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)
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.
Could you restore these for me please? Alexiy Charamko 12:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[1] Please reconsider - and if you will not please give full reasons. I find the close inexplicable and would wish to contest it.-- Docg 12:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikis are intrinsically "out of process". That's the whole point. -- Tony Sidaway 13:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia: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 Hackney 303 14:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
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 (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
What conditions would lead you to accept a petition for recall? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something? You closed the MfD for this page as already deleted when it isn't deleted (and has never been deleted)
Mr.Z-man
talk
¢
20:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I intend to close the Foul Mouth Shirts DRV as "overturn," unless new comments are made shortly. Given that you have stated that "regular users can close DRVs (as long as they what they're doing.)" I'd like to request that you restore the old revisions, unprotected, and replace the article with {{ TempUndelete}}, but please do not protect the article such that I can effect the closing. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello ... You moved
James Paul Lewis, Jr. from
Jim Lewis (convicted of fraud, 2006), but neglected to move the Discussion page, which Some Other Editor had also redirected (from
Talk:James Paul Lewis, Jr., BTW) ... it probably occurred during the AfD that I was documenting with a {{
oldafdfull}}
tag (there was a lot of renaming/reverts going on, as I recall), which is how I stumbled across the discrepancy ... given that situation (and my fear of accidentally creating a circular redirect), I am loathe to attempt yet another redirect on my own ... would you please fix it? Happy Editing! —
68.239.79.82
21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should consider revising the MoS to counsel that the title of a biographical article be the name of the subject followed by the incident or event for which he or she is most notable or notorious. I can just picture all the prospective George W. Bush titles; we might even be able to waive BLP because he is almost surely, at this point, libel-proof. :) Joe 22:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Xoloz. Thank you very much for your kind support on my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I feel thrilled and hope to live up to your expectations. If you see me doing anything inappropriate, please do let me know. Thanks once again :) ~ All the best, PeaceNT 04:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC) P.S Please don't ever feel lonely, I would love to talk to you anytime. You rule!
Smile a little, smile a little, all along the road; Smile upon the troubled pilgrims whom you pass and meet; Smile upon your undone labour; not for one who grieves
|
I find the attitude behind this concerning. It smacks of an established DRV regular trying to assert ownership of the process. I'm sure that's not the signal you would want to send out. There is no DRV cabal. Yes, there can be a problem with inexperienced people closing things, but only if they get them wrong, or inadvertently wade into controversies. That was not the case. I have reinstated the original valid closure. Thanks.-- Docg 18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat -- Ned Scott 05:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering why the page for Actors Movement Studio was deletEd? please let me know i am not awaRe of the criteriA to creAte a paGE? or i do not understand it? (
Actorsmovementstudio
16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC))
Dear Xoloz, thank you for your persistence and your gracious presence. I can't follow everything that's been going on lately (actually I can barely follow anything that's been going on), but I am glad you are here for us all. Take care, Kla'quot 05:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey there. How did you come to deletion endorsed on this? Reply here. The strength of argument clearly wasn't on the deletion side. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
You're officially driving me nuts, Xoloz. What's with that closure of Allison Stokke? At no point was the BLP closure supported by policy, so how can you endorse it? -- badlydrawnjeff talk 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious to why you think this should be relisted on IFD. Was the original closure according to the most numerous opinion? No, but that is common on IFD so it is not really 'out of process' (people will try to counter well reasoned arguments with 'no it isn't!' and that is exactly the case here). You seem to agree with this in your closing of the DRV. The review itself is a replay of the IFD with a little spat about if the original was even closed properly. I have no reason to believe that the second IFD is going to be any different. At some point you have to just say to one side or the other 'you are wrong', and with questions involving copyright and non-free content we should err on the side of exclusion. Kotepho 04:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Give this [2]. I suggest removing the lot and starting again. Otherwise it still contains the information for which it was speedied and the speedy endorsed.-- Docg 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.
Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You wrote that nobody provided evidence that "vandalism subpages are generally allowed." I'm not sure that they should be allowed, but I have observed that nobody raises much of a fuss about them. When (writing as my main account) I cited User:King of Hearts, I was referring specifically to User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels! The idea was, if an admin has been doing it, it must be okay. That being said, I support your closure and consider it to be well-founded in both policy and common sense. Best regards. Placeholder account 02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow! When you wrote " heap praises", you weren't kidding :-) I'm happy to inform you that my request for adminship was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Thank you again, Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Unfortunately, it appears that User:ScottAHudson has restored some of the content deemed inappropriate at the recent MfD you closed. Could you please do something to remedy the situation? Thanks. -- Maxa megalon 2000 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You've obviously been dealing with more important things lately, so I'll just move this down in case you didn't see it. -- Maxa megalon 2000 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Maxa megalon 2000 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Xoloz, you did a hell of a MessedRocker Solution job closing that DRV. ( messedrocker • talk) 01:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea! David.Monniaux 05:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this was a brilliant solution, as well! Thank you so much for your ongoing protection of my page.
~ Carla Baron
Carla Baron, this matter involves an obvious attempt to cover-up criticism of yourself. Such coverups aren't allowed here unless the information is libelous or undocumented. Articles here include criticism. Your misuse of this BLP Noticeboard will not succeed and has only brought more attention to your agenda, which is to keep criticism out of the article.
This documented criticism needs to be included:
I suspect there are other third party sources that can also be used to bring balance to the article. If there are issues with the quality (RS, V) of those sources, that is one matter, but covering up criticism violates NPOV, and there is plenty of criticism out there!
Carla, what has happened here is that you have become the victim of Wikipedia's " Law of Unintended Consequences":
Unintended consequences. |
If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels; we will not delete it simply because you don't like it. Any editor may add material to it within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually; more than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. |
This applies to all articles and to any subject, including pet ideas or favorite singer, regardless of who started the article. We need to cover the subject from all angles, and NPOV requires that both sides of the story are presented, so criticism is included. Many think they can write an article presenting a subject in the best light possible, only to find they have opened a can of worms and Pandora's box itself. Once the article is started, all kinds of negative things also become part of the article. So attempts to promote something often end up back-firing.
As we have often seen here, attempts to cover-up documented criticism only results in more unwanted attention and even better referenced criticisms being added to the article in question. We aren't interested in your idea of "truth", but in NPOV coverage of all aspects of the subject. Hagiographic articles are fine in the media or your own website, but are totally inappropriate here.
Your proper role here (since you have a conflict of interest) is to ensure that obvious libel or undocumented criticisms are corrected, and that is best done by participating at the article's talk page and convincing other editors to help you do it if they can be convinced by your arguments. If that doesn't work, then you can use this board.
The article should be restored, including the criticism. This attempt to violate NPOV and misuse this board should back-fire big. -- Fyslee/ talk 13:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Xoloz/archive16, and thank you so much for voting in my recent
RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I promise I won't erupt all over this nice Wikipedia, and I will try very hard to live up to your expectations. Please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again!
Krakatoa
Katie
19:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or drivers such as Paris Hilton. |
Dear Xoloz, thank you for you efforts to build consensus on my RfA. As you know, it was unsuccessful. I am not the type of editor to be disheartened by such a result, and have gained much experience.
I will run again, however I am concerned that I may see your name in the same place, for the same reasons. I would greatly appreciate knowing what I could do to earn your support next time.
If you have anything to contribute by way of improvements or comments, please don’t hesitate to tell me. Kind regards, Dfrg. msc 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You closed this deletion review request stating "no prejudice against a reliably-sourced recreation that avoids WP:COI issues." When I attempted to create a non-COI version (I had little involvement in the prior version of the article) that was essentially a stub, it was deleted again by the same editor and protected. You might want to give your opinion regarding this deletion review request for the stub. My suggestion is that the AfD process be used since notability is open to debate. Antonrojo 03:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! I had a question about the DRV of "sockpuppet cleanup" ( Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_31). You note that all the closings are overturned, but the relevant articles/categories do not appear to have been deleted/undeleted. Did I misinterpret you or should some bots be invoked to fix this? Cheers, >Radiant< 11:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
One issue with which we are presented with increasing frequency, as you well know, is how to evaluate discussions in which editors propose various applications of a given policy and ultimately remain divided over what course of action that policy counsels (consensus, though divined other than exclusively with respect to numbers, is generally borne out numerically, at least where !votes are grounded in an interpretation of policy that the community generally do not reject as absolutely unreasonable; how we are to determine which are rejected as absolutely unreasonable is, of course, another, ultimately recursive, matter), and under what procedural presumption we ought to operate. This issue almost surely will present itself at the Brandt AfD, where I think there will probably be majority support, but not a clear consensus, for deletion. BigDT, quite rightly, I think, and as I intended to do, has raised on the AfD talk page the question of how we ought to go about closing the discussion and whom we might choose to effect the closure; I imagine I ought to let you know that I suggested you as someone whose judgment the community might support. Of course, those who argue for a very rigorous construction of BLP might not approve of your being involved in a BLP-related closure, and so I wonder whether, if we are, per BigDT, to support closure by a team of admins through an admin chat (of which I'd be no grand fan but to which I would not have any profound objection; I suspect many others might feel similarly), you might consider partaking alongside Newyorkbrad, another generally process-inclined and well-respected admin who has tended toward the "deletionist" interpretation of BLP advanced by some. Such a situation might save us from a protracted DRV, and I expect that many might accede to any closure so engineered. If you've the time and inclination, I'll more fully flesh out such a proposal at the AfD talk page (should the rather busy Brad agree) and see if we might produce a consensus (again, I continue to think an admin chat closure to be substandard, and I continue to think that any closure other than as no consensus should be reasonable, but I don't think we would do all that poorly to find a procedure behind which the support of the community might lie). Joe 05:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
