Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:00, 14 December 2007

This is my talk page. Like most Wikipedians, I reserve the right to refactor it for archival reasons. Please do not mark any message addition as "minor"; if you do, I won't know that you've written. Please do write: I'm lonely. Xoloz

My talk archives are here: archive1, archive2, archive3, archive4, archive5, archive6, archive7, archive8, archive9, archive10, archive11, archive12, archive13, archive14, archive15, archive16, archive17, archive18, archive19, and archive20.

Patrick Alexander (Cartoonist)

Morning! You may remember closing the discussion for the above article last month. It appears it was recreated under a different name on the very same day by a disgruntled supporter of the aricle. Please see my post on the subject here. It has already been independently renominated for deletion but the discussion was rather stunted due to only those who took part in the article's stealth recreation being present! :D Given it's a straight reproduction of this previously (twice and one review) deleted article I'd request this be deleted straight off the bat. At the very least it should be relisted in AfD. Many thanks. Hen Features 04:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5 there is a review of Patrick Alexander (cartoonist). The user who recreated that page got very frustrated, created a puppet, and used the puppet to create nearly identical text at Patrick A. Reid (that is not GFDL compliant, given the deleted history of the original title). (No I didn't. DollyD (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)) You closed the DRV as "Deletion endorsed. Interested parties are welcome to compose newly sourced drafts in userspace, and bring those to DRV for discussion. Title protected-blank (salted) per consensus below." The other article went to AFD, and got a keep closure yesterday from User:Hut 8.5, an admin, which is quite reasonable on the evidence of that AFD. But it sure feels like abusively asking another parent. (I've blocked the puppet, though since it was only used once over a month ago I haven't done anything about the puppetmaster.) The editor that flagged my attention has also flagged Hut 8.5's. GRBerry 05:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Update: Admin Hut8.5 has called the article back in for a deletion review. To my mind it's a speedy delete, and I've made my point on the review. Hen Features 08:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a novel procedural headache. Unfortunately, the closed AfD could be argued to form a new consensus (even though it was obviously concluded without full information.) A DRV is probably the proper course, to ensure that the invalidation of the latest AfD also has community support, if nothing else. I don't think a speedy close at the DRV is appropriate, but I won't argue with anyone who does so. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby 11:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan image DRV

Hi Xoloz. I added a warning to Happyme22's page. It may need more than that, so I asked Angr to look into it. Thanks for the note. -- Jreferee t/c 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

User box on my page

Is it normal not to give the person who created something time to respond before you go and delete it? That tag was put on my USER page at 4 pm local, and was deleted before I even had a chance to respond to it. I am still at work and had intended to mark respond top the tag when I got home.

Bad Mojo.

Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

Cheers

I replied on my talk page. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thx spam

Thank you, Xoloz, for supporting my RfB, which I withdrew at a final tally of (33/12/1). I failed to overcome the not unforeseeable opposition, but I am humbled by some extremely supportive, encouraging words I could read. In order to honor your trust, I once again vow to continue working and improving. Please contact me should you have any advice or recommendation to give. Or, should you need assistance. I am, as will always be, at your service. Again, please accept my most sincere gratitude. Best regards, Húsönd 02:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To you, Xoloz, I would like to express even greater gratitude for the way you defended me, in circumstances where should I use my own words, I could be rest assured that they would be manipulated right against me. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 02:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Curious...

