User talk:Xoloz/archive13

NIL
Hi, you have deleted the page for NIL, an implementation of Lisp. The page for deletion was Nil (programming langauge) which was a joke programming language. Could you please re-instate the page for NIL? Nilboy 20:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The text for Nil (programming lanaguge) described a joke language. This was deleted last week.  The text for NIL was my edit to the following (taken from Google's cache)


 * /nil/ 1. New Implementation of Lisp. A language intended to be the successor of MacLisp. A large Lisp, implemented mostly in VAX assembly language. A forerunner of Common LISP.


 * ["NIL: A Perspective", Jon L. White, MACSYMA Users' Conf Proc, 1979].


 * History of Lisp: New Implementation of Lisp (NIL), S-1 Lisp


 * This article was originally based on material from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, which is licensed under the GFDL.


 * When Nil (programming language) was deleted I used this to do a redirect to the real language NIL which was not the subject of the AFD request. Could you please re-instate the page for NIL? Nilboy 11:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Before the AFD for "Nil (programming language)" there were two pages - "Nil (programming language)" describing the joke programming language "Nil", and one, "NIL", describing the real programming language "NIL". The AFD request was for "Nil (programming language)" and it was determined that this should be deleted, which it was.  I have then made changes to the page "NIL" and *linked* "Nil (programming language)" to it.  You have then deleted both the link and the NIL page.  This does not make any sense, it is as if someone has made a joke page called "FORTRAN (programming language)" which was then deleted, along with the real page "FORTRAN".  Could you please re-instate the page for NIL? Nilboy 22:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I may have just broke DRV
Not sure what I did wrong, but the proper log isn't coming up, even though I think I did it right. Sorry, I know you know how to do it... --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Did this ever get settled? I was messing with it earlier today because the October 10 pages weren't looking right. I got them to look right, but I don't know if I made the underlying log code better or worse in the process. --Aaron 22:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about blocking
Please check the page I deleted here. It is obviously vandalism and an attack/threat page. My question is what is the appropriate sanction considering the nature of the threat and the fact that some information that might be able to used to identify the target was revealed? Thanks for your feedback, Irongargoyle 15:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! Irongargoyle 15:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Hillman/Archive13
Hi, Xoloz, can you unprotect and delete this? I have used to request deletion of all my user pages and all my user talk pages, including the David.Mestel negotation since this is obviously moot. Thanks for all your help with various such matters in the past. ---CH 16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you leaving? :( Xoloz 16:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Can you delete User talk:Hillman too?

Er... why am I leaving? That's what I have been trying to explain for about a year! Short history: Sadly, this seems to be the consistent pattern followed by many of the editors with special knowledge or expertise whose long-term presence should surely be most valued for purposes of constructing a credible encyclopedia. The sad thing is, all I ever wanted to do here was write about math and physics, focusing on technical aspects which many would no doubt expect to be relatively uncontroversial!
 * 1) arrived, got intrigued, wrote or rewrote many articles,
 * 2) found myself spending more and more time trying to revert bad edits utterly destroying my previous hard work, plus dealing with increasing levels of harassment,
 * 3) gave up on content creation and focused on reforming policymaking and streamlining policy enforcement, which led to more harassment,
 * 4) acknowledged no hope of reforming policymaking, hence no hope of creating new policies which would support knowledgeable science editors, hence no hope of returning to content creation (the only activity I ever wanted to pursue here), so decided to try to write exit statements answering your question in detail, which led to even more harassment,
 * 5) finally cut my losses and walked away from everything I had ever tried to do here.

