User talk:Xavexgoem/archive5

That was a crazy game of poker"
I am just wondering why you deleted the "that was a crazy game of poker" page for lacking notability. That song was a huge success among college and highschool students about 8-9 years ago and really made O.A.R. famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjk645 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment
I invite no action or comment; but I wonder if it might be worthwhile for you to examine what I have posted as a "comment" at User talk:Tznkai? Plausibly useful? --Tenmei (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:TonyTheTiger/Obama's_first_100_days
When you closed Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's first 100 days by userfying User:TonyTheTiger/Obama's_first_100_days you did not include the history. Can you userfy the history.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you change the level of protection on The Game's page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RR57 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:TonyTheTiger/Obama's_first_100_days
An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:TonyTheTiger/Obama's_first_100_days. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Adi_Shankara
Please reopen the case. --Leadcorrector (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the help
Thanks!!! You're the friend of Durova! I asked her a big favor for revising my poor English, and you've come to help me!!!!! The article is filled with many ancient "court languages", so I wonder even Korean readers can understand the article correctly. I'm still working on expanding the article, so if you have questionable passages, or sentences, or terms, please ask me. I will try to define more accurately on such issues. Once again, thank you very much. --Caspian blue 01:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Coaching
Hey Xavexgoem, I was wondering if you were open to taking on an admin trainee?  Grsz 11  05:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Just drop me an e-mail or message on where to go from here. I'll be back in the AM.  Grsz 11  05:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't use either.  Grsz 11  02:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been meaning to get IRC, so i'll do that now.  Grsz 11  02:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Details are at WP:IRC. I'm usually at medcab irc. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I'm all set up now.  Grsz 11  02:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Permenent semi-protection of Deane Ogden
I'm curious about this. The vandalism has hardly been excessive and in fact the article is more likely to need to be watched because of the apparent COI of several of its editors (who make the article read like a PR piece) than because of vandalism. I know little about the OTRS system, but I can't see why the article needed such a high level of protection unless there was a legal threat involved. Can you explain? Katr67 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I understand. I think for BLP it might be better to simply remove the edits of August 4 from the edit history though. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA coaching
Hello, I've been looking for an admin coach for awhile and saw that you don't presently have any students. Are you interested in taking someone on right now? If not, I understand, but any comments on my contributions thus far would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 01:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ignore all rules
"'If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.'" Rules and procedures should not, in them of themselves, stop an editor from contributing towards our goal of building and improving a free encyclopedia of the highest quality.

The Wikipedia community is founded upon expectations and operates on the assumption that contributors will always act in good faith. Rules, guidelines, procedures that result from these expectations are in fact community agreements that developed over time through consensus, and thus are not infallible. Just as the rules are developed through discussion and consensus, consensus may also reveal that a particular rule shouldn't be applied in one or more cases if it will improve the project, but this discussion may never take place unless an editor is willing to be bold if he or she feels there is a better way of doing something. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 06:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm finally setup on Freenode now, too, which room are you typically in and when? Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 16:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma Christian School
Thanks for protecting this article; I have been wondering what to do about it. I know nothing about the school: I got involved while vandal-watching when started making large unexplained deletions. When he got to a Level 4 warning he said on my talk page that he was editing on behalf of the school at the head's request. Both I and Karenjc have explained WP:OWN and COI and CONSENSUS to him at length, and invited him to propose on the talk page what changes he would like to see; he has made no response but continues to make deletions from time to time - not necesarily all bad deletions, but with no attempt to discuss. Lately, as you have noticed, a lot of new SPAs have appeared. My only concern now is that Afrost24, who with well over 20 edits is by now autoconfirmed, may still return to the charge, when I think, though he is clearly not a common vandal, it may be necessary in view of his failure to respond to consider a block. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I don't know if you remmeber me but can you unblock me please? My user name is Aryan818. Thank you and. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.85.193 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. After looking at the contribs under this IP (71.105...), and diffs after I had unblocked the username, it is apparent that the username is no longer the issue here. It is your conduct that is keeping you blocked. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Mick LaSalle page
I don't know if the freezing of the Mick LaSalle page was due to an added and then deleted mention of his birth name (Al Agate), but as stated in the discussion page of that topic, there do exist references to his birth name out there on the internet, although admittedly they are few and far between.