I'm not quite so sure you did the right thing by endorsing that deletion, but I guess it's done. I did mention that the original seemed to me that there wasn't actually consensus...but what I really want to say, is I'm willing to bet a few people will be flaming you about this. Possibly digging up to see if you've ever mentioned the spoiler issue before...so just a heads up in case you didn't realize just how hot a topic this is and how passionate both sides have taken the issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind warning. :) Fortunately, I've never said anything about the spoiler issue before; if anything, I have a little history of disagreement with Guy's controversial closures (though not enough to amount to a bias.) In this case, the consensus was just overwhelming: about 2-1 in favor of endorsing, which, for a contentious DRV, is quite a large margin. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. In I dunno, 3 CfDs and maybe 2 Deletion Reviews, the "consensus" ranged from 2-1 to 3-1 for either Keep the Erdos Number Categories, or Overturn the deletion of the categories. But you ruled the "consensus" was opposite to the count in all those cases, correct? So the meaningfulness of the count varies around, from significant, in whatever this case Melodia mentions, to misleading, in the Erdos Number Case? I had been arguing the "consensus was just overwhelming" but it got me nowhere. So far. Pete St.John (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, Pete, to suggest that numerical support can have varying importance. In cases where policy is clear, only good arguments will succeed, irrespective of numbers. In cases where there is no over-arching policy, numerical support can have more meaning. You'd do well, Pete, to stick to your own case (and I never heard back from you on those issues), and not to confuse two cases, since (by your own admission), you don't really know what Melodia is talking about. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just struck by the vivid contrast. So we agree that more should be said than "the count was overwhelming". And indeed, I'm not familiar with Melodia's issue and don't mean to butt in on that. And indeed, I'm spread a little thin just with my own case. If there is a particular specific thing you'd like me to answer sooner than later, please point me and I'd be happy to. Elsewise I'm taking my time building my case for RfA as it's so complex over so much material. But I really don't mean to neglect any particular questions. Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

More crossposting. You wrote at my page (thanks):

• "Oh no, I have no specific questions for you... I simply would have expected a relevant reply before a tangential one, but -- this being a wiki -- you are free to comment as you wish, more or less. Good luck with the RfAr -- if it is accepted, it will certainly be trail-blazing and unprecedented, and I'd look forward to the result. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)"

I consider the "overwhelming counts" as admissable evidence for consensus, as you do too in some cases, so I consider this relevant and not tangential. And yes, I have to read through some RfAr. Hopefully there is precedent for overturning administrative fiat that flatly and blatantly contradicts strong, vivid, professionally debated consensus, in favor of ill-enunciated theories being only now proposed as new wiki guidlines, after the fact. (It's too early to say that they are not being well received, maybe they will be). Thanks for the good wishes, and I hope you look forward to participating, and not merely awaiting the result, as I think at the very least you can help maintain the civil tone of the discussion :-) Pete St.John (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV is to review if the deletion discussion went how it should. Regardless of the inevitable fate of that template, you closing the DRV as delete is a disrespectful slap in the face to everyone involved. The deletion did not reflect consensus, and it did not reflect deletion policy. Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with the template being dead, but this is not how you handle things. I'll be relisting this for another DRV. -- Ned Scott (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Aaah, who the heck am I kidding. When I stop and think about it, I'm mildly irritated by the situation, but really can't blame you for doing what you think is right. Especially given that the outcome of all of this doesn't actually change anything. Sorry for my harsh words, and my over-reaction. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Since you said that arguments matter to you more than anything else, I suppose I might ask why you would delete a template for a guideline that is still in effect. There has been no consensus at WP:SPOILER to eliminate spoiler warnings; even those who wish to see them gone admit this. Indeed, all but the most ardent opponents of the warnings have conceded that the tags are occasionally appropriate (that is, there is consensus for at least a minimal usage of the spoiler warnings). So why eliminate the means of fulfilling the guideline? If we are to have spoiler warnings then ipso facto we require a warning template. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's a good point, PoMo Beatnik, but here's the problem: unlike policy (which can outright override a fallacious XfD consensus in certain circumstances), guidelines exist only to guide consensus, hence the name. They cannot overrule the course of a discussion; the folks at the DRV were well-aware of WP:SPOILER, and spoke little of it. I suppose they assumed that the guideline could be adapted to account for the template's loss, that "current fiction" could be reinserted in place, or that a new template (to cover whatever other exceptional needs may arise) could be designed. One could say that the DRV result -- which was decisive, even overlooking an unfortunately defective XfD close in the interest of the right result -- serves as evidence that the guideline is now dis-established. While guidelines exist to "guide" XfD discussion, they are relatively fragile, and a strong result saying "ignore this!" can be fatal to a guideline. Policy, above the consensus of any one XfD, is obviously a different matter. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your response; and given the information available to you, I respect the decision you made. For what it is worth, I have exposed the fallacious reasoning in every major argument used in support of deletion since the beginning of this discussion in the talk history, though I have not yet gotten around to collecting it all into a single essay as I have promised. Obviously, it is unreasonable to expect you (or anyone) to scour the talk history in search of something you didn't even know was there. However, would such an essay—assuming it was convincing—warrant relisting or re-creation of the template? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, we also run the risk of un-trackable in-line warnings that don't use a template at all. -- Ned Scott 23:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  This just sounds like an attempt to re-litigate a discussion that didn't turn out the way you had hoped. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  Given that I don't support the use of the spoiler template, you are wrong about that. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The in-line warnings are tracked at User:Tony Sidaway/searches/spoiler. There are about half a dozen of these per day, not enough to cause serious problems.