Thanks for deleting User talk:Hillman/Archive13. I guess User:Hillman/Archive could be my wikitombeau, although I don't much care if that is deleted too. I'd like to remove User talk:Hillman since leaving it seems tantamount to inviting more harassment :-( and the same is probably true for User:Hillman/Archive.
 * If CH doesn't object - I'd like to see the User:Hillman/Archive article not deleted since it is a useful reference - I'll add it to my watchlist for vandalism. -- Trödel 18:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help, Xoloz. I've encountered some very nice individuals here. I hope I remember them long after I've forgotten the not so nice ones! :-)

I sincerely hope that despite my pessimism the remaining community can somehow pull off a miracle and save (the encyclopedic function of) Wikipedia from self-destructing. Good luck and best wishes to all editors of good faith!---CH 17:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion policy
Dear Xoloz: I have been reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines, etc., but I have not located any information on how Wikipedia would treat an article that has been repeatedly deleted but keeps "coming back." If there's something in the materials on speedy delete, for example, I missed it. Can you point me to a rule somewhere? Yours, Famspear 22:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Xoloz: OK, now I see there is a category called "Recreation of deleted material":


 * A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another Xfd process, unless it was undeleted per the or undeletion policy or was recreated in the user space. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject. This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions, although in this case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply. [bolding added]

Does this mean that if an article is deleted, a user who essentially wrote the original article and voted against the deletion can simply re-create the article a few days after the deletion simply by assuring that the wording of the new article is not "substantially identical" to the deleted article? Yours, Famspear 23:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cher Xoloz: Je vous remercie. Je crois que je parle un peu francais aussi. Quand j’ai fait un voyage en France dans les 1990s, les gens qui demeuraient dans le pays ont cru que j’ai pu parler français – jusqu’à la pointe où j’ai ouvert ma bouche!


 * Whew! I saw on your talk page that you speak French, so I thought I would give it a try. It’s been awhile since I tried to write in that language. Actually, it looks like you and I have a few things in common. From the South, speak some French, INTP, law degrees, both with an apparent interest in history. I did not go to Georgetown or Harvard, but I have walked through parts of Georgetown, and once got semi-lost trying to drive in Cambridge -- so, hey, we’re practically cousins.


 * I was not thinking about creating an article myself. Actuellement, je pensais de Roni Lynn Deutch qui est né encore (mais je ne sais pas qui a écrit l'article originale). Yours, Famspear 01:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I see that the Deutch article has been deleted a third time, with an admonition to the user who had re-created it. I did think it a bit odd that someone who participated in two AfD processes [correction: an AfD and a deletion review] and argued strenuously -- but unsuccessfully -- each time for the article's retention should then, shortly after the article's deletion review, simply re-create the material. It seemed to make a mockery of the whole idea of Wikipedia consensus.

I've been editing here since late 2005 (never created an article myself, though). I am impressed with how, despite its inherent shortcomings, Wikipedia does (in my view) seem to work reasonably well. Yours, Famspear 11:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, now I see that the user has reinstated the Roni Lynn Deutch article again. Wow. Famspear 14:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Question
Could you undelete User:Moe Epsilon/Users for me? — Moe  04:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL :) Binguyen is fast! :) Xoloz 04:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, that was fast, thanks for the thought anyways (and to Blnguyen, where ever he may be) :P — Moe  04:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

CALUMO, deletion of
Hi! You deleted CALUMO but rather summarily, in my opinion. I was wondering if you had at least considered replying to my argument for keeping the article on the article's talk page? Or if you were going to delete regardless, to do me the courtesy of saying why on my Talk page? Also, my reading of WP policy seems to imply that the addition of the tag meant I would have some time to put my case and answer any criticisms of it. What say you? Paul Beardsell 06:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cent
Hello, I see you've recently edited cent. That's good. You also logged your changes -- very good. But what was the outcome of the poll? You might like to clarify that you moved the poll to the Old section, too. Most importantly, if the poll has closed, we need to extract its outcome into the log. Eventually, Centralized discussion/Conclusions will need to be updated. Thank you. John Reid 11:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL :) Well... as you know, the state highways poll was one of the most involved in the history of Wikipedia.  The result was a list of standards for every state's highways, I suppose.  The last time I updated "cent" we didn't have that handy conclusions list. :)  Best wishes, Xoloz 14:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