For example, you can see a reference to him under his birth name at, which also mentions his marriage to Amy Freed. The magazine SF Weekly, in a 1996 column, makes a reference to him under both names at. It seems to me appropriate to make a brief reference at the beginning of the article, following the style convention used with other famous or semi-famous people who have changed their names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.172.248 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You got mail
Please let me know if you got it. 02:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tesaux
Straight back off his block for his edits at Giuseppe Rossi and this is his first edit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And again, and again. Given the range of IPs doing the same thing, could we get some semiprotection too? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll up the block if the semi doesn't get him. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to keep bugging you about this, but is still tag-teaming on this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Subcomandante Marcos
Great work on the Marcos article, and keep up a sharp eye out for vandalism.

However, I take exception to one very small thing...To say, "The Mexican government alleges Marcos to be Rafael Sebastián Guillén Vicente..." is to imply that 'Rafael Sebastián Guillén Vicente' is a state of being. Hence, it would be grammatically correct to say "The Mexican government alleges Marcos to be a terrorist..." (for example), as we are referring to 'Marcos' (an individual) being a 'terrorist' (a state of being).

However, if we wish to say that Marcos the individual is, allegedly, actually another individual entirely, then we must preface that identification with 'one'. As well as being a stylistic matter, this is also a grammatical improvement and allows for the allegation to be modified.

Hence, "The Mexican government alleges Marcos to be one Rafael Sebastián Guillén Vicente..."

Mutual_topicban_proposal on ANI
Since all parties do not agree on the proposal between A Nobody and Jack, I am putting it to a community !vote:
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Please take the time to make your voice be heard. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for the barnstar! My self-imposed wikiblock has run its course, so I may be editing sporadically over the next few days, before I reset it. I'm still too busy to do as much editing as I'd like, unfortunately. Aridd (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Barney Frank mediation
Hi, I'm concerned about the mediation of a Barney Frank dispute, so I'd appreciate your comments. If this isn't the right way to go about meta-mediation, please let me know - thanks. (CCed to both Cabal coordinators) —EqualRights (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Editor Assitance
Hello, I'm having a bit of a quandary and randomly picked your name off the list at WP:EA that had the word "dispute" in their advertisement.

For the past year or so I have been having run ins with John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) over content centering around Ron Paul. The nexus of dispute seems to be that I think that a lot of the content on WP concerning Ron Paul is nonnotable and should be reduced or deleted and John disagrees. For the most part, our discussions have been pretty cordial, but recently he has taken focusing his arguments on me and my motivations instead of the topics at hand. The AFDs for Rand Paul and the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 together with his comments at Talk:Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 and User talk:Fritzpoll are examples. When I tried to engage him directly to resolve the matter, I didn't really get anywhere User:John_J._Bulten/Friends. Do you have any advice as to where to go from here? Burzmali (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga Discography problems
I had just noticed that you had been assigned to deal with this. I notice all the information from the page had been removed except the information placed by there by Legolas. I was the one that opened the complaint, but somehow Legolas managed to get his placed ahead of mine. Maybe because he lives in India and the computers just assumed he filed the complaint first.

The main problem here is not about Certifications, Countries used or which charts are valid. The main problem has been how Legolas talks to others here and how he makes some arbitrary changes to the page. If we make a mistake and add something we shouldn't, or comment on a page we shouldn't, there are much better ways to tell people they have done something wrong. What is worse is that on this page for mediation, Legolas referred me to a page on Wikipedia about being a "Dick" and called me one as well. If you have all these pages, then you can see what he said. Maybe in India calling someone a "Dick" isn't considered foul language, but I know in the United States it is.

I appreciate the work he has put in to the page, but the problem is that he wants to treat the page as his own and if any of us makes a change or update that he doesn't agree with, he just arbitrarily changes it back. He needs to realize we are people here who can help him with the page. Instead we are treated as if we are trespassing on his land. He continually bullies people and should certainly not be referring to people as "Dicks". If you read the discography page you will see how many times he has problems with others, only to talk down to them when they question him. He has removed items from pages including a comment about the German Charts in which someone asked for Charts and I offered. I also brought up that Poker Face had just hit Number One on iTunes in the US and that she would probably hit Number one on the Hot 100 as well (She Did!), but forgot to sign in when I commented. Another person did as well. He responded saying that the information was interesting. When I replied later signing in this time he came back and told me to take the conversation elsewhere. These comments have since disappeared. It was as if he had a problem with me. I notice this attitude towards a few others as well.