I think it's worth noting, however, that in my experience there always seemed to be more of those than transclusions of {{spoiler}} every time I checked over the past few months. Mainly for that reason I don't expect the incidence of such home-made spoiler tags to increase significantly now that the template is gone. --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Closure of the Deletion Review of the Template:Spoiler TFD

When closing this deletion review, I think you ignored that the TFD was closed early by JzG. WP:TFD says "Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised." The nominator's timestamp was 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC) and the closing admin's timestamp was 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC). The TFD was not listed for more than seven days. Could you please review your decision? --Pixelface (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Pixelface, I'm sorry. There were valid process complaints against JzG -- he did have prior involvement (this received much discussion), and he did close a little early (this received less discussion, but was noted.) I don't like the way JzG handled this, personally, and I don't like past cases where he has behaved similarly either. I, however, am constrained in closing to abide by consensus. The deletion supporters at the debate discussed JzG directly, and uniformly came to the conclusion that his process-defects shouldn't overturn the result, which they judged proper. The deletion supporters also addressed the template directly, arguing that it was unencyclopedic, having a net negative effect on the project. The deletion supporters also had numerical supremacy, a factor which is not determinative or conclusive alone, but can weigh heavily in certain circumstances.

The deletion opponents largely didn't address the merits of the template itself, a key oversight on their part. They focused instead on past history (the depopulation of the category, which is not a subject for deletion review -- ArbCom saw that case, and rejected it), together with JzG's problematic conduct. Again, personally, I'm sympathetic. JzG was the wrong person to close that debate, in my personal opinion, and was being provocative in doing so. As an impartial closer, however, I cannot ignore that a sizable majority met that argument head on with a rejoinder of "small defect, right result", an argument permitted under WP:NOT a bureaucracy. I also cannot ignore that deletion supporters were alone in reaching the issue of the merits of the template, and that their arguments, unrebutted, where convincing. By the argument and by the numbers, deletion supporters succeeded despite JzG. His involvement was a regrettable error, judged by consensus to have been insignificant in reaching the right result. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

An excellent, well-constructed answer, Xoloz, and I think people should take note of it. I'm glad you participate in DRV. :) DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Xoloz. I'm glad the deletion review was closed by an admin without a prior position on the matter. I did not discuss the merits of the template because WP:DRV says "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question". I don't really consider DRV as TFD Round 2. And I really don't think arguments such as "dead horse" apply to deletion review, or any deletion discussion really. I think the TFD was brought to deletion review because Nydas felt that JzG interpreted the consensus at the TFD incorrectly. Nydas said "Abruptly deleted by JzG, a strident opponent of spoiler warnings, despite being a clear example of no consensus." WP:DRV says "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly" and "It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." Jreferee seemed to be the only person who endorsed the closure of the TFD who mentioned consensus. The deletion review was closed earlier by JoshuaZ where he overturned the deletion, but some editors told him that may look like a conflict of interest because he has shown support for the template in the past, so he reverted his closure. Nevertheless, I will support your decision. Thank you for explaining your reasoning and thank you again for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you consider "numerical supremacy" and the "majority" as you said and go "by the numbers", I think it should be noted that 22 people argued to keep and 22 people argued to delete in that TFD and only 4 people who argued to delete mentioned the {{current fiction}} template, which JzG said had consensus. The administrator JoshuaZ said the TFD showed no consensus, so you may want to re-evaluate how you examine deletion reviews in the future. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, what do you think is a valid reason for overturning or relisting an Xfd? --Pixelface (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply at Pixelface's talk. Xoloz (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

mass del

No worries! All those redirects were starting to give me headaches! — xaosflux 04:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For doing hard and quality work, I award you this Barnstar in recognition for all that you do here. Acalamari 18:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