how does afd reach a census ? how does one "object" to non-census or a census. i want to object to the non-census findings for Ben_Going thanks Sexyorge 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
i totally apologize. i can tell for your user page, you must love fixing mistakes or typos. regardless thanks a whole bunch. i worked on a special census once, which could explain my utter lack of syntax and grammar (then again not sure). Sexyorge 21:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ben_Going. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sexyorge 21:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Some concern about actions by administrator User:Omegatron. Given this and this, I'm a little worried by these actions [3] and especially [4] (salted page), which was followed by this slightly surreal exchange. Also, looking at this diff, I'm starting to lose some of my AGF. I considered taking this to WP:ANI, but thought it best to alert previously involved admins first. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks, EliminatorJR Talk 01:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You undeleted the articles and specified that a merged section with good references should be created, but the same users who tried to get the article deleted are now trying to have the talk pages deleted, too (which includes the very references we would need to write a good article). Can you clarify that the talk pages for the previous articles should be kept as well as the article histories? The editors of the merged article need something to work with; there's no reason they should have to do all the research over again from scratch. Look through the References section of Talk:HHO gas, for instance. — Omegatron 03:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
please explain how you cane to the conclusion you did on this decision -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you please restore the Xpression FM page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=xpression_FM
I wanted to check something on it and discovered it had been deleted. I have been involved in some of the updates on this page and believe it is noteworthy.
The station is a member of the Student Radio Association, many of which have their own seperate pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Radio_Association
Thanks
Seddonism 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have done a deletion review. Thanks An editor has asked for a deletion review of Xpression FM. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Seddonism 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Not broken, per se. Flawed, maybe, but flaws are what make diamonds beautiful (not that 'beautiful' describes RfA either, but I digress) and humans human. That's one of the big things I was trying to get across about consensus in my statement: it's a very human process, not a mechanical one. RfA isn't broken, although like I said it won't scale well if we don't get some more bureaucrats to keep it running smoothly. At any rate, I have no current interest in reforming RfA, even if there is a better system (but I have not seen a better one as of yet). My description of the consensus system is not an idea for change but a description of the system as it works now, as I understand it, stemming from things like Polls are evil (incidentally, to which I wrote a counterpoint around the time of my second bureaucrat nomination, Voting is a tool). Sorry for the long-winded and rambling response. Andre ( talk) 04:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I do see your point. Ultimately, this is probably a matter of personal taste - for me, the dull task of vandal-fighting is made more fun by using a bit of combat terminology. :-) But I think you make a valid point about the fact that excessive aggression in vandal-fighting provokes a more confrontational attitude between vandals and regular users; you're right that there are some vandals who can be reformed, and others who are mistakenly identified as vandals but were trying to act in good faith. I also agree that we tend to suffer from the growth of bureaucracy, and that there is such a thing as too many organisations and processes, which can get in the way of working on the encyclopedia. Nonetheless, although private anti-vandalism groups are arguably redundant, I believe people should not be penalised for having them; any group based solely in userspace, provided it has a constructive purpose, should generally be allowable, and shouldn't kill an RfA. Further, I don't 100% agree with the assertion that the use of paramilitary terms and concepts is a "large deviation" from the concept of an encyclopedia (except in the sense that it creates extra bureaucracy, which we possibly don't need). I've always considered the military structure to be one of the environments in which human beings function in the most efficient and productive way (possibly that difference of opinion stems from our different RL political views, but I wouldn't want to assume that, as I know comparatively little about your views on this matter). Sorry for my lengthy response, but I just wanted to clarify what I meant. Walton talk 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in my RFA. Hiberniantears 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Xoloz, this is just housekeeping issue, I think, due to your closing of a DRV on this article. This RfD on 'The 27 Club' says that the redirect The 27 Club was deleted by Black Falcon on 3 July since the target went away due to AfD. It should probably be put back. Also Talk:27 Club isn't there; if it ever existed it should probably be restored as well. It should also have a banner about the AfD discussion that it survived. EdJohnston 01:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I read your note on my talk page and I beg to differ. The entire narrative portion of the article was copied verbatim from another website. It is of no consequence that all of the information was factual. The creative process that determines which facts to include and which to exclude is part of what makes non-fiction copyrightable. That the article had a list of members appended to the initial copy-and-paste does not alter the fact that it was a copyright violation. Thanks. -- But| seriously| folks 19:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Since you closed the WP:DRV discussion on Category:Fictional wealthy characters, I was hoping that you could help with Category:Fictional affluent characters.