Oh well sorry to talk so long, but his behavior makes me not want to help or contribute here, which is not the way things are supposed to happen. Awaiting your decision. I hope he is at least reprimanded and told to treat people better than he does. Thanks for your time! (MoovieStarz (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Request Assitance With User User:Reboot
Dear Xavexgoem:

I am concerned with user Reboot and his obviously biased editing tactics in regards to the People to People Ambassador Programs article. The company is currently involved in a lawsuit over a tragic death of a student during one of their travel programs. The family suing them has attempted on numerous occasions to use the internet (and Wikipedia) to fight a public opinion war. The case is still in court and will not begin trial until July 2009. There is one user Reboot who has ignored very deep discussion on the forum and repeatedly posts the above statement. There was a lot of discussion about the merits of putting detailed allegations into the Wikipedia article since they are simply allegations until ruled upon by a court of law, but Reboot has ignored the opinions of multiple other authors. He also uses a reference to consumeraffairs.com, a source that had achieved consensus in the discussion page about being non-neutral and an inappropriate source of information. I believe that Reboot has a conflict of interest and either represents the plaintiff or has a bias against the company.

I ask that this article be put under full-protection and that the content be reverted to the version proposed by user Notthenews that mentions the lawsuit but does not attempt to cast an opinion on the merits of either party. Wikipedia is not the place to fight this legal battle. Allowing disputed allegations (especially very detailed and graphic ones) on an encyclopedia entry is inappropriate.

Thanks for your consideration,

(gaven74 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Very cautious in doing this; the contribution above is your first edit. If it looks like an obvious problem, please ask at the admin noticeboard. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Ireland Collaboration
Your appointment as a project moderator has been announced at: Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. Thank you again for accepting this task. If I can be of assistance in any way, please do not hesitate to let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have updated the project page to reflect the announcement and accompanying change. Please also note that there is an open discussion about the possibility of an arbitrator becoming a moderator or taking another role in the effort: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact myself or the Committee mailing list. --Vassyana (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi I'm just wondering what you mean by saying moderation won't work with the present discussion? What do you think needs to be done? ''' M I T H  12:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's possible, just really, really hard. This discussion has changed horses midstream about 4 times already, and I've only looked at the dispute as far back as the compromise offer before ArbCom picked up the case. As a result of this, many different statistics have been compiled and many of them contradict other statistics. This thing has been polled to hell and back, which often creates such confusing results.
 * The biggest barrier right now is exhaustion. The quickest way to solve some disputes is to start back at the beginning; I don't think that this is an option -- as I think many will agree. The hardest way to solve any dispute is to create a situation subject to editor attrition, which seems to be the way this dispute is headed (attrition already claimed the previous moderators).
 * This is a very difficult task. I have to work my way up to some level of prerogative; meanwhile, there's another moderator whom I haven't talked to yet; an arb might join... and there's no coordination between any of these elements.
 * In the meantime, in lieu of any actual strategy, I can only wait for an opening in the discussion. At least 3 editors have expressed their dissatisfaction with the process as a whole, so it'd be a bit risky to dive head-in. I tried; it failed immediately.
 * So just lemme think for a bit, I'll figure something out :-) --Xavexgoem (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

REMEMBER TO CHANGE STATUS
To: Xavexgoem

From: Xavexgoem

Please change the status to online when you're back.

-Xav —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.174.2 (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly
I write to ask for prospective help. In a sense, I'm only interested laying the foundation for the future. Perhaps this may be construed as taking steps to avert problems might be mitigated by a timely comment or suggestion ...?

ArbCom remedy
Voting is underway at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision. In part because of "Evidence presented by Caspian blue", the locus of dispute was modified and "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved." You will be surprised to learn that Xavexgoem has anything at all to do with this so-called "evidence" at "Tenmei's wikihounding and trolling". I don't think this timeless prose is worth struggling to read, but I mention this to explain a bit more of the reasons why I'm reaching out to you specifically.