School consensus

I've created a project page: Misplaced Pages:SCHOOLCONSENSUS, because of a village pump proposal. I thought you'd might be interested in participating. --victor falk 06:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Jamie Szantyr

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jamie Szantyr. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Emurphy42 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Capture-bonding

I was requested by User:Jreferee to provide a new reference version. I asked where and got no answer. So I posted it in the deletion review after consulting User:Chick Bowen who had closed the deletion review (he said) 11 hours early. The new version was was deleted by User:Trialsanderrors four hours later who said "Rm draft article. This is not the sandbox. Please post on separate page and link to it." Trialsanderrors had posted hostile remarks on the deletion review.

Then you closed the deletion review 3.5 hours after that--I am sure without seeing that there was the requested new version or evaluating the references.

I have no idea of where it is considered the correct place to "post on a separate page."

Please advise what (if anything) I should do. Thanks, Keith Henson (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC) hkhenson@rogers.com

I didn't realize that Keith meant to post his new version directly into the debate; I moved it to User:Hkhenson/Capture bonding. I also mentioned to him when I unclosed the debate that someone else was likely to come along quite soon and close it. I don't see any point in reopening the debate again; a new DRV is a possibility, I suppose, but I'm sufficiently familiar with the history here to judge. Chick Bowen 18:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry--I meant insufficiently familiar. . . Chick Bowen 23:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

To my eyes, the draft is substantially improved, more than enough to escape CSD G4 (deletion of reposted content.) I'm not even sure it requires an AfD, but that is at editorial option. It now seems like a fine article to me, and I will move it to mainspace. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Keith Henson (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA/Communication Skills

In my RfA, you opposed because partially because of my communication skills. As I hope to work on them before attempting another RfA, I would like some advice from you on how best to improve my communication skills. What suggestions can you give to help me fix this? Captain panda 21:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV closure

One thing that was totally lacking in these discussions (which you referred to and no one else did) was Misplaced Pages:Consensus can change. I seriously was waiting for it and was hoping for such a discussion. But that wasn't present. And honestly, your closure may seem to suggest that such "non-discussion" by participants indicates "consensus". - jc37 15:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It could be "consensus by silence"... or it could be a lack of abstract thinking. Folks are so accustomed to thinking that "precedent matters" in their daily life (especially if, as Americans, their popular media is deluged with approximately 300,000 versions of Law & Order, CSI, and other nifty cop shows) that they don't question the application of it. "Precedent" -- oh well, must abide by that!

When I was developing my wiki-identity in deletion policy discussions, "precedent" was basically a forbidden word. "There are no precedents -- WP:NOT a court of law" -- it felt like I saw that thirty times a day. I always thought that view was excessive -- precedent can be useful, if applied with care and discrimination, and with fair chance of rebuttal -- but I never thought CfD would boil down to closures where "precedent" was cited with basically no explanation. Times can change, I guess, and that is a natural and good thing; but, whatever one takes the force of precedent to be, when one invokes it, one must give the reasoning behind it. Otherwise, it's merely an empty word. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

TO respond to your post, yes and no...

But before delving into that, I don't think you understood my post. I have no problem with the rap on the knuckles for not more clearly explaining my nominations. (And think for a moment, with the statements that were being made, I could very well have done so, or at the very least added a link to the previous discussions.) The thing is, that never was asked, and discussion never happened. Are you missing the irony that no one explained their POV, and were themselves relying on "precedent"? : ) - This was a great opportunity to teach Wikipedians how to participate in discussions, which instead will likely lead to more drama.

Anyway, I really think that overturn/keep is a rather bad "precedent" to set, especially with what I am sure will be a mis-using of your closure comments.

