This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, I added an article to the german Wikipedia, but becaus You protectet Chloe's Closet, I can't add the Interwiki-link. Could You do that? The german article is at de:Zoés Zauberschrank. Thanks-- Emergency doc ( talk) 20:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was delayed in getting to this, but it appears that someone else has taken care of it. Cheers. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like if you will take in consideration for Indefinite Semi-protection for pages Layla El and Maxine (wrestler) because of Persistent vandalism done to those page in the past-persent 2 years. I left them also on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- SCWA Ladies Champion ( talk) 00:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look, and decided I would need to take more time to really get a feel for what's going on. I'm going to work on the huge backlog at RFPP currently, but will take a look at these later if no one else has gotten to it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank You! Take your time.-- SCWA Ladies Champion ( talk) 02:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I am contacting you because some of the material on the boundary 2 talk page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boundary_2) has been repeatedly removed and/or archived. There are two main editors involved in censoring the material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steve_Quinn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guillaume2303 I would like to read further discussion on the talk page on the questions there. I said this today and it was immediately removed from the talk page. What is a person supposed to do when two or more of these people control a page this way?

95.241.252.9 ( talk) 15:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this, it appers that you, or a an anonymous user with a different ip address but a very similar interest, has brought up this matter previously, and failed to convince the others who edit in this area. It looks to be as if the disscussion has been held, and went against your position. Under the circumstances I do not see a need for administrative action. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for semi-protecting Steven Naismith. I believe it can be lifted now. He signed today and the article has been updated and referenced. Meters ( talk) 16:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the matter has been addressed. Cheers. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of this entry, it states "changing it for an mixtape." It should be read as "changing it for a mixtape", since the m in "mixtape" is a consonant and is not silent. I would like to suggest a fix/correction to it.

Johmbolaya ( talk) 02:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)johmbolaya

hi X - i believe you were the deleting editor for a page "Amiram Goldblum" in august. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amiram_Goldblum ) he is back in the news again, but before i create an article, wiki template says "A page with this title has previously been deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below."

where can i see the previous content to know if it is similar or not? thanks. Soosim ( talk) 08:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The last revision of the article read:

" [the subject] is an Israeli chemist in the School of Pharmacy at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and an activist in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is a founder and leader of Peace Now. He is on the international council of the New Israel Fund.[Reference to subject's website omitted]

Goldblum is Hans J. and Tilly Weil Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry at the Hebrew University. He holds a PhD in organic chemistry from the Hebrew University. He is currently head of the Molecular Modelling and Drug Design unit at the university's Institute for Drug Research."

There were also a couple of citations. The problem was not that revision, but problematic additions that other editors made. If you feel you have enough for a full biography, I would be willing to consider restoration. Would you like a copy in your userspace? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 08:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

yes, i would like to try it. he has been in the news again for funding a controversial poll in israel. let me see if i can make it real, and if not, we drop it. Soosim ( talk) 11:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, userfied to your userspace per this request. Take care. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Xymmax, Regarding /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swami_Kailashananda, which shows as being deleted by you, I am requesting that you userfy this deleted content in my user space, so that I can review it with the possiblity of adding content and republishing the article. When the article was deleted, Swami Kailashananda was still living, however he is now deceased. From the comments during the deletion discussion, such as " I find nothing notable about this yogi other than the fact he has written 2 non-notable books, and founded a non-notable yoga center", it appears that the article was lacking much basic biographical information that would have shown his notability. There is much more about this person than his having written two books and founding a yoga center. He actually wrote at least three books and published several records. He also founded one of the most famous Hindu temple complexes in Rishikesh, as well as a hospital and constructed a bridge across the Ganges River. He is considered to be the yogi who first introduced hatha yoga to the United States, followed soon after by a wave of yogis from India. He is also the guru of at least one well-known yoga teacher, Dharma Mittra. I would like to have a chance to document all of this and republish the article. Thank you. Rorschach8 ( talk) 02:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've placed the article at User:Rorschach8/Swami Kailashananda as requested. Please note that the standards for notability have only become more stringent in the two+ years since I deleted this article, and in its current form the article wouldn't have a chance. I look forward to see what you can make of it. Cheers. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