ArbCom findings of fact included:
 * 3.2.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution. "... many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case."

ArbCom remedies included:
 * 3.3.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution: "Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion."


 * 3.3.3 Editors advised: "Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought."

It is clear that ArbCom anticipates future difficulties; and I guess I need to do the same. Arguably, my previous postings on your talk page are congruent with exactly the sort of thing ArbCom wants me to do in future; and I'm willing to invest in learning about how to disagree without being disagreeable.

If you want to discuss this off-wiki, I'm working on figuring out how to set up an appropriate e-mail address. -- Tenmei (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just ask whenever you need help :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Micsalleny For Deletion
Hi, I would like to retain the WikiText for the articles, because I didn't have the chance to copy and paste all the text to my computer. Thanks. Dbacvdeifdgthoimjskflan (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Abitration amendment request
An amendment request has been filed that directly impacts the Ireland collaboration project. There are currently two open motions involving centralizing discussion and permitting moderators to topic ban disruptive participants. Your input and comments would be greatly appeciated. I apologize that you were not notified previously of this request. --Vassyana (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

Nomination
Put it live as soon as you are happy to. Please let me know when you do :) Sedd&sigma;n talk 03:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation request on Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Hi Xavexgoem — I have just posted a comment to the Mediation section at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I do not know whether my comments also implicitly indicate agreement with your statement in your initial comment in that section or not. I am not a native English speaker, so I am unsure whether I understood your statement correctly. Please let me know if you need a signature from me in addition to my statement. — Regards. Cs32en 12:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Closing MFDs
Hey, just a quick note: when you close MFDs, don't forget to remove the mfd tag from the nominated page if it's being kept. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Committee nomination
It is my pleasure to announce that your nomination to become a member of the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Requests for mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks template, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You are also encouraged to join the Committee's internal mailing list; please email me directly so I can confirm your email before subscribing it. If you have any questions about how the Committee functions, please feel free to ask me. Congratulations!
 * For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)
A poll is up at WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Variants (Language versions)
Hi Xavexgoem. Is it acceptable to create an article in different languages? ie: English, German, Spanish. - Thanks in advance. --DustyRain (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I am sending you an e-mail to confirm some details. Thanks in advance. --DustyRain (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE report
Hi Xavexgoem, this report could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Userspace is indexed.
Regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JRC3, I believe you erred in your closure, as userspace is indeed indexed. There is currently an RfC on the proposal to make it not indexed (partially because people do assume it's not). Gigs (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh...I could swear...
 * Weird. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long usernames
Why did you close this as "tag as historical"? Consensus was to delete it, per WP:DENY. You could count the votes (10-2-3 (delete-blank and tag-tag as historical), or weigh the arguments. I'd urge you to reconsider this one.  Aditya  α ß 18:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I still disagree, but I'll continue this discussion tomorrow. I'm on my way out. Cheers,  Aditya  α ß 18:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, back again. The majority of people who !voted on the discussion felt that WP:DENY is applicable as most of the usernames were created by someone who obviously wasn't here to build the encyclopedia. You can see that from the usernames themselves. And if consensus is to delete the article (extremely obvious consensus too, see my comment above) I don't see how why the keepers' arguments should be given more weight. (The keepers' said it deserved to be kept as there was a history behind it, the rest disagreed)  Aditya  α ß 12:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. It's been nearly a week since I posted the above message. Have you reconsidered your decision?  Aditya  α ß 10:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not. It's a sleeping dog: let it lie. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC) alternately, you could relist the MfD :-p

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Long usernames
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Long usernames. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  Aditya  α ß 10:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Ireland Collaboration
You are listed as a moderator on this project do you intend to take any part in it? BigDunc Talk 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just gimme a day or two. I can only moderate behavior; I can't be involved on the strategic side of things - there is little communication for that to work with >1 person. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

a request
Hello Xavexgoem, I don't know if you remember me but you moderated our ADHD med cab. As part of Arbitration I would appreciate if you would undertake this task with me. I found you insightful and have been frustrated with my editing experiences on the ADHD page for many months now. My solutions to date obviously didn't work. I truly would appreciate the experience, but would understand if this is not doable at this time, for whatever reason. Thanks --scuro (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus statement
Check out the shortcuts I created... excellent essay!--Cerejota (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)