So that said, I'm asking that you a.) expand/clarify your comments and b.) change it to a relist, since, as I think I clearly noted, there was little to no actual "discussion" of the category. - jc37 15:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh goodness, this is that "overturn" problem rearing itself -- I never meant to chastise anyone in particular, and especially not you. Sorry for the confusion. Nominators may use whatever rationale they like: given that force of habit sometimes reduces AfD nominators to nominations of the manner "NN", and that these are accepted, I will never fault a nominator for not explicating every possible point of objection in his nomination: to do so would be demanding clairvoyance of you. If there is an individual at fault, it is the CfD closer, but even he can't be blamed over much for not thinking of a good objection no one brought up. What the DRV consensus said was: "bad result" -- no blame was placed or is meant to be placed on any person, just an outcome.

As to the relisting, I didn't specify it because someone at DRV said that other similar cases exist; in anticipation of the possibility of seeing them, I didn't want to suggest that an immediate relisting was mandated. However, as my restoration log makes clear, relisting remains at editorial option. You, or anyone so desiring, are free to relist immediately, if you wish. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is any particular sentence that could amend my closure to make it clearer to those with your POV, please suggest the phrasing. I'm a little blind here, because I thought I was being quite precise, and I seem to have failed. I'm sorry. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries, (I almost feel now as if I should apologise for making you feel bad, which of course was never my intent.)

As for me, I sincerely was expecting the rap on the knuckles. My only defense is that I initially made the noms as such because the "precedent" was recent; and after-the-fact realised that this "could" be a way to see a discussion occur. Sadly, I was disappointed.

Anyway, what you just wrote above:

• Nominators may use whatever rationale they like: given that force of habit sometimes reduces AfD nominators to nominations of the manner "NN", and that these are accepted, I will never fault a nominator for not explicating every possible point of objection in his nomination: to do so would be demanding clairvoyance of you. If there is an individual at fault, it is the CfD closer, but even he can't be blamed over much for not thinking of a good objection no one brought up. What the DRV consensus said was: "bad result" -- no blame was placed or is meant to be placed on any person, just an outcome.

Would you please add that to your closing rationale?

And maybe (though probably not necessary) - slightly refactored from your comment above:

• I'm not specifying relisting because someone below said that other similar cases exist; in anticipation of the possibility of seeing them, I don't want to suggest that an immediate relisting is mandated. As my restoration log makes clear, relisting remains at editorial option. Anyone so desiring, is free to relist immediately, if they wish.

That should resolve my concerns.

And again, I apologise if I came across in any way untoward. - jc37 16:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding that whole thing to my closure would make it the longest I've ever seen at DRV, something I'd prefer to avoid. I'll notate the closure with a reference to see the remarks here at your talk page. I hope that will suffice. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but we can't be trend setting? : )

Hopefully a link will be fine. I can always link to this discussion (here or its eventual place in your archive) should we have further issues/drama along these lines.

Thanks for your help, clarification, and consideration : ) - jc37 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, oops. I just saw you linked to my talk page. Which I suppose is fine, though it only has half the discussion : ) - jc37 06:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Capture bonding

Hi Xoloz, I was surprised to see this article in mainspace again. The only significant change between the current version and this old version is a citation to an article by Keith Henson--all the other sources are the same, except that Henson's article in The Human Nature Review has been taken out. Henson's article in Mankind Quarterly was discussed at the DRV, where there was consensus that Henson's article wasn't a good enough source. This looks like reposting of deleted content to me; what am I missing? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Capture bonding (2nd nomination). Trying my best to wrap this thing up once and for all. . . Chick Bowen 18:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Xoloz, Thanks for the reply--and no worries, I'm sure the AfD will give us an unambiguous result. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jamie Szantyr. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Swalwell, Alberta

Do you think it's worth pursuing the AfD close by a non-admin who participated in the discussion? This really is a nothing place without any news coverage. The only reason this stand-alone article exists is because Misplaced Pages Review has decided one of their pet targets lives.AN -- Jreferee t/c 19:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Coredesat already addressed the matter. Thanks anyways. -- Jreferee t/c 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Scott5114's RFA