London, England has 32 "boroughs". The head of one of them is Steve Bullock. I think the newly elected Governor of the state of Montana, Steve Bullock, is more notable such that "Steve Bullock" ought to redirect to the Governor-elect, with the Englishman's article available in a disambig hatnote. But even if the Montanan isn't, the Governor-elect is surely not so much less notable that "Steve Bullock" doesn't even go to a disambig page with the Governor-elect on it and instead goes to the Londoner. Either way a renaming of the "Steve Bullock" to "Steve Bullock, London politician" (or just "(London)" for symmetry with "(Montana)") is required and that means an admin action. Objections have been solicited at Talk:Steve_Bullock but none have been made.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 05:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

For now, I moved the dab page to Steve Bullock. After the inauguration, unless there's been some agreement to the contrary, I intend to have "Steve Bullock" go to the governor's page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the move, much appreciated; I was going to try and do it myself. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

hi there -

you had agreed to the deletion of the article about amiram goldblum back in august ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amiram_Goldblum#Amiram_Goldblum). i have since re-written the page, and re-posted it 9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiram_Goldblum) - the good professor has already come along and made some good and some bad edits. i left the good ones, removed the bad ones, and also included several "cn"s, since he is simply writing material that he knows about himself, without proof. if you care to check in from time to time, it would be appreciated. thanks, Soosim ( talk) 10:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish I had asked you to hold off going live until I could be there, I knew we'd have BLP problems. I'm extending the protection there. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

ok, thanks. Soosim ( talk) 06:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Xymmax, please see the request at Talk:Natalie Khawam#Edit request on 10 December 2012. This a request to unblock a WP:REDIRECT page. Where and how did you come up with the arbitrary decision to to rename " Natalie Khawam" (the person) which is the name she always used professionally and by which is now universally known in the media, and then change that to her former married name (by adding "Wolfe") that she never used as far as anyone knows. Thanks for looking into this matter. Sincerely, IZAK ( talk) 09:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Izak. I simply was using the name that already existed int he article at the time I protected the redirect. I'll update it,and remove the edit request. Thanks. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Responded to your response.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 13:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I never thought I'd see the day. As I work my way through the Signpost archives, I find an article promoted to featured, yet it is now a red link. When I click, it says "unsourced BLP since 2007". Do you have any idea what happened?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year. This was never a featured article, although I think someone wanted to try to promote it. It was, however, a BLP nightmare with no reliable sourcing, and a lede that read "(the subject) is an American gangster dubbed by tabloids "The Scarface of Porn" due to his rise and fall in marketing illegal pornography, multiple murders of his business associates, and eventual placement on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list. Starting out selling black market pornography at a corner newsstand in Atlanta, Georgia, he became affiliated with a number of small-time gangsters who helped him start up his enterprise, before he was finally introduced to members of the Gambino crime family. With their backing, he became responsible for the distribution of 40% of America's pornography, a venture that netted him $100 million a year." It went down from there. I deleted it in 2009, so if reliable sourcing has emerged there's no problem with re-writing it, but I wouldn't feel comfortable bringing this version back. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You can see it listed here, and while there was a corrections section in a previous Signpost, if this was ever found to be an error I sure haven't seen it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the Signpost author looked at the FAC nomination and assumed it would be promoted. However, it never was, as you can see be looking at the FA log. This was before we settled in on our current understanding of WP:BLP. Once the current standards were adopted, it spelled the doom of the prior version of the article. However, he's clearly notable, we just need reasonable sourcing for neutral article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL I have no idea what a userfy is but the Robert_Ray_Fry was well referenced and i don't know how to make the pictures and boxes. Could you "userfy" it? Just before your put the article out of its misery, I asked a more experienced admin than I who contributes to the serial murder bio project to look it over for impartiality, notability etc. i thought i should check with you before doing anything crazy like cutting and pasting the old article back in! Please advise... aar095 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aar095 ( talk • contribs)

