User talk:Xme

Welcome
A tag has been placed on Aureation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jeanenawhitney (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: John Ruskin
Your edit shows up when I look at the article, so no worries. Though, to be honest, I am not completely certain what you are trying to say. It is a good reference, so why not use a direct quote? Let me know if I can be of assistance. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  21:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh.  Xme - More?  14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Greville Starkey
A tag has been placed on Greville Starkey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Intelligentsium (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is linked to 53 articles and was on the list of Most wanted articles. Cheers,  'More?'  21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that the subject is not notable--that is a different issue--the problem is that the articles does not establish notability per WP:N. If you feel the subject is notable, add to the top of the article and expand it. Intelligentsium (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's ok, delete it if you want to. I was just trying to fulfill Most wanted articles. Cheers, Xme (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Pictogram
Remember that "names of list categories should be plural". --McGeddon (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks. What should I do to make it plural? Best, Xme (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just edit each of the articles you've added it to, and move Category:Pictogram to Category:Pictograms (using the "move" tab at the top of the page). --McGeddon (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you move it? I get a message that says I cannot move a category when I try. Xme (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, my mistake. Since it's a new page, there's no harm in just creating Category:Pictograms, copy-and-pasting the text manually, and putting on the old one. --McGeddon (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...
Could you please explain why you commented out these links?

I believe commenting out or removing dead links is counter-policy, when the link provides enough information for the dedicated reader to find a paper copy. Geo Swan (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems you commented out dozens of instances of http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/storyarchive/2007/07octstories/102907-2-oardec.html


 * It seems you did so without spending 20 seconds without doing an appropriate web search.


 * All kinds of sites rearrange where they place individual web-pages. They one you marked as a "dead-link" is found here:
 * http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/storyarchive/2007/October/102907-2-oardec.html
 * and here:
 * http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/wire/wire/WirePDF/v8/Issue35v8.pdf


 * I urge you not to remove any so-called "dead-links" just because you can't find them. Geo Swan (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You also inappropriately excised
 * http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/wire/WirePDF/v6/TheWire-v6-i049-10MAR2006.pdf
 * You could have found the archives for that publication here, and the specific URL
 * http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/wire/wire/WirePDF/v6/TheWire-v6-i049-10MAR2006.pdf


 * As above, I believe your excision was counter-policy. Geo Swan (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I commented them out, rather than removing them, so others would be able to track them down and correct them. I am unable to do so. Cheers, Xme (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying you are behind some kind of fire-wall that prevents you from using search engines?  Geo Swan (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I am not good with search engines and I'm not successful at finding links that don't exist. I don't know how to do it Cheers, Xme (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, first, please tell me whether you understood the point I made above -- removing links that provide enough information for the determined reader to hunt down a paper copy, because the online copy is no longer available is counter policy. It is handy when our references are on line.  But there is no requirement, in policy, for references to be online.  Further, there is no policy that authorizes removing good, full, valid references that were once online, solely because they are no long online.


 * Please confirm that you understand this important point.


 * There is a tag, dead link that some people apply to links they think are no longer available online.


 * I am sure your efforts have been well-intentioned. But this kind of effort is, IMO, very damaging.  I think you should consider going back, through your contribution history and uncomment out every reference you found that was no longer online.  You should replace every citation needed tag you placed with a dead link tag.


 * Searching for alternate URLs for references, or alternate references is not difficult:
 * If the reference is next to a quote, search for a passage from the quote.
 * When the reference includes a title, search for the title.
 * When the reference includes an author, search for the author.
 * Quotes work in search engines, telling the search engine to only look for web pages where all the words occur together.
 * Search engines understand the boolean operators AND and OR.
 * The google search engine can be told to restrict itself solely to news article, or solely to academic journals.
 * You can tell the google search engine to restrict itself solely to a specific site, or specific domain.
 * Adding " site:.mil ", for instance, tells google to restrict its search solely to sites in the ".mil" domain -- that is, sites controlled by the Department of Defense.
 * Adding " site:.ca " or " site:.uk " would tell google to restrict its search solely to sites that identify themselves as being in Canada, or the United Kingdom.
 * Adding " site:.cbc.ca " or " site:bbc.co.uk " would tell google to restrict its search solely to sites controlled by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or the British Broadcasting Corporation.
 * The example I offered you yesterday -- did you click on it? It is a perfect example of combining the title and the author in a single search.  Links to the replacement URL were the first and second links it tossed up.  Note how the title and author were enclosed between quotes.
 * None of this guaranteed to find the new URL, or alternate URL, or an alternate reference. It works about fifty percent of the time.
 * Sometimes this will bring up mirror sites that are not authorized. I didn't know this, when I first started doing this.  But, even though we are not technically violating anyone's copyright when we link to an unauthorized mirror site, that is violating a copyright, we just don't do it, out of respect for the copyright holder.
 * Some references will be very widely repeated -- like articles whose original source is a news service, like Reuters, Agence France Presse, the McClatchy News Service, United Press International, or the biggie, the Associated Press. Local papers get to edit those articles, for space.  Or sometimes they republish them, as is, but give them a new title.  This is why I recommended searching for a quote, if our reference includes one.