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my recent RFA nomination. I have withdrawn the nom early at 17/13/3. I am presently going to undergo admin coaching in preparation for a second candidacy somewhere down the line. I hope to see your potential support in the future. Regards, —Scott5114↗ 07:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

User:PaperWings147

Hello Xoloz,
You speedily deleted this page which I had put up on MfD yesterday. I was wondering if you could place a temporary copy of it into my userspace, User:Onorem/Temp would work, so that I can let the people who were using the page retrieve the information. I've been following along a thread on their forums, and they seem pretty upset about losing a lot of info that wasn't being stored anywhere else. As a sort of peace offering, I'm planning on starting up a free wiki for them over at wikispaces and posting the info that was previously at User:PaperWings147. If that sounds acceptable to you, I'd appreciate your help with getting the old info. Thanks. --Onorem♠Dil 12:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. I appreciate the help. --Onorem♠Dil 13:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament opinion polls

Could you undelete this, so it can be moved to a more appropriate title and tidied. See Scottish Parliament election, 2007 and Talk:Scottish Parliament election, 2007. Catchpole (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg you express your vote at meta

Hello, I am lmo:user:Belinzona from Lombard wikipedia (A Swiss user). We met in DEc 2006 while votine against the confirmation of the steward Snowdog (you told his behaviour to be very unbecoming). I beg you take a look at this page:  : someone has proposed to close the wikipedia I work at: I beg you read the page and check what kind of request it is. In my view it's a racist one, with a political vein, against a minority working hard to spread knowledge in its language. If you agree, I kindly ask you express a vote for keeping our project. Many thanks anyway, --85.2.133.37 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (lmo:user:Belinzona)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Li Na (daughter of Mao Zedong)

I noticed you made a comment at the above AFD. I was wondering if you wanted to qualify your "keep" with regards to individual articles. Are all 5 individually notable or do some of them not qualify? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring I'd like input on

I raised a thread at AN/I: #Edit warring at a set of Israeli/Palestinian articles; admins please review my action. Back in early September, you closed the AFD I mention therein, in a way that somewhat suggested splitting the article. After recent edit warring, they tried the split, and that was being edit warred over. I protected both articles, but am looking for a better solution. Thanks. GRBerry 23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Kids Across America

I saw you were involved in the deletion of Kanakuk camps, and was wondering, not being actively involved in deletions often myself, whether a similar case could be made for Kids Across America.D-rew (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tiffanie Story

Still kinda fail to see how she's notable, and it never even states "former Miss Nevada" on the page. wondering what to do... Bouncehoper (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If i where you i would re read the text regarding Tiffanie Story... it does say she was a former Miss Nevada and she has probably done more noteable things in her life than you ever have!

She does alot for the community and cancer research, works two jobs, hosts an ever growing TV show.

It would be greatly appreciated if you would remove your comment as Tiffanie is someone who is just staring off in her caree.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.74.115 (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Xoloz. Mine's on my talk page.

Bouncehoper (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello there again, Xoloz. I did put it on AfD and would love your input. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tiffanie Story Thanks! :)

Bouncehoper (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Dear Xoloz, Thank you for your support comment in my recent RfA. That meant a great deal to me. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Misplaced Pages, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence and perceptiveness. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: My (Deskana's) ArbCom candidacy

Hello Xoloz. I was wondering if you still planned to oppose my candidacy for the Arbitration Committee. Your concerns may now be alleviated, since we have a new bureaucrat and four new checkusers. I've found myself substantially less busy. I understand either way, I am simply curious. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand your position more thoroughly now. --Deskana (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou re: Image:Carlos-Smith.jpg

That was one of the worst copyright-paranoia deletions I've yet seen, thank you for restoring it. <eleland/talkedits> 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

• " The fact is that there are several candidates who frighten me, so great is their unfitness to the task."