The "affluent" category was nominated for deletion at WP:CFD before the "wealthy" category was brought to WP:DRV, and a lot of people discussing the "affluent" category recognized that it was the recreation of the "wealthy" category. User:Radiant! closed the discussion on the "affluent" category while the WP:DRV discussion continued on the "wealthy" category, possibly expecting that the WP:DRV discussion would lead to a decision as to what to do with the "affluent" category.
So, given the outcome of the WP:DRV discussion, would it be appropriate to delete the "affluent" category outright, or does it need to be discussed again in yet another WP:CFD discussion? (I have also contacted User:Radiant! about this, and I may try other administrators or WP:AN as well.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi seems that the WhiStle Radio submission was deleted because of a copyright infringement. I e-mailed to let you know that I am the author of the text in question, so no copyright infringement has occurred. Please reinstate the submission, thanks! WhiStle Radio 21:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
A {{
prod}} template has been added to the article
List of Paris by Nights, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached.
Postcard Cathy
01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
Could you restore these for me please? Alexiy Charamko 12:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[1] Please reconsider - and if you will not please give full reasons. I find the close inexplicable and would wish to contest it.-- Docg 12:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikis are intrinsically "out of process". That's the whole point. -- Tony Sidaway 13:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia: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 Hackney 303 14:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
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 (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
What conditions would lead you to accept a petition for recall? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something? You closed the MfD for this page as already deleted when it isn't deleted (and has never been deleted)
Mr.Z-man
talk
¢
20:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I intend to close the Foul Mouth Shirts DRV as "overturn," unless new comments are made shortly. Given that you have stated that "regular users can close DRVs (as long as they what they're doing.)" I'd like to request that you restore the old revisions, unprotected, and replace the article with {{ TempUndelete}}, but please do not protect the article such that I can effect the closing. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello ... You moved
James Paul Lewis, Jr. from
Jim Lewis (convicted of fraud, 2006), but neglected to move the Discussion page, which Some Other Editor had also redirected (from
Talk:James Paul Lewis, Jr., BTW) ... it probably occurred during the AfD that I was documenting with a {{
oldafdfull}}
tag (there was a lot of renaming/reverts going on, as I recall), which is how I stumbled across the discrepancy ... given that situation (and my fear of accidentally creating a circular redirect), I am loathe to attempt yet another redirect on my own ... would you please fix it? Happy Editing! —
68.239.79.82
21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should consider revising the MoS to counsel that the title of a biographical article be the name of the subject followed by the incident or event for which he or she is most notable or notorious. I can just picture all the prospective George W. Bush titles; we might even be able to waive BLP because he is almost surely, at this point, libel-proof. :) Joe 22:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Xoloz. Thank you very much for your kind support on my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I feel thrilled and hope to live up to your expectations. If you see me doing anything inappropriate, please do let me know. Thanks once again :) ~ All the best, PeaceNT 04:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC) P.S Please don't ever feel lonely, I would love to talk to you anytime. You rule!