According to log, the last time you edited it was 2006 Oct 9. Perhaps you mean the time before last? Anyway, glad to have your help. My understanding is that somebody got a barnstar out of the road names solution but I didn't follow it closely. Anyway, what's wanted is some sort of two-word distillation of the outcome. You're welcome to take it a step further and summarize the whole thing on /Conclusions but I generally leave that until the log is archived. All the log needs is some sort of flag that indicates the general status or outcome of the poll at the time it closed or was removed from Cent. Thank you. John Reid 14:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

RfB With A Smile :)


Email
Can you check your email? Thanks, Byrgenwulf 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied. If you change your mind, I can always restore your userpage. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Byrgenwulf 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Immediate Attention
Hello, Xoloz. I just posted the following update in the RfC which Byrgenwulf recently initiated against me:

UPDATE: A couple of days ago, User Hillman - the same Chris Hillman whose name once appeared frequently with John Baez on physics newgroups - suddenly withdrew from Wikipedia. Hillman (CH) was instrumental in Byrgenwulf's (and Anville's) misbegotten attack on the CTMU article. Fortunately, this lays to rest a certain dispute involving the unauthorized disclosure of personal information in contravention of WP. It seems that just this morning, Byrgenwulf decided to follow suit, making good on his repeated threats to leave Wikipedia. Very soon after Byrgenwulf submitted his request, User Xoloz obligingly blanked all of his user pages. Unfortunately, since Xoloz also invited him back, he returned shortly thereafter to post another vicious personal attack on his newly rewritten User Page (to which this document links). This personal attack - the targets of which are painfully obvious - should be removed, and this user should be banned from Wikipedia. Would any nearby adminstrator, Xoloz for example, care to assist me in removing the attack and initiating the necessary proceedings? Asmodeus 18:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to be of help to me here? Asmodeus 18:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Xoloz: do whatever you see fit. I do not believe what I have written is a personal attack, since it mentions no specifics whatsoever, and does not link to any documents.  I think I should be entitled to describe honestly, in my own words, why I have chosen to leave.  But I don't really care.  If you want to delete my page again, that's fine. Byrgenwulf 18:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. I also removed something from the RfC, but it was restored because I am apparently not allowed to edit the comments of others.... Byrgenwulf 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure you understand me, Xoloz. Hyperlinks do not go in only one direction. One must not only look at the attack to see what it links to; one must also take account of what links to the attack. As it happens, there is an ongoing publicly accessible procedural document which links to the attack, and this makes it quite obvious who the attack is about. You are making it possible for Byrgenwulf to attack real, specific people who have asked for protection. Again, will you help? Thanks, Asmodeus 19:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree with Asmodeus, Xoloz. That content is extremely mean-spirited and the targets are clear from the links to the page or examination of his contribs. --DrL 19:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your agreement is not persuasive, as you are common partisans in a dispute. See Asmodeus' talk for my reply.  Best wishes, Xoloz 19:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again, User Xoloz. Sadly, I note that you have declined my request for protection under WP:NPA. Of course, I respect your prerogatives as an administrator, but this seems to confirm certain suspicions that I have long tried to resist regarding the particulars of your involvement in the CTMU/Hillman/Byrgenwulf affair(s). Unfortunately, I must be honest, and inform you that these suspicions are not entirely consistent with what I regard as sound, neutral, balanced administrative procedure...but I'm sure that you have your rationales.


 * One more thing. You have removed "personal information" from the RfC that Byrgenwulf initiated against me. (This personal information was initially provided by Byrgenwulf himself.) Unfortunately, your edit makes it hard to follow the "heads up" link that I was forced to include for valid historical purposes. In particular, the page to which I link contains contributions from several people, only one of whom is Byrgenwulf. Do you have any suggestions on how this problem might be resolved?