I suppose this is one reason to feel relieved that ArbCom is actually by appointment, not be election. - jc37 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the single worst candidate worked as the secretary to the guy who makes the appointments. I have little confidence in Jimbo's ability to discern that folks he is close to might be horribly unfit. Jimbo appointed Kelly Martin and Essjay without community input, after all. Point is, I have much more faith in the community than in Wales; I concur with GRBerry's assessment that, as he moves further and further away from daily involvement in Misplaced Pages, his choices resemble a "random action generator" more than anything. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Only one word to describe that: Ouch! - jc37 10:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well in looking over the elections so far, I'm guessing that they will be one of the following:

• User:Deskana
• User:FayssalF
• User:FT2
• User:Manning Bartlett
• User:Newyorkbrad
• User:Raul654
• User:Rebecca
• User:Sam Blacketer
• User:Thebainer

In looking through the comments, the main concerns of some seem to be lack of activity or experience. Do any of these 8 "frighten" you? - jc37 19:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes - One does, but only mildly. Two years is a long time, so perhaps she's reformed. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if (AFAIK), there's only a single female in those 8, I suppose that's an easy guess : )

I will say that if this is the group, I'm a bit more relieved that I was at the outset. Though I have noticed that there are those who are voting against everyone except their "faves", in order to "weight" the election. (One is even admitting to it : )

Personally I'm not done reading the Q&A for each cantidate (and I'll likely not vote on every cantidacy), but I'll be voting for or against regardless of whether they are "ahead" or not : ) - jc37 02:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you that the community has better judgment than Jimbo Wales (if it had been up to him, Kelly Martin would still be a sysop and arbitrator). It just proves the point that no one can be trusted with too much power. Luckily, the current leading candidates don't frighten me too much (I trust Newyorkbrad, and although I don't know FayssalF or FT2 all that well, they both seem OK). I'd prefer not to see Deskana or Raul654 elected simply because of the concentration of power issues (no one should be both bureaucrat and arbitrator IMO; as a lawyer, I'm sure you'll agree that Misplaced Pages needs ArbCom to be a genuinely independent tribunal, not the apex of a wiki-"establishment" power structure). Walton 11:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed it, but anyway, added User:Sam Blacketer to the list above as well.

Unless they increase the size of the tranche this year, however, it looks like a couple people that I supported won't make it (pretty much due to concerns of inactivity): User:Manning Bartlett and User:Raul654. - jc37 05:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a general note: Voting against everyone but your choices shouldn't be something you "admit" to, implying there is something wrong with it. It's a basic function of the method of pseudo-democracy chosen. Look at how different that list would be *cough Ginao snort* if there was no oppose column. In fact, if you don't activly oppose everyone you don't support, you've misunderstood the system. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How about the counter view: What if the support columns were removed? : ) - jc37 05:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I just checked. Deskana, Raul654, and Rebecca leave the top 9, replaced by Shell Kinney, John Reaves, and David Fuchs. - jc37 05:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Update

• User:Deskana
• User:FayssalF
• User:FT2
• User:Manning Bartlett
• User:Newyorkbrad
• User:Raul654
• User:Rebecca
• User:Sam Blacketer
• User:Thebainer

Well I struck out the ones who can't seem to stay in the 70s (and one dropped to 59). If it's 5, then (unless there's a sudden upswell from "somewhere"), then it looks like we have our 5 new members. - jc37 23:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because you've been closing tracking it...

It occurred to me that six ArbCom members might well be appointed, since (sadly) Flcelloguy has apparently stopped editing altogether. Thankfully, the last frightening candidate is still on the outside, but just barely... Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I'm not happy that I missed that. Impressive Wikipedian, in my opinion. He was one of the few I voted for last time. I noticed several people concerned on his talk page. I also hope he is doing well. - jc37 01:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Flyweight (mechanism)

Hi there. I notice you deleted Flyweight (mechanism) on 2007 08 27. I'm unable to find discussion of the matter on AfD, and it seems to me a legitimate subject for an article (perhaps starting out as a Mechanical Engineering stub). I would ordinarily go ahead and create the article, but as it's been previously deleted, I thought I'd ask why before proceeding. Thanks. --Scheinwerfermann 19:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Block 198.143.78.122

Could you consider blocking 194.153.71.122? I'm really gay so I want this feller banned

Some insight

Before I ask, I want to make it clear that I'm not looking to see another person's closure overturned.