Smile a little, smile a little, all along the road; Smile upon the troubled pilgrims whom you pass and meet; Smile upon your undone labour; not for one who grieves
|
I find the attitude behind this concerning. It smacks of an established DRV regular trying to assert ownership of the process. I'm sure that's not the signal you would want to send out. There is no DRV cabal. Yes, there can be a problem with inexperienced people closing things, but only if they get them wrong, or inadvertently wade into controversies. That was not the case. I have reinstated the original valid closure. Thanks.-- Docg 18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat -- Ned Scott 05:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering why the page for Actors Movement Studio was deletEd? please let me know i am not awaRe of the criteriA to creAte a paGE? or i do not understand it? (
Actorsmovementstudio
16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC))
Dear Xoloz, thank you for your persistence and your gracious presence. I can't follow everything that's been going on lately (actually I can barely follow anything that's been going on), but I am glad you are here for us all. Take care, Kla'quot 05:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey there. How did you come to deletion endorsed on this? Reply here. The strength of argument clearly wasn't on the deletion side. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
You're officially driving me nuts, Xoloz. What's with that closure of Allison Stokke? At no point was the BLP closure supported by policy, so how can you endorse it? -- badlydrawnjeff talk 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious to why you think this should be relisted on IFD. Was the original closure according to the most numerous opinion? No, but that is common on IFD so it is not really 'out of process' (people will try to counter well reasoned arguments with 'no it isn't!' and that is exactly the case here). You seem to agree with this in your closing of the DRV. The review itself is a replay of the IFD with a little spat about if the original was even closed properly. I have no reason to believe that the second IFD is going to be any different. At some point you have to just say to one side or the other 'you are wrong', and with questions involving copyright and non-free content we should err on the side of exclusion. Kotepho 04:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Give this [2]. I suggest removing the lot and starting again. Otherwise it still contains the information for which it was speedied and the speedy endorsed.-- Docg 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.
Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You wrote that nobody provided evidence that "vandalism subpages are generally allowed." I'm not sure that they should be allowed, but I have observed that nobody raises much of a fuss about them. When (writing as my main account) I cited User:King of Hearts, I was referring specifically to User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels! The idea was, if an admin has been doing it, it must be okay. That being said, I support your closure and consider it to be well-founded in both policy and common sense. Best regards. Placeholder account 02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow! When you wrote " heap praises", you weren't kidding :-) I'm happy to inform you that my request for adminship was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Thank you again, Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Unfortunately, it appears that User:ScottAHudson has restored some of the content deemed inappropriate at the recent MfD you closed. Could you please do something to remedy the situation? Thanks. -- Maxa megalon 2000 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You've obviously been dealing with more important things lately, so I'll just move this down in case you didn't see it. -- Maxa megalon 2000 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Maxa megalon 2000 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Xoloz, you did a hell of a MessedRocker Solution job closing that DRV. ( messedrocker • talk) 01:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea! David.Monniaux 05:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this was a brilliant solution, as well! Thank you so much for your ongoing protection of my page.
~ Carla Baron
Carla Baron, this matter involves an obvious attempt to cover-up criticism of yourself. Such coverups aren't allowed here unless the information is libelous or undocumented. Articles here include criticism. Your misuse of this BLP Noticeboard will not succeed and has only brought more attention to your agenda, which is to keep criticism out of the article.
This documented criticism needs to be included:
I suspect there are other third party sources that can also be used to bring balance to the article. If there are issues with the quality (RS, V) of those sources, that is one matter, but covering up criticism violates NPOV, and there is plenty of criticism out there!
Carla, what has happened here is that you have become the victim of Wikipedia's " Law of Unintended Consequences":
Unintended consequences. |
If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels; we will not delete it simply because you don't like it. Any editor may add material to it within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually; more than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. |
This applies to all articles and to any subject, including pet ideas or favorite singer, regardless of who started the article. We need to cover the subject from all angles, and NPOV requires that both sides of the story are presented, so criticism is included. Many think they can write an article presenting a subject in the best light possible, only to find they have opened a can of worms and Pandora's box itself. Once the article is started, all kinds of negative things also become part of the article. So attempts to promote something often end up back-firing.
As we have often seen here, attempts to cover-up documented criticism only results in more unwanted attention and even better referenced criticisms being added to the article in question. We aren't interested in your idea of "truth", but in NPOV coverage of all aspects of the subject. Hagiographic articles are fine in the media or your own website, but are totally inappropriate here.
Your proper role here (since you have a conflict of interest) is to ensure that obvious libel or undocumented criticisms are corrected, and that is best done by participating at the article's talk page and convincing other editors to help you do it if they can be convinced by your arguments. If that doesn't work, then you can use this board.