 * Do have a good day. Asmodeus 19:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Asmodeus, it was *not* me who provided that information first. You did.  During the deletion review.  That was temporally prior to me including it on my userpage (which I wouldn't have done, if you hadn't brought it up).  But a few things concern me here.  It is largely immaterial to your argument in the RfC just who I am: the point is that I found out about the CTMU on a forum.  Your piece on the RfC is far more of a personal attack on me than my userpage is on you, considering that many of the things in the RfC are not true, in addition to being phrased in an overtly hostile fashion.  DrL, similarly, has turned some legitimate warnings I gave her on her talk page into a personal attack on me (accusing me, in the absence of proof, of all kinds of shenanigans).  Why is it that Asmodeus and DrL get away with anything short of murder, but they won't allow me to express a bit of indirect discontent on my userpage, to explain why I've left?  Arguably, some of the comments on my userpage are necessary precisely because of what has been written in the RfC &mdash; the ridiculous claims made about my competence, motives, etc.: all of which are Asmodeus' opinion, not proven (even the links to my talk page archive didn't *prove* what he was saying). Please let's leave this now.Byrgenwulf 20:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My suggestion, Asmodeus, is this: the site to which the "heads-up" refers has nothing to do Wikipedia. While you are free to express yourself as you wish within your response (with limited exceptions, including divulging personal information about other user against his/her will), my experience suggests that few, if any, Wikipedians will find reference to an off-site discussion relevant or useful.  Off-site discussion fora are not governed by Wikipedia's policies, and provide little useful information in resolving Wikipedian disputes.  Stick to Wikipedia comments and events in your discussion, for the sake of your own argument's advancement.


 * My suggestion to Brygenwulf is to ignore these exchanges. Whatever anyone may think, my role in this is to uphold fundamental fairness and Wikipedia's policies and consensus.  I will not allow anyone to "get away with anything", nor will I prevent anyone from doing anything that improves Wikipedia.  This is an encyclopedia, neither a court nor a debating forum, as the old cliche goes. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion (to me). However, the link you deplore helps explain the motivation behind the attack on the CTMU article, which is most certainly of relevance to certain larger issues facing Wikipedia. And while I commend your avowed opposition to the divulgence of personal information on Wikipedia, I do find it a bit curious in light of the fact that it took quite a long time for you or any other administrator to remove the personal information divulged about DrL and me by User Hillman. Indeed, Byrgenwulf also came extremely close to revealing personal information on his "CTMU saga" page - I'd say that he did, in fact - but you did nothing about that either. I know about the ArbCom's ruling on the documentation of behavior, but it specifically warns against personal attacks and makes no exceptions to WP regarding the divulgence of personal information. Therefore, I'm afraid I don't see adequate symmetry in your enforcement of this rule. But thanks anyway, and have a nice day. Asmodeus 21:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Elucidate article
Hello Xoloz, just wondering if this: Digitally Imported Show, Digital Vibes Show, SenseGenerate Show, Tracklists Show, Afterhours Show is enough to warrant the article to not be speedily deleted. There are other stations on which their show airs, but I wasnt able to get a link to a specific page about the Elucidate show. Other then this I dont really know what else to use to validate Elucidate as a legit artist. I couldn't find any magazine articles or reviews or anything of that nature.

Thanks for your help with this!

Cheers,

Sean B.

Deletion of my user page
I recently found out that my user page was deleted. I don't understand why this has happened, and why you did this. I spent countless hours working on this page, and I don't understand why I had no say in this decision. I am a notable music producer and musician and composer that has definitely accomplished "notable" status in my career. I have composed music for a variety of films and television shows and have performed concert tours around the world. At first my page was moved to a user page because it did not have enough content to verify that I am "notable", so I decided to leave it in the user area until I bring my information up to par and provide links and verifyable information. I was still in the process of doing this after many many hours of working on this site and learning how to use the Wikipedia interface, and all of a sudden everything I did was deleted! I find this absolutely unfair and I should have at least be made part of the decision. I would like to know if there is anyway to retrieve all my hard work that I did and get my user page back. I was told that my page belongs in the User area when it was removed from the encyclopedia, at least for now until I can verify my information. Now it got deleted from the User area, where I was told it is supposed to be. I don't understand this, and I would like to know why this happened, and why I wasn't consulted on this decision? Please get back to me, Jason Greenberg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasongreenberg (talk • contribs) 00:10, 14 Oct 2006 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jason Greenberg→ A z a  Toth 00:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hillman
Has Hillman exercised his right to vanish or something? It seems like his user page and his user talk page have been deleted, as well as his subpages. David Mestel(Talk) 05:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, at least the departure of both him and Byrgenwulf provides some closure to the dispute. David Mestel(Talk) 17:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Elucidate
Thanks for all of your help Xoloz, :)