Hi. It looks like you've managed to run afoul of a few of our live wires. First, the whole paid editing controversy, which as you've seen arouses strong feelings in some. Then, it's generally frowned up to selectively request comment for deletion discussion, it is considered canvassing. Since this encyclopedia can be edited anonymously/pseudonymously, a great deal of weight in put upon transparency. Anyway, I've "userfied" the article to User:Aar095/sandbox/Robert Ray Fry, where it can be worked on until it meets the standards for inclusion. It will not be indexed by search engines while in your user space, and is not considered part of the encyclopedia proper. Please note that anyone still is free to edit the article, so it technically is not "yours" although it is in "your" space. The best thing for this article would be some national coverage of the case. Have there been any law review articles about the case, or scholarly treatment of the procedural posture of the case? That's the kind thing that would give you an unambiguous case of notability. Also, I should mention that if you wish my deletion is subject to deletion review where decision can by evaluated to see whether it adequately conforms our deletion process. Finally, you can automatically sign and date your entries (transparency again) by adding four tildes after your entry like this ~~~~. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the sandbox entry; I didn't want to reinvent the wheel. A $5 finder fee is far from WP:PAID advocacy. There needs to be some mentorship program because your culture is extremely elaborate to a newcomer. I felt like I need a lawyer to wade through your guidelines! As for reviewing your "no consensus" deletion, it was a close call but frankly I would have pulled the plug too because of the accusations unless and until an established and impartial editor from the Serial Killer task force weighs in on the relevant issue. I did read the canvassing guideline and, as recommended, I used a neutral request to 3-4 people who have contributed to the Serial Killer Bio project recently, not to stuff the ballot, but to clarify WP:NOT for those working on hundreds of mid- and low-importance serial killer stubs (see below). Your expectation of national publicity (there was a CBS News interview of Fry somewhere and the dimestore novel sold nationally) is just one example that has not been applied uniformly to hundreds of other articles. Should national coverage be a prerequisite? Don't ask me, I'm just a meatpuppet! /s/ SA

Hi, i've noticed you have protected the page "Cyberbunker" 'cause of an "Edit War".

Edit war is a sequence of "rollbacks" and "edits", where an user inserts or deletes text, then another user rollbacks the revision of the page, then the first user rollbacks to bring his version back and the other reply with another rollback ... and so on ..

I cant see an edit war in the article "cyberbunker". The last change was made on [ 11:12, 29 March 2013‎] by user [ip]137.224.224.211 and still i cant see "edit wars" in the previous 24 hours. After 3 hours, (there was no edit in the middle) @14:17, 29 March 2013 you decided to lock the page [?!?!?].

Why?

Who is in "edit war" with who?

I think maybe there was an error and you really wanted to lock some other article instead of that, is it?

Can you please unlock that page?

thanks -- 79.21.61.64 ( talk) 15:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah ok, i've read /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#CyberBunker_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Cprotect.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29.

So it's all about ME.

How can i prove i'm not a proxy? -- 79.21.61.64 ( talk) 15:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, as you can see from the date I've been offline for a bit. Protection should long since have expired; I'll assume this is resolved. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean "no meeting of the minds" here? - Sitush ( talk) 06:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, now fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 09:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Not looking to be a pain here, but I'm wondering if you can expand further on your closure here. If we go by straight vote counting, sure, I can see a no consensus close. I don't see where the "keep" voters made any sort of progress or argument for its notability or ability to be sourced properly. Could I ask you to take a second look? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 14:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, while I'm sympathetic to the delete position in this discussion, I don't think the keep arguments - ok, Redhanker's keep argument - is so specious that I can completely discount it. You and Redhanker were the only editors who engaged in depth, and I don't see that the discussion coalesced clearly in favor of one position. My suggestion would be to tag it for notability and give it a decent interval to see how it develops. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I might send this to DRV in this case. Thanks for the extra insight. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 16:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for fixing my mistake. Much appreciated... -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 05:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Xymmax, you recently closed a discussion for deletion and chose to leave in place the wikipedia page under discussion. The page was the one on encasement. One of the reasons you cited was a lack of attention to the discussion page. I agree that there was little attention paid but I believe that you were incorrect to conclude that consensus was not achieved. As Wikipedia states on its page on deletion guidelines for administrators, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument …" /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:ROUGH_CONSENSUS#Rough_consensus.

There were only two discussants, including myself the nominator. The other discussant seemed to be in favour of keeping the page but editing it in order to improve the flaws they considered to be present.

If you consider the discussion you will observe that the other discussant evidently had no knowledge of the area of so-called encasement or of the broader area of lead abatement. You will notice that they posted comments on two occasions and that I attempted to address their comments in good faith. In their second comment they asked some questions and I answered those questions explicitly and with relevant references. On the other hand, the other discussant failed to address the issues I raised and failed to provide any references.