The article should be restored, including the criticism. This attempt to violate NPOV and misuse this board should back-fire big. -- Fyslee/ talk 13:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Xoloz/archive16, and thank you so much for voting in my recent
RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I promise I won't erupt all over this nice Wikipedia, and I will try very hard to live up to your expectations. Please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again!
Krakatoa
Katie
19:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or drivers such as Paris Hilton. |
Dear Xoloz, thank you for you efforts to build consensus on my RfA. As you know, it was unsuccessful. I am not the type of editor to be disheartened by such a result, and have gained much experience.
I will run again, however I am concerned that I may see your name in the same place, for the same reasons. I would greatly appreciate knowing what I could do to earn your support next time.
If you have anything to contribute by way of improvements or comments, please don’t hesitate to tell me. Kind regards, Dfrg. msc 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You closed this deletion review request stating "no prejudice against a reliably-sourced recreation that avoids WP:COI issues." When I attempted to create a non-COI version (I had little involvement in the prior version of the article) that was essentially a stub, it was deleted again by the same editor and protected. You might want to give your opinion regarding this deletion review request for the stub. My suggestion is that the AfD process be used since notability is open to debate. Antonrojo 03:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! I had a question about the DRV of "sockpuppet cleanup" ( Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_31). You note that all the closings are overturned, but the relevant articles/categories do not appear to have been deleted/undeleted. Did I misinterpret you or should some bots be invoked to fix this? Cheers, >Radiant< 11:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
One issue with which we are presented with increasing frequency, as you well know, is how to evaluate discussions in which editors propose various applications of a given policy and ultimately remain divided over what course of action that policy counsels (consensus, though divined other than exclusively with respect to numbers, is generally borne out numerically, at least where !votes are grounded in an interpretation of policy that the community generally do not reject as absolutely unreasonable; how we are to determine which are rejected as absolutely unreasonable is, of course, another, ultimately recursive, matter), and under what procedural presumption we ought to operate. This issue almost surely will present itself at the Brandt AfD, where I think there will probably be majority support, but not a clear consensus, for deletion. BigDT, quite rightly, I think, and as I intended to do, has raised on the AfD talk page the question of how we ought to go about closing the discussion and whom we might choose to effect the closure; I imagine I ought to let you know that I suggested you as someone whose judgment the community might support. Of course, those who argue for a very rigorous construction of BLP might not approve of your being involved in a BLP-related closure, and so I wonder whether, if we are, per BigDT, to support closure by a team of admins through an admin chat (of which I'd be no grand fan but to which I would not have any profound objection; I suspect many others might feel similarly), you might consider partaking alongside Newyorkbrad, another generally process-inclined and well-respected admin who has tended toward the "deletionist" interpretation of BLP advanced by some. Such a situation might save us from a protracted DRV, and I expect that many might accede to any closure so engineered. If you've the time and inclination, I'll more fully flesh out such a proposal at the AfD talk page (should the rather busy Brad agree) and see if we might produce a consensus (again, I continue to think an admin chat closure to be substandard, and I continue to think that any closure other than as no consensus should be reasonable, but I don't think we would do all that poorly to find a procedure behind which the support of the community might lie). Joe 05:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
how does afd reach a census ? how does one "object" to non-census or a census. i want to object to the non-census findings for Ben_Going thanks Sexyorge 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
i totally apologize. i can tell for your user page, you must love fixing mistakes or typos. regardless thanks a whole bunch. i worked on a special census once, which could explain my utter lack of syntax and grammar (then again not sure). Sexyorge 21:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ben_Going. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sexyorge 21:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Some concern about actions by administrator User:Omegatron. Given this and this, I'm a little worried by these actions [3] and especially [4] (salted page), which was followed by this slightly surreal exchange. Also, looking at this diff, I'm starting to lose some of my AGF. I considered taking this to WP:ANI, but thought it best to alert previously involved admins first. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks, EliminatorJR Talk 01:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You undeleted the articles and specified that a merged section with good references should be created, but the same users who tried to get the article deleted are now trying to have the talk pages deleted, too (which includes the very references we would need to write a good article). Can you clarify that the talk pages for the previous articles should be kept as well as the article histories? The editors of the merged article need something to work with; there's no reason they should have to do all the research over again from scratch. Look through the References section of Talk:HHO gas, for instance. — Omegatron 03:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
please explain how you cane to the conclusion you did on this decision -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you please restore the Xpression FM page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=xpression_FM
I wanted to check something on it and discovered it had been deleted. I have been involved in some of the updates on this page and believe it is noteworthy.