Cheers,

Sean B.

Thanks
Thanks for the update --Halaqah 20:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias


Hey Xoloz, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Loserz
Loserz

Not sure if you are the right person to contact here... but I have posted Loserz as an article's deletion to be reviewed. Thanks.

Snipergirl 16:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

JAKAZiD
I wish to contest the deletion of the JAKAZiD article. While it is true that at the last check the majority of votes were for delete, if you check the history you'll notice that everyone voted delete, stating that the article needed to prove its own notoriety. I therefore posted links proving that the subject in question does meet WP:MUSIC, but nobody replied to my new proof. Recently another editor relisted the article for speedy deletion. Once again, I posted proof of notability on the Talk Page, and once again received no comments. What I am contesting here is the fact that nobody read or made any decision based on my proof of the article's notoriety. Since new information was posted, this should make the "delete" decision invalid until the original posters read my proof and decide based on that. --PkerUNO 15:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I also wish to conetest the deletion, I checked the log and you seemed to have restored it in the same day, yet it is still deleted. PkerUNO has shown in all cases WP:MUSIC has been reached. There is enough proof to prove Notability, yet why does it continue to be deleted? ShadowmanX 16:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Check PkerUNO's talk page for the resolution. Xoloz 19:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think to ensure it goes through next time, I'll wait until the single is actually released and makes the charts/radio. At least then there will be no doubt as to the notability. :) --PkerUNO 22:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lostpedia
Hello, I see you restored the Lostpedia article. Can you also unprotect it so that additions to the quality of the article can be made? Thanks, --Jabrwocky7 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, regarding Template:Uncyclopedia
I'm here to ask if you were behind its deletion, and if so, why? I am the original creator of the template, and no one complained at the time when I asked if I could create it. I think it brings "interwikiness" among articles, as well as showing the fun side of things, after all Wp is considered by many to be too "dry", and a link at the bottom of articles showing alternative versions for parody reasons would in my opinion improve the Wikipedia experience, as well as prevent some vandalism by "smart-asses".

I thereby ask that that template may be recreated again. It took me a lot of work to create it and I have to confess, I was bold in doing so, but that's what people expect from editors, is it not?

I can't figure very well the deletion log, so I'm not even sure if it was you who deleted it originally. If not, could you please inform the original admin of my position? Or if you point me in the right track, I'll do it myself.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves/ Saoshyant talk / contribs 09:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply. This seems like a sad case, though.  Mr. Jimbo Wales allows the default link on Wp, so I assumed a template similar to commons, wikiquote, wiktionary wouldn't hurt.  I explained my reasons at the moment of creation of the template in the talk page.  Nobody cared.  Admins shouldn't decide what goes or not in Wp.  They deleted the thing without a second thought, even though from what I've seen there were attempts by other Wikipedians (not me) to resurrect the page.


 * I understand you want to have no position on the uncyclopedia issue, but the text on the template was not misleading. It read as: For those with comedic tastes, the pranksters at Uncyclopedia have an article about Whatever.  No one would be fooled to think the article linked would be serious.  Plus, I believe it would improve the Wikipedia experience as well as prevent some of the vandalism by smartasses.  I ask you to reconsider your position and maybe help me convince Xaosflux (I have since discovered it was him who deleted it originally), as well as other admins that the template brings no harm and its meant to improve Wikipedia by showing there's an alternative for those who just want to have a laugh about an issue, so they won't vandalize articles.