In addition to the erroneous conclusion of a "lack of consensus", there is the issue that the Wikipedia page in question fails the Wikipedia policy with regard to verifiability /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Verifiability and with regard to neutrality /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

Cheers, Gogamma ( talk) 12:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogamma ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Xymmax, I was hoping for your input on this. If you are available to turn your attention to the issues raised I believe we'll get the correct outcome. Cheers, Gogamma ( talk) 20:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the belated reply, my Wikipedia time is very hard to come by these days. I've had a chance to review the close, and I still think that no consensus is really the only way to go as a close to this discussion. Having said that, there are a number of options short of deletion that I think would largely address your concerns. For example, any editor could boldly merge or redirect this to a more appropriate target - possibilities might be environmental remediation or Environmental impact of paint#Mitigation. The article could also be edited to address the neutrality problems you mention. Anything that is not verifiable is subject to immediate removal. But with respect to deletion, I am loathe to do it with such a poorly attended discussion absent clear indication that the deletion tool is to the only way to address the articles problems. I don't believe that's the case here. Thanks for your patience in waiting for my reply. Cheers. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Xymmax, in 2011 you directed that the article on Mario Ferri should be deleted for not meeting WP:GNG or the politician guideline. I have seen Mr. Ferri in various GTA media for about two decades prior to the article being removed, and have made the time to go through various archives and clipping files to rewrite his bio article properly. After reading thru more than 80 newspaper and magazine articles, plus viewing an online video story on him, I rewrote his article which more than qualifies under GNG provisions. Three of the articles wrote extensively on him and his background and the rest were related to the various community activities he was involve with, including a large number of news stories on the non-profit activist Vaughan CARES organization he created and chaired for about 15 years. About 35-40 of the articles featured prominent photos of Ferri at various community projects or demonstrations, including those at his depositions advocating that the Keele Valley Landfill needed to be shut down. One shows him at a hearing in suit and tie in front of the microphone at a council meeting, holding up a large placard directed at the mayor of Toronto reading "Get The Hell Out". The average article had about 15% to 20% of its material directly related to him or quotations of what he was saying.

The Mario Ferri article, on my sandbox over here is ready for publishing but needs to have its article space unlock before doing so. Best: HarryZilber ( talk) 22:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so active these days, so I just saw this, sorry. It looks like the article has been restored and listed at AfD, I'll comment over there.

Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you remove that horrible elephant award. I was trying to from the Christy Mack page. If so kudos to you! No one deserves that kind of abuse or attempt at sick humor. I look at wiki as a source of at least reliable links for documentation. This was my first edit attempt Best Regards Dravensworth A.j.Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dravensworth ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Normally you can click on the History tab, then click "Undo" to remove the last edit. Due to bad behavior, I've temporarily locked the article so that only autoconfirmed accounts can do so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution to Bill W. agiants factual vandalism. you have done impartial justification to innocent journalist. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.164.107 ( talk) 11:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear friend, this article information are change by some one. we really appreciate if you can fix with your vision ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Premakeerthi_de_Alwis&diff=622239256&oldid=622114748 ) ( Academiava3 ( talk) 17:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)).