The station is a member of the Student Radio Association, many of which have their own seperate pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Radio_Association
Thanks
Seddonism 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have done a deletion review. Thanks An editor has asked for a deletion review of Xpression FM. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Seddonism 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Not broken, per se. Flawed, maybe, but flaws are what make diamonds beautiful (not that 'beautiful' describes RfA either, but I digress) and humans human. That's one of the big things I was trying to get across about consensus in my statement: it's a very human process, not a mechanical one. RfA isn't broken, although like I said it won't scale well if we don't get some more bureaucrats to keep it running smoothly. At any rate, I have no current interest in reforming RfA, even if there is a better system (but I have not seen a better one as of yet). My description of the consensus system is not an idea for change but a description of the system as it works now, as I understand it, stemming from things like Polls are evil (incidentally, to which I wrote a counterpoint around the time of my second bureaucrat nomination, Voting is a tool). Sorry for the long-winded and rambling response. Andre ( talk) 04:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I do see your point. Ultimately, this is probably a matter of personal taste - for me, the dull task of vandal-fighting is made more fun by using a bit of combat terminology. :-) But I think you make a valid point about the fact that excessive aggression in vandal-fighting provokes a more confrontational attitude between vandals and regular users; you're right that there are some vandals who can be reformed, and others who are mistakenly identified as vandals but were trying to act in good faith. I also agree that we tend to suffer from the growth of bureaucracy, and that there is such a thing as too many organisations and processes, which can get in the way of working on the encyclopedia. Nonetheless, although private anti-vandalism groups are arguably redundant, I believe people should not be penalised for having them; any group based solely in userspace, provided it has a constructive purpose, should generally be allowable, and shouldn't kill an RfA. Further, I don't 100% agree with the assertion that the use of paramilitary terms and concepts is a "large deviation" from the concept of an encyclopedia (except in the sense that it creates extra bureaucracy, which we possibly don't need). I've always considered the military structure to be one of the environments in which human beings function in the most efficient and productive way (possibly that difference of opinion stems from our different RL political views, but I wouldn't want to assume that, as I know comparatively little about your views on this matter). Sorry for my lengthy response, but I just wanted to clarify what I meant. Walton talk 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in my RFA. Hiberniantears 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Xoloz, this is just housekeeping issue, I think, due to your closing of a DRV on this article. This RfD on 'The 27 Club' says that the redirect The 27 Club was deleted by Black Falcon on 3 July since the target went away due to AfD. It should probably be put back. Also Talk:27 Club isn't there; if it ever existed it should probably be restored as well. It should also have a banner about the AfD discussion that it survived. EdJohnston 01:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I read your note on my talk page and I beg to differ. The entire narrative portion of the article was copied verbatim from another website. It is of no consequence that all of the information was factual. The creative process that determines which facts to include and which to exclude is part of what makes non-fiction copyrightable. That the article had a list of members appended to the initial copy-and-paste does not alter the fact that it was a copyright violation. Thanks. -- But| seriously| folks 19:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Since you closed the WP:DRV discussion on Category:Fictional wealthy characters, I was hoping that you could help with Category:Fictional affluent characters.
The "affluent" category was nominated for deletion at WP:CFD before the "wealthy" category was brought to WP:DRV, and a lot of people discussing the "affluent" category recognized that it was the recreation of the "wealthy" category. User:Radiant! closed the discussion on the "affluent" category while the WP:DRV discussion continued on the "wealthy" category, possibly expecting that the WP:DRV discussion would lead to a decision as to what to do with the "affluent" category.
So, given the outcome of the WP:DRV discussion, would it be appropriate to delete the "affluent" category outright, or does it need to be discussed again in yet another WP:CFD discussion? (I have also contacted User:Radiant! about this, and I may try other administrators or WP:AN as well.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi seems that the WhiStle Radio submission was deleted because of a copyright infringement. I e-mailed to let you know that I am the author of the text in question, so no copyright infringement has occurred. Please reinstate the submission, thanks! WhiStle Radio 21:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
A {{
prod}} template has been added to the article
List of Paris by Nights, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached.
Postcard Cathy
01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)