But rather I'm just curious as to what your insight would be.

In looking over the Dec 5 DRV of Eagle Scouts, ignore (don't read) the closure, but please go through and tell me how you would have closed it. I don't intend to quote you or anything, I'm just curious. (I'm asking both you and Chick Bowen. You, for obvious reasons, and him because he rather impressed me recently : )

Thank you in advance : ) - jc37 10:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I already saw it. It was closed early, in a fashion I would call anomalous. As I have no special authority to overturn another's DRV closure, I'd suggest you ask Johntex to revert himself: he's a good fellow, and I think he'll realize that he was unduly seized by enthusiasm. If he doesn't, an RfC would be a good way forward. My comment is not intended to suggest that the ultimate result was necessarily wrong, only that the closing rationale looks insufficient to support an early DRV closure, leaving the result suspect, and open to claims of possible bias on the part of the closer. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly wasn't requesting that of you (and was trying, though apparently unsuccessfully, to make that clear).

That said, in reading what you did say, I can see that it would probably not be prudent for you to now comment on how you may or may not have closed it.

I already have left a note on his talk page about the "fictional" category part of this group nomination. I think for now, I'll wait and see from there.

Thank you very much for your response. - jc37 10:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I really can't say how I would have closed the thing, because I would never close a contentious debate a day early. My mind is sufficiently slow (or robotic -- either adjective works) that I cannot extrapolate from an incomplete set of data: I'm too obsessed with what might have happened tomorrow. :)

I knew you weren't asking me to overturn the thing -- mostly, I typed that just to remind myself. :) Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood, and understood. Thanks again : ) - jc37 11:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: I suppose I more fully responded at User_talk:Chick_Bowen#Some_insight. Rather than paste it here, I'll just give you the link : ) - jc37 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Hyde

Hello, Xoloz ... FYI, Rachel Hyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a "clone" of the Rachel Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article (i.e., same fictional character, but a different surname, and the logs show that they have ping-ponged through redirects/moves), a WP:COPYVIO that you recently pruned when you noticed it in this AfD ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.199 (talk · contribs) 20:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Red State Update

Please recreate Red State Update as it was and renominate for normal deletion so that I may have time to defend it. Thanks. --AStanhope (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked politely. I have been editing here for more than 3 years and have appx. 4000 edits. Please reconsider your response. Thank you. --AStanhope (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why the assholism? --AStanhope (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Misplaced Pages trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

Thanks so much for your strong support. That means a lot -- I don't know if you know it, but I've always looked to see what you and the late, great Crzrussian have had to say about various RfA candidates. --A. B. 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful with a vote of 33/7/4.

I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Great success

Dear Xoloz,

Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. It was very heartening to receive such support from someone who had certainly seen the less impressive sides of my contributions. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day!

Cordially,
— xDanielx /_C\ 06:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Paul McGuire

Thanks for that, I should really have thought of that myself, especially after I originally salted the real article by mistake. The perils of late-night editing when tired :) BLACKKITE 19:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 24 support, 3 oppose, and 3 neutral. I promise to work my hardest to improve the Wiki with my new tools.

--Michael Greiner 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Watt

Please unsalt this article so it can redirect to Club Cupid. Catchpole (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Gracious close - decision inevitable, if regrettable. RfD would be predictable, so I'm done with issue myself. Although, I have this feeling it won't be the end of the matter somehow. --Doc 14:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the surprising thing was for 6 days no-one noticed the deletion. If it hadn't been for Durova's foolishness of asking on ANI for someone to see the deleted edits....as they say "...and I'd gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for those pesky kids!".--Doc 14:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Um, heh, whoops! You deleted the Mfd by accident. I am glad to see you are human, though. It gives me a fightin' chance!--12 Noon  15:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Brandt Housekeeping

You should probably move the earlier merged content back under the Brandt redirect to help preserve GFDL. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't much care if I'm fully reverted here now. Although the GFDL is not a reason to do it, being perfectly well protected as it stands.--Doc 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)