Hello: I'm new, so I do hope I am doing this right and if not, my deepest apologies. It looks like there used to be an entry for "Mary K. Greer," but it was subsequently deleted. I realized this when I tried to create an entry for her. I then read through the debate about whether to keep or delete the entry. I want to create her entry again, with different content, but want to make sure I do it right and am not simply reinventing a faulty wheel that will get deleted again. If we're talking about notability, Ms. Greer is definitely notable. In fact, many of the references in the "tarot" and tarot related entries on Wikipedia cite Ms. Greer's works. If only one living person in tarot deserves a Wikipedia page, I would argue it would be Ms. Greer. Would you be cool with me creating the new page? Ktmyss221 ( talk) 21:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Proposal to remove "Has won or placed in a major music competition." from "from Criteria for musicians and ensembles". Thanks. Worldbruce ( talk) 10:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Talk:2005–06 Fijian political crisis - you protected this page but honestly, the protection is unnecessary. I moved the main page to what I thought was a better name; my reasoning was that the ndash is not accessible on most keyboards. So I replaced it with a hyphen, not knowing that the manual of style (updated considerably in my 8-year absence from Wikipedia) requires the ndash. DrKiernan moved it back. I didn't know what was going on, so I reverted him. Then I read his rationale and understood. THE MISTAKE WAS MINE, not his. I have also corrected all of the redirects, so that all articles that I'm aware of link to this article directly now. There was no edit conflict, just a misunderstanding, and that's solved now. So I'm removing the protection - my page naming was in error and I recognize DrKiernan's naming as correct as per MOS. David Cannon ( talk) 09:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Glad all is well. The request came from WP:RFPP. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The same nominator started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn (to which the article was retitled) within a day. See also related ANI thread. Sorry I didn't think of pinging you sooner. postdlf ( talk) 16:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware until just now. I won't speedy close since a full-fledged debate is occurring, but it will be interesting to see how things turn out. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a "full-fledged debate", given that we have a couple drive-by claims that it's "listcruft", a blatant contradiction of WP:NOTDUP, and another editor inexplicably claiming that Wikipedia doesn't have "lists of things". Edison's argument, while more substantial, is still rather general and was already raised and addressed at the previous AFD...and none of the delete !voters have even acknowledged that there was a recent "keep" close or responded to any of the arguments in it. Which raises one of the problems with an immediate renomination, because obviously this one can't be closed without considering the discussion from the first because nothing will have changed. And leaving it open rewards bad behavior on the part of the nominator. Once it has been closed, I'd appreciate it if you'd keep an eye on the page as well given the edit warring problems we've had with the nominator removing sourced content. postdlf ( talk) 13:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've broached the possibility of deleting the page David Passaro because of WP:1E. Instead his name would redirect to the prosecution section of Enhanced Interrogation techniques here. You had done some work on that page--albeit six years ago--so I thought I should invite you to weigh in at Talk:David Passaro#Notability? ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 00:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Will reply at the talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines in AfD seems to say it is okay to contact you on this one.

I thought that will all of the moving of the goalposts, I had the WP:BKCRIT #1 notability established, in addition to #5, with the entry in the Slang Encyclopedia (2008 and 2015) and the two reviews in the Argus Observer (1897) (likely the same author). The fact author of the review in the Notre Dame student paper is now a PhD did not add to RS for that piece, nor did the fact that the The Midwest Book Review and the The Post (a college newspaper) is used by permission (demonstrating fact checking) and reprinted on Amazon Editorial Reviews. Latest revision here.

I have an open RfC concerning the apparent defects in WP:NBOOK at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(books)#Criteria_for_Notability_does_not_reflect_current_consensus if you care to review. Pending the outcome of that discussion, I may want to resubmit the article. Thanks for your time on this -- 009o9 ( talk) 16:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think I will comment there. I see this as a fairly typical application of consensus, nothing to warrant modification of the guideline. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP  Boomer! 00:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you please protect the Bo Dallas page? Thanks. - KH-1 ( talk) 01:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected 3 days. Hopefully things will calms down. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.metroactive.com/metro/05.20.09/music-0920.html
• http://rockprosopography101.blogspot.com/2009/09/san-jose-ca-outdoor-rock-festivals-1967.html
• http://www.coog.com/family1.html
• http://web.hypersurf.com/~charlieb/3daybein.htm
• Northern California Folk-Rock Festival (1969)
• Northern California Folk-Rock Festival (1968)

Xb2u7Zjzc32 ( talk) 04:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Xb2u7Zjzc32: Hi. These aren't great sources (you can't use Wikipedia as a source btw) but they are better than what was there before. If you'd like I'm willing to restore the article to your user space (or draft space) so you can work on it and add the sources. There no guarantee that it wouldn't be nominated again though. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It was vandalised about an hour ago it is recent please look again thanks Bc5297 ( talk) 23:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you were the administrator who deleted that article. Is there anyway you could undelete it and put it in my draft space? Thanks -- In veritas ( talk) 16:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Done, it's at User:In veritas/RenWeb. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! In veritas ( talk) 01:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Xymmax. Due to some admin backlogs turning high, your user page has turned to overflow. In an ideal world, this wouldn't happen, since backlogs wouldn't exit. But you can help us for emptying Category:Pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded by replacing