 * I am going to repeat my first point, because I think it is very important. It is counter-policy to remove perfectly valid links, as you did, just because they are no longer online.  IMO it is very damaging.  And you might consider stopping whatever you are doing, and going through your contribution history and restoring every link you commented out.


 * I spent several hours hunting down and restoring the articles on my watchlist that you damaged -- time I would much rather have spent more productively.


 * Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you corrected the article references, then it was time well spent. Most of the work on Wikipedia is grueling. The writing of articles is relatively simple by comparison. I will add deadlink from now on.  Cheers, Xme (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear -- you don't think it would be worthwhile for you to go back and fix other articles where you inappropriately commented out valid references -- not even this instance from September 12th that I found in looking at your contribution history? Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional instances:, , ,  Geo Swan (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

prod
I took a look at your contribution history, to try to see how many other articles you were removing links from. I found a at least one other in the last week.

I also notice you prodded Green Tortoise. I explained why I removed that prod.

Did you check Talk:Green Tortoise first? If so, what did you think of the keep arguments in Articles for deletion/Green Tortoise? Geo Swan (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You can remove the prod if you feel the objections have been taken care of and the article meets notability requirements, does not sound like and advert, and is not POV, and if you have added proper references. After I added it, an edit summary said that the editor was seeking to improve the article to prevent its deletion, so I accomplished my goal. Also, many editors do not like template deadlink in the articles and would prefer to have inline comments regarding the links instead. Cheers, Xme (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Prods are supposed to be used when you can't imagine anyone would disagree with you that the article merits deletion. Wouldn't you agree that the existence of close to a dozen contributors who voiced "keep" opinions in the afd indicates that the topic merited coverage?


 * Let's be clear, I removed the prod because I did not think it was being used in a manner consistent with the deletion policies. When you think an article is written from a biased POV the deletion policies do not recommend deletion:
 * they recommend the concerned contributor personally addresses their concern by improving the article;
 * or they recommend the concerned contributor discusses their concerns on the article's talk page;
 * or they recommend the concerned contributor make responsible use of editorial tags.
 * IMO when a concerned contributor doesn't have the necessary time, interest or ability to address their concerns in a responsible, policy-compliant manner, they should just let that issue slide. Geo Swan (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not going to argue about it with you. If you are promoting unsourced blatant adverts on Wikipedia, then you you did the right thing. Xme (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

fyi
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFactitious_disorder&diff=314623728&oldid=309328698 Geo Swan (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

responsible use of tags...
You removed a bunch of references in these edit.

You inserted a comment into the body of the article that said:  "this link does not support that Behlendorf founded HyperrealHyperreal"  Finding the appropriate subpage was trivial. Please click on this google search for "Brian Behlendorf" site:http://hyperreal.org/ founded OR founder

Similarly it was trivial to search for the subpages that describe his role in founding sfraves "Brian Behlendorf" site:http://sfraves.org/ founder OR founding And it was trivial to search for the subpages that describe his role as a director of Mozilla: "Brian Behlendorf" site:mozilla.org/ director OR directors

If you plan to continue working on checking the references to article I strongly urge you to learn to use these simple techniques. Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Signpost discussion
Hi, I was a little bit confused by your post on the discussion on the Signpost. I was the one who made the statement that the promotion rate "remains more or less constant (c. 55%)" – not Tony – and it seems like you and I are in agreement. I argued that the constant promotion rate shows that since the promotions have gone down, the nominations have as well, and I think that was your point too?

I just thought I'd ask you about this here instead of having a long discussion there, if it's just a misunderstanding. Lampman (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, a misunderstanding. You and I agree. Xme (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. KnightLago (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)