directly noted in WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF (and elsewhere, it would seem to be rather fundamental). Essentially, comment on the idea or on the topic, not on a person's actions.

As for your friend, Wikipedia is not censored, though I suppose that it depends on the context : ) - jc37 09:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in community opinion on this. I simply don't see any injunction in WP:CIVIL against critizing an action: criticizing only an action is a good way to avoid critizing a person. I think any reading of policy that would seek to prevent one from saying, "Consensus believes this action is mistaken and must be changed" is counter-productive. Humans are not robots; if WP attempts to remove every single bit of negativity from interpersonal interaction, the most likely result is a backlash against such strictures. In fact, rereading WP:CIVIL, negative feedback is regarded as a way to prevent incivility. Personally, I think the practice of critizing the action, and not the person (in non-inflammatory language: the difference between "this is a mistake" and "this is a f-uck up"; or, between "overturn" and "kill dead with fire") is the view endorsed by WP:CIVIL. As our disagreement at this point is rather vast, I'd again suggest that community input would be the way to go. While you might prove correct, I'm sure quite a few senior admins would be very, very shocked if you did (much more so than me... these are the ones who regularly say, "kill dead with fire", etc.) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(looks at the screen) - I think our discussion is changing tone, and I "hope" we're not having a miscommunication somewhere...

For me, most of this discussion has been just discussing the concepts. Though at one point, I was thinking about starting a discussion about "overturn" at the DRV talk page or some VP, for the most part, I've just been enjoying discussing the concepts with you : )

So anyway, back to responding...

I'd agree that we respond to an action, not to a person, as well. But I think this is more a case of commenting in steps, similar a code I seem to recall, something like: incapacitate, rather than kill; maim rather than incapacitate; wound rather than maim, etc. So following that, comment on the topic, rather than someone's action; comment on an action, rather than commenting on a person. When someone says: "kill dead with fire", they are neither targeting a person, nor that person's actions, but the result of a person's actions - an object, which in this case, would be a page/article/template/category/whatever. - jc37 19:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Still Pending AFD Discussion

Hello. You recently dealt with the overturn of an article which was deleted via Speedy Delete DRV:(Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_17). The article was nominated again for AFD and I don't really understand how this works. Does the recent overturn not bear any weight when nominating articles? Perhaps you'd like to join the discussion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Still_Pending_(2nd). Thank you for your input. Stampsations 22:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Beat Up a White Kid Day

If the consensus at DRV was to relist at AfD, why was Beat Up a White Kid Day never relisted at AfD? Corvus cornix 03:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Odd. the article's history doesn't show that the AfD tag was ever re-added. Thanks. Corvus cornix 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder how I missed that. Corvus cornix 23:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

MAtrixism

How? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 4

There is no guarantee that this film will be made. There is no director or cast or production start date set. The presence of this article clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL. The relevant information can be placed on Spider-Man film series#Future. I strongly suggest protection because at this point, it's only going to be talk and not any actual activity about this potential film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page? Look at the logs, it was protected for a reason. There is not enough verifiable evidence that the film will be made. The only thing that has be said is that Sony has expressed an interest in making another film, as a matter of fact, they have expressed an interest in making a 5 and 6. By this reasoning, we should have pages for Spidey 5 and 6. I just look at the page, and in a matter of hours every known fanboy anon has add his two cents about the "possibilities" for this film. That was the whole reasoning behind protecting the page, to keep obvious speculation, rumors, and other unverifiable information out. If something happens, and they don't make a movie, then we have to compete with having to delete a page (which I'm sure people will try and keep no the grounds that it was a "canceled film", even though there hasn't even been any pre-production done).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, you should talk to the last admin that protected the page, because he's the one that agreed that a redirect and a full protection was appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw the rest of your comments on Erik's page. Exactly what were you reading that proved that this film will be made? Was it the part that said "Sony said there will be more films"? Being an admin, you should know that isn't enough to negate crystal balling. I point you to Canceled Superman films (that's 20 years of a studio saying "we will make a film", and yet nothing happened). Everything that is verifiable is already on the "series" page, and not stable enough to warrant an entire article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the deletion review, and it's pretty apparent that there were numerous editors that endorsed its deletion and were fine with a redirect to the film series article. Just because somebody puts together the preliminary information well does not mean the film warrants its own article. The studio says that it will make the film. However, there is no contract renewal at the moment for the director and the cast, and there has been no production start date set yet. The lack of actual project activity is a clear indication of crystal balling. Look at why Gears of War got deleted -- an announcement is not enough to warrant the creation of an individual article. I am not opposed to providing information about a possible film as it comes along, but there has been nothing concrete in terms of actual production. The concept of development hell isn't outdated; it is still very true these days. Take a look at my aggregated headlines for future films and see how many projects have been in development. The headlines are in chronological order, so you can see that announcements do not equate actual production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bignole, based on your comments, I don't think you understand the circumstances here -- the deletion was the consequence of a move into article-space of all-new material, written and sourced by Uncle G (an impartial admin, and one of our very best article-writers.) The DRV permitted this reposting; while you're free to contend that it violates WP:CRYSTAL, this is not a settled question. In general, Erik and your own somewhat belligerent remarks suggest you are both much too heavily invested in this to be redirecting without seeking a consensus first. If you really believe your claims, take the article to AfD. Otherwise, let it be. The article is new, sourced, and (at least arguably) meets an exception to WP:CRYSTAL. Trying to argue with me is pointless -- I'm simply enforcing dispassionately a common-sense solution to the DRV. Indicating that I'm somehow unaware of policy, or less-versed in it than you two, is not productive here. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Uncle G was using the information that we've always had. It's in the series article. We've had that info since it was last deleted. There was nothing new, and if you say you read the information (and not simply looked to see if the sources were reliable) then I have to assume you don't have a clear understanding of the crystal ball policy. Sony says they want to make more films is not an exception to the rule, because they aren't the first people to say the same thing about future films. BTW, Uncle G came into the deletion review on May 9, that is hardly "late in the review". The DVR was clear that people felt the page should stay deleted. I've gone to the AfD (which is the second one). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bignole (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

User:ALM_scientist/Including_Muhammad_Pictures_Against_wiki-policies

Thank you. I will not remove comments from its talk page any more. --- A. L. M. 18:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

List of cvg collector/limited editions TALK page?

[4] Does this not get restored along with the article itself after it has been deleted? Especially since there was some needed information on the talk page - like a handful of titles to be added into the list. At the very least - could you provide me with access or a way to see it so I can get that information again? Thanx Deusfaux 01:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV

Hey there. I think you'd be interested in User:Badlydrawnjeff/DRV is Broken and the surrounding discussion at the DRV talk page. I'd like your input one way or the other as someone who closes a lot of these. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)