Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:20, 18 May 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, and archive15.

24-Hour Knowledge Factory

You recently completed the endorsement process for a deletion in review of the 24-Hour Knowledge Factory article. If you would, please send me a copy of the original article, as this was my work and will be of use to me in the future. Thank you! --Yuu.david 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hadouken!

Can you tell me why Hadouken! (band) has been deleted by you. it was done some time ago, and since this the bristish rave/metal band Hadouken! have become VERY popular, this is shown by there plays on UK tv stations and radio stations. There also have an album nearing completion, as well as a number of very popular singles. This page should be allowed for re-creation Immediately, as personally i believe it to be unfairly deleted in the first place. Thank you.

I've brought this to DRV, Xoloz. Nothing against you, I actually meant to bring this one there earlier this weekend. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken, good sir, though how you an A7-assertion here (especially compared to re:Sound) is puzzling to me. ;) Best wishes, Xoloz 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexiy

1. 20:15, 20 April 2007 Xoloz (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Alexiy Charamko" (Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alexiy Charamko)
2. 20:14, 20 April 2007 Xoloz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Alexiyno.ogg" (Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alexiy Charamko)
3. 20:14, 20 April 2007 Xoloz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Alexiy lol.jpg" (Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alexiy Charamko)

Could you restore these for me please? Alexiy Charamko 12:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head. Aquarius • talk 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fred Sampson

You had no right to do that to me with out contacting me, I have been very busy, I have been meaning to do more work on it. I will be putting my page back on. It is not that dormant, this is my user account, please show me in the rules where I can't have my own sandbox wrestlers for records for possible future use? Govvy 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sad now, I feel like there are so many people trying to destroy the wrestling project and my sandbox wrestler I was trying to work on, it was a place holder, but still, I was planning on working on it. :( *cries* Govvy 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Independent Wrestling Federation, LLC

I was wondering if you can get me the last page of this if it existed. I pretty sure it was an article at one point. I just wanted to see what was there and hopefully build something with that wrestling organisation. Regards Govvy 23:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Govvy/images

two of my images I have uploaded have been leBOTtamised, I have made sure there are free use, but I am not sure what went wrong. What the bot has done. Thought maybe you could tell me exactly, but the Govvy/images is to help me keep track on the images I have uploaded, hopefully you can help out and explain something to me. Regards Govvy 10:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S My talk page is getting rather long, why isn't it being auto-archived? Govvy 10:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

nooooooooooooooooooooooooo, my gallery of wiki images..... :~( *cries* again. Now how are you going to compensate for thaT? I will expect you will have to do a list for me so I can remember what I have uploaded!! Because I feel everyone is destroying my wiki experience!! :( Govvy 16:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

you know

there are so many problems with wikipedia! Like that dam wiki war on the Wrestling Project, you got those trying to delete everything, claiming citation is needed, even know there is in a way, adequate citation in my view. You have wiki-politics going on... what the hell... then you got user pages, that have to be in a set ... standard... or something. I am personally getting fed-up with wikipedia, people are getting away from the basics and the whole project, wiki seems to be destroying itself from the inside out. I wont ever get a peaceful experience will I... Govvy 17:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD

OK, that fine, I understand. I did actually look at the deletion review but I didnt realise G4 didnt apply, apologies for any inconvenience caused. Regards — The Sunshine Man 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Josh Warner

Xoloz - Thanks for giving me another chance to add sources to the Josh Warner page. I have added quite a few!

I was curious if you are also able to undelete the Talk:Josh_Warner page and the

image? The Talk:Josh_Warner page had some good contributions from other people that I was trying to work in to the main page. The Image:Josh Warner LIT Magazine.jpg I can re-upload, but I'm not sure of the rules - since it was deleted.

Shaunco 07:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring these so quickly!

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:User198/WWE/PPVS/ROADRAMPAGE

Link: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:User198/WWE/PPVS/ROADRAMPAGE

Hey Xoloz, did you get interrupted while closing the above MfD? :) You've deleted most of the pages per the MfD but left one out - and haven't closed it. Just wondering! Take care, – Riana ⁂ 11:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thought it mighta been something like that :) (I'm going for the lack of sleep explanation though ;) ) No problem! – Riana ⁂ 04:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lost in Translation?

Hi. We had been communicating with regard to the deletion of the category Jewish Figure Skaters, which vote was marred by the removal without my authorization of my comments from the talk page by another editor. I checked the rules, and notice that it does not fall within what Wiki views as acceptable behavior, but my focus is on the fact that it impacted the discussion. I don't believe that I've heard a response from you, so thought that I would drop in here to see if I missed it, and if so if you might direct me to it. Could well be my failing. Thanks. Best.--Epeefleche 22:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV

Please reconsider - and if you will not please give full reasons. I find the close inexplicable and would wish to contest it.--Doc 12:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As was pointed out at DRV, the gentleman in the article is arguably a participant in his own "fame" (thus, not an object of exploitation), and is the subject of media speculation regarding Chinese internet regulations. Those two points are sufficient to "win" on the strength of argument for those who wish relisting.