<!-- Feel free to copy this for your purposes, or transclude it directly -->
<!-- please don't delete this --><span style="display:none">[[User:Xenocidic/dashboard/users]]</span><!-- it tells me who's using -->
{{admin dashboard/header}}
{{admin dashboard/aiv}}
{{admin dashboard/csd}}
{{admin dashboard/uaarfpp}}
{{admin dashboard/rfarfp}}
{{admin dashboard/footer}}<!-- 
You can re-arrange the order or pick and choose by transcluding elements separately -->

with {{ admin dashboard/light}}. This template provides the same functionality, but is far less prone to overflow. Thanks in advance. Pldx1 ( talk) 09:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Any idea who created it and why was the Aquarian Family Festival page deleted? Thanks John R Bales — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRioBales ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@ JRioBales: Hello. The page was created by Mamoran ( talk · contribs), but it appears this user has not edited since 2012. I deleted the page last year because it was nominated for deletion, and the consensus of the discussion was to delete the page for lack of reliable sources. You can see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquarian Family Festival. Hope this helps. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Xymmax. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you semi-protected this page in 2011. I think it should be unprotected. Would you mind unprotecting it? Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 02:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Safehaven86: It looks like it has been protected continuously since 2009. I'll give it a shot and we'll see how it does. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll keep an eye on the article. Safehaven86 ( talk) 02:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Xymmax.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Xymmax. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:MALPLACED, a title can not redirect to its own "Foo (disambiguation)" because this leads the database to believe that the base page name is an unambiguous term. Please move Supernumerary (disambiguation) to Supernumerary. bd2412 T 21:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Xymmax,

I am wondering why did you decide to delete the article on IQ Option ( /info/en/?search=IQ_Option)? The article was included in this deletion list ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anyoption) along with two other articles for some reasons I can't understand. Similarly, the company official website was blacklisted (I tried to figure out why on this page /info/en/?search=User_talk:JohnCD/Archive_33) — for no proper reason or allegedly by mistake. Recently I've made some steps to improve the article and make it more reference-based. The brand is highly popular across the world, with millions of followers at this point. Technologically, the core product offered by the company - its online trading platform - is notable in its field and was highlighted in the press. In the legal field the activities of the company are well-regulated and correspond to all applicable rules. Please be so kind to explain me some things I don't get. Rrusl u ( talk) 10:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Xymmax. You have new messages at Xymmax's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. ( T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. ( T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am the author of the Pieter Henrik Mullaard page which was deleted, I was not notified about and discussion, how do I appeal the deletion and add commentary.

Thank you,

Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertkarrass ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC) @ Robertkarrass: - Pardon the lateness of my reply, I only saw this today. The article was deleted based on this discussion. An editor felt that the article did not meet the notability guideline. After a week of discussion, there was consensus that the article should be deleted. Anyone may recreate the article if they are able to cure the defects that caused it to be deleted. In this case, that would be reliable sources that show the journal is notable. I should also mention that you may challenge this decision at Deletion review, but typically they focus on whether the administrator's decision accurately reflected the deletion discussion. Please let me know if you have questions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

Hi, I see you initiated the deletion of the entry on Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, which is the most important book review source in academic philosophy. I am wondering why and what considerations would justify restoring an entry. Thanks. Philosophy Junkie ( talk) 15:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I deleted this article based on this deletion discussion. An editor felt that the article did not meet the notability guideline. After a week of discussion, there was consensus that the article should be deleted. Only administrators can perform deletions, and I am the one who did so in this case. Anyone may recreate the article if they are able to cure the defects that caused it to be deleted. In this case, that would be reliable sources that show the journal is notable. I should also mention that you may challenge my decision at Deletion review, but typically they focus on whether the administrator's decision accurately reflected the deletion discussion. Please let me know if you have questions, I hope this helps. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I am sorry for not noticing your reply sooner. It is probably the most important place for book reviews in philosophy these days, since they appear quickly and are widely read. I guess everyone in philosophy would agree with this, but I am not sure how to establish that to the satisfaction of the editors. If you have suggestions or can point me to a similar case, I would appreciate it. Thanks for your time. Philosophy Junkie ( talk) 21:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Philosophy Junkie: I'm certainly no expert in this area. Have you consulted with anyone over at WikiProject Academic Journals? This seems to be right up their alley, and I think the nomination and deletion of this article is best understood as part of an ongoing discussion about coverage of these journals on Wikipedia that seems in significant part to be occurring over there. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that idea, I will go look at that. Philosophy Junkie ( talk) 14:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. ( discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.