 * I'll understand if you won't help. It's in your rights.  What's not in your rights and of other admins is to join together and decide what stays or not in Wp.  That decision lies in the community and NOT in mere janitors.  Thank you for attention.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves/ Saoshyant  talk / contribs 15:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of User:Miracleimpulse/The Sweetest Day Hoax
Hello Xoloz. Reinyday offered to assist in editing my user page to make it compliant with Wikipedia standards. I accepted the offer. It did not occur to me to mention this on the debate page. Will you consider undeletion, or may I recreate the page to continue building the article? Thank you, Miracleimpulse 17:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchopedia on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Anarchopedia. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Antonia Bennett
Hi,

A comment on DRV talk brought this to my attention. Care to explain why you speedy deleted three days after a keep AfD closure? Isn't DRV the forum for such reviews? At first blush, the article satisfies no CSD that I can see. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Howdy! The AfD 'Keep' was inappropriate because there was a specific policy that already decided the fate of the article in its form at the time.  It meets WP:CSD A7 for notability.  There's no claim of notability (being the daughter of someone famous does not equal notable) and she fails to meet the WP:MUSIC guideline applied to musicians on their own merit.  WP is WP:NOT a democracy, and we have an obligation to do whats right, not just what's popular.  If the latter were true, then we'd be awash with userboxes, have userspace full of fair-use copywritten images, and be awash with copyvios in the main article space.  - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia operates by consensus, and admins must abide by it, absent really compelling evidence (like US law in the case of copyvios, or Jimbo's fiat in the userbox case.) In this case, not only do I disagree with your contention that the article met CSD A7, I don't see any reasonable way you could reach that conclusion, based on the numerous notability claims in the article.  Since your undeletion has no meritorious rationale outside of IAR, as I see things, I will now use IAR to reverse the deletion.  To prevent wheel-warring, I'd suggest that, should you dispute my restoration, you take the matter to DRV.  Best wishes, Xoloz 21:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see Alkivar beat me to it. Should you dispute his restoration, DRV would be the place to go. We now clearly have a dispute over the CSD interpretation among a number of admins.  By the way, just FYI, having a famous parent usually earns even completely non-notable children redirects to their parent, so your stated rationale for deletion is inappropriate on a second ground. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me get this right, you announce that you plan to wheel war, then you suggest that my actions are irrational? Please re-examine the nature of your interactions.  Wheel warring is never appropriate, and the DrV would have been far more appropriate than a restoral.  The article is now a redirect to Tony Bennett. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 22:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless you are very naive, or ill-informed, you must know that there is substantial discussion regarding what constitutes a wheel-war. I take the view that undoing another admin once is not wheel-warring; hence, your reversal of the AfD was not wheel-warring (if it had been, I might have warned you in preparation for a block for disruption.)  Neither would any restoration from me or Alkivar be wheel-warring.  Only repeatedly undoing other admins is wheel-warring.  If you read  my words more carefully, you will see that I warned only that reversing me (or Alkivar) after a restoration would be wheel-warring, and hence, very bad.  My actions were perfectly consistent; your understanding of policy here seems unclear.
 * I do find it impressive that you counsel me (or, rather Alkivar) to take a matter to DRV after your own anti-consensus, out-of-process deletion. You're right that the dispute is best-settled there, but your suggestion is not without a tinge of hypocrisy.
 * In any event, your hostility to me is unwarranted -- I never did anything to this article, Alkivar did. I spoke to you first, and only after judging your explanation very poor did I even consider reverting you, by which time, the deed was done already.  I'm glad that a good result (redirection to Tony Bennett) has been reached, as I recommended to you above.  I hope, in the future, that you will more carefully consider policy before acting, will be more quick to heed your own advice and seek opinions at DRV before unilaterally overturning an AfD, and that you will read others' messages more closely, as you seem to have missed the several subtleties in my early post that I have now reiterated more plainly for you.  Best wishes, Xoloz 01:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your hostility is misplaced. We disagree about the appropriate policy, that's fine.  A member of the foundation endorsed my action, that's fine too.  Alkivar and I spoke on #wikipedia-en-admins and decided that we really did, in fact, disagree with each other, then dropped it when CSCWEM converted the article to a redirect (which is fine).  My deletion was appropriate, and your vaguely menacing tones have no place on the project.  We're supposed to be working together but the antagonistic tone you've adopted makes that difficult.  If you feel my actions were inappropriate, I urge you to file an RfC.  My actions are motivated by a reasonable and positive interpretation of the policies and guidelines that create the structure we build the encyclopedia on, and I'm confident that while the RfC would generate a healthy amount of conversation back and forth on the issue, the end agreement would be that yes, the article _was_ a speedy delete candidate, and yes, even though deleting an article after a 'Keep' AfD can raise eyebrows, we need to act decisively in the interests of the project. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 01:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka
Thank you for expressing an interest in my recent RfA. As a followup, I wanted to let you know that unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate that you took the time to monitor the discussion as a neutral participant, and I paid close attention to your thoughts, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. My current plans are to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Userpage
Wow, I didnt even know there someone was trying to delete that page! LOL Thanks for letting me know it wasnt deleted! Khorshid 17:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Very Belated Thanks!
Sure, I'm glad to have helped you back then! Oh, and about you being confused about my username... that's one reason that it has a numeral zero in it instead of a letter "O", and why I stopped signing it as "You" and used the numeral 0 in my sig since then too. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryan Sugden
Sorry -- I looked at the page history, and it didn't show any deletions (I guess because you had reversed it). Thanks, NawlinWiki 15:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * DRVs closed (after I figured out how to do that -- had never closed one before). NawlinWiki 16:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination)|Lostpedia AFD
I was just wondering when an admin will come to a decision over this discussion. Its been over a week of voting now, and either way I think its gone over the usual amount of time. As the initiating user, I thought I'd ask you about this - do you think its time to make a judgement on this? Thanks, --Nickb123 3rd 12:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore III
I don't see anywhere in the deletion review where it was declared I had a conflict of interest, and I don't appreciate such a bad faith declaration. I'm not even bothering with editing anymore besides things already on my watchlist, so just leave me out of this stuff from now on. Thanks. Parsssseltongue 17:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Emmalina
Can we get a history undeletion so we can start a worthwhile discussion having all the available information out there? Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries in deletion logs
Hi there. Is it possible to provide clickable links to AfD discussions in deletion log edit summaries? I was reviewing the logged activity here, and the little red links popping up alerted me to four article deletions here, here, here, and here, but I can't click through from the deletion log summaries to the deletion discussion. Another article on that list has a more convenient deletion log summary, as seen here. Hope you don't mind me asking you this. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Emmmmmmmmmaaaaaliiiinaaaa
Hey Xolox, I know the compromise unprotect of Emmalina was well intentioned, but the article was deleted, the deletion was endorsed and even a second DRV which at the very least put words in my mouth as to why the article was deleted still failed to overturn the result. We can't call this one over and move on? Your closing summary seems to say "no consensus", which means status quo. The rationale that unprotection will allow editorial processes to shape this one doesn't really fly - editorial processes shaped an article that was deleted, and whose deletion was endorsed. The endorsed deletion was not contingent upon the information being contained in Notable YouTube memes (as evidenced by the fact it was redirected to YouTube) but because she failed WP:BIO.  Dei zio  talk 03:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase Albert Rosenfield:I've got Wiki-Love running out of my nose, I'm the sultan of sentiment. But this was deleted and the deletion endorsed at DRV. The "emergency re-DRV" was created through a smoke-and-mirrors campaign that insisted the deletion of Notable YouTube memes somehow affected the result of the previous DRV. I feel I cannot be clear enough on this point - the memes page had nothing to do with the original deletion, and that decision was endorsed. I've seen no new evidence that she has achieved something new that brings her closer to :BIO and, like I said, the unprotection was well intentioned but denies the closure this needs. By a strict reading of the rules, you need a majority to overturn a decision, which as you've stated, did not exist. You talk about this being as good a YouTube "crufty meme" to discuss as any - the precedent this is setting is "Crufty YouTube stuff may be deleted, deletion endorsed but then allowed to creep its way back into the encyclopedia". I know this article means soooooo much to some people but we have to respect process, not break our backs to find ways around it. I really really don't care about Emmalina, or about being "right". I do care about WP. Much love,  Dei zio  talk 12:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to barge in here, but can you please stop referring to the DRV as "smoke and mirrors?" Those of us who want the article firmly have the guideline and policy on our sides, and even so much as respected the compromise reached with it going to Notable YouTube memes.  This isn't "crufty YouTube stuff," it was a newsworthy person who had numerous articles written about her, who happened to be on YouTube.  We're all acting in good faith here, as I'm sure you are, so please think about this a little more. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pre-query on RfA
Another admin has asked if I want to stand for an RfA diff. I am presoliciting your opinion. I think that WP:DRV is one of the areas where the new tools would definitely improve my current participation - for example I'd be better able to evaluate speedy deletions. As the regular DRV closer, I am thus especially interested in your thoughts as to whether I am ready. GRBerry 05:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sven-Goran Eriksson article
i need the help of an administrator. I made changes to the Eriksson article (Oct 31) because i believed it was written both poorly and with a partisan viewpoint; since then the changes i made have have been reverted (Nov 1). i don't want to get involved in an edit war, but i feel quite strongly tht my version of the article is less emotive and more neutral. Any way you could nip the issue in the bud? thanks AmbrosePhillips 13:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