Those who wish relisting also had a majority of the qualified commenters, and could point to gross, obvious process flaws. On all three relevant vectors (arguments, numbers, and process), those who wished relisting held the superior position. There are no direct appeals of DRV. You may either initiate another DRV -- which will only make you appear to be process-wonking; or, initiate an RfC. Early closure here is very, very inappropriate. It offends no policy to permit a definitive outcome to occur here. A cycle of endless appeals, wanted by no one, is likely the result of such action. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see several out of process closes (at most there might be one - but relisting with recommended times aren't binding on other admins). Daniel's first close was after 5 days of discussion and was totally valid. I think he's right to feel aggrieved by any suggestion otherwise. WjBscribe 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My comment was deliberately non-specific; I didn't intend to suggest his first closure was out-of-order, but didn't he later revert Drini? At some point, the general messiness of the situation means that pretty much everything is out of order, at the fault of no one in particular. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No - he restored Drini's close after Matt Crypto (who had participated to the discussion) reverted Drini. You comment also seems to suggest that out of process closes (if there were any) were inappropriate but the out of process reopening was not. When it was the reopening that was done by an involved admin. WjBscribe 12:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) No, I didn't revert Drini. What I did was revert Matt Crypto (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s revert of Drini's close (my action recieved universal support on ANI and DRV as a procedural one). There was only one close which could be considered even remotely "out-of-process". Daniel 12:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

To both of you -- this is exactly why reverting closures (and making new ones) is out-of-process. The entire dynamic becomes too difficult for any average commenter to follow, rendering it unfair to all participants. I have no view on whether the first closure was out-of-order, and Daniel is entitled to reverse his own closure; however, everything after that was "out-of-process" -- the situation had simply become too confused to render a sensible result. Again, that is why I named no names: the situation was a mess, the fault of no one individual. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You said "several out-of-process closes". Only two people ever 'closed' that debate - myself and Drini. You implicated both of us, and in effect named names. Daniel 12:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I see your point. What I should have said was "several out-of-process actions" to convey that I meant the confusion of both the closures and the reopenings. My apologies. "Actions" is itself not the best word, but I cannot think of another that encompasses both closings and reopenings. (That lack of vocabulary contributed to my original choice of words, which I do now agree is painfully imprecise.) Best wishes, Xoloz 13:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikis are intrinsically "out of process". That's the whole point. --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony. If a wiki this big goes "out-of-process", the resulting chaos causes it to die. Best wishes, Xoloz 13:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't died so far.--Doc 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't been "out-of-process" (on the whole) so far, either. Best wishes, Xoloz 13:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

S'pose depends what you mean by process. I ignore policy pages (indeed I never read them) and humbly do my best, using my judgement, asking advice and admitting errors - that's a process of types. I never do anything for reasons of process - always for reasons of improving content. I find that works - and I suspect many others do to. If we really used process - we would fail.--Doc 13:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I use the exact same "process" that you do, Doc (except that I do read policy pages.) I happen to think that deliberation improves the encyclopedia, and I'm not afraid to allow/encourage it when consensus calls for it. For that, some folks pillory me as a "process-wonk." :) Oh well,... just do my best. I'm not sure what "process" you think would make us fail, but it might be some abstraction that causes fear in your own mind -- it certainly isn't correspondent to what I do. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that keeps a wiki this size from seizing up under the dead weight of stupid rules applied robotically is a healthy contempt for bureacracy for its own sake. --Tony Sidaway 14:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I also have a healthy contempt for "rules for the sake of rules"; I firmly respect rules that promote deliberation and circumspection, however. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A healthy contempt for rules for the sake of rules? I think not. Here are three other nominations for deletion you made today, stating openly: "This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain".

* Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Baseball Channel (second nomination)

* Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Men in skirts

* Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Enrique A. Pollack

If you thought the article should be reconsidered, it would be enough to put a note on the talk page describing the result of the deletion review. If anyone then actually wants to list it for deletion, they can do so. There's no need for a procedural anything here. Yet you do it. This is what I mean when I talk of the pre-occupation with procedure for its own sake. --Tony Sidaway 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I do those listing to save time! In each case, someone endorsed those deletions. That's means somebody wanted those gone. I suppose we could wait for someone to do the listing; but DRV rules give me the OK to do so, for expediency, if nothing else. I'm sure you're all for the most sensible time-saving approach, so I'm surprised you couldn't figure out that explanation yourself. Sometimes, you certainly seem to miss the common-sense motivations underlying process: I think you dislike it so much because you misunderstand it so deeply. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Matt Prince

Can I ask your reasoning behind this article being kept please? The editors in favour of the article being kept - User:Lid, User:Suriel1981 and User:Theophilus75 are all members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Professional wrestling, and the article is about a professional wrestler. The sources are this (trivial coverage by a wrestling fan site, doesn't meet reliable source requirements), this (less trivial, but wrestlers can pay for profiles), plus his name on a page on this site. No amount of block voting by members of the wrestling project should override the fact there aren't multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources available surely, especially as they failed to provide such sources? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me. My point is that there are no reliable sources that demonstrate notability, wrestling fan sites by definition have profiles on any wrestler no matter how obscure so having a profile on one is not an indicator of notability, and surely as this is after all an enyclopedia we should be relying on more credible sources than wrestling fan sites to begin with? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

Qian Zhijun is back on DRV, after the AfD was closed early. As you closed the DRV discussion, you are likely to be intersted. DES 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Recall

What conditions would lead you to accept a petition for recall? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you ask? Do you feel I've abused adminship in some way? If so, how? Best wishes, Xoloz 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent DRV close was a travesty. Regular users are not permitted to close DRVs. Others have alledged this is a pattern of behavior. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to ArbCom in the Yanksox case, regular users can close DRVs (as long as they what they're doing.) So, my resignation wouldn't count much on that front. :)

I appreciate your honesty, but I am only available to be recalled by users feeling that I've abused adminship. It sounds like you only happen to disagree with one (or, perhaps many) of my decisions. Allowing for recall on that basis would be a tricky situation. I'm sure there is some regular user who disagrees with every decision ever made by anyone. If these "others" would come forward with evidence of an "abusive" "pattern of behavior," that could demonstrate the need for my recall. According to the terms of my promise at RfA, only one good-faith regular user is required to attest abuse of adminship by me. The bar is low, but subtle -- I have no intention of leaving just because someone doesn't like and/or disagrees with me. That's why I asked the question in the manner that I did. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)