about Wizardry Dragon's over-riding your decision
I completely agree with both your closure as well as terms under which you closed the issue of adresssing user watch pages. I was disturbed by his action in over-ruling your decision for the document is STILL available for review and quoting in any case, should the final party ever agree to mediation. I would request that you revert his decision. If you cannot overrule his decision, can Zeraeph request that you take this action on his behalf? Or can he close it himself, retaining the right to reopen it in the distant future (in a far different form) if other means prove futile? Thank you for your time in thought and consideration. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 20:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Totally ok with closing of MFD. I would be a fool to deny that I let myself be persuaded to make a royal beggar's muddle of it, for which I take full responsibility, but I couldn't personally withdraw it, because that would have misleading connotations of changing my opinion that a page like this should be deleted. Nor could I withdraw it and make out a new MFD because that, to me would seem slightly underhanded in some way, not least in being so dismissive of comments already posted.


 * I also agree with letting this cool off and go to mediation before requesting deletion again. Hopefully Psychonaut will finally agree to mediation on this issue, so that we can at least get the more subjective negative aspects straightened out. I believe Psychonaut was given a very hard time that nobody deserve by another editor, quite recently and probably needs some time to calm down and get a clearer perspective. --Zeraeph 02:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Catch21 Producitions
Dear Xoloz,

I am writing to ask why this page / article was deleted. It was a very good cause and exactly the same type of organisation as the Power Inquiry which I noticed is still available.

Please could you inform me why.

My address is: lemjelly@o2.co.uk

Kind Regards

Douglas

Deletion review
This is a prod (contested after the fact) that the deleting admin declined to undelete. The contesting user (an anon) put it in the wrong DRV section, but I am requesting that it be speedy undeleted so that clean-up/AfD can begin. Eluchil404 10:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Found it
This has some interesting information. DS 17:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam
You recently closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist early and without prejudice on the grounds that the proposal was made improperly (that is, articles were added or removed from the list of proposed articles after people had already voted). Please consider closing Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam for the same reason. —Psychonaut 01:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

1ne Title MfD
Thanks for contacting me on my talkpage regarding how I closed this. I appreciate all the help I can get. ~ crazytal es  56297  O rly? 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User:KILDAY MfD
You deleted it but forgot to archive the debate. I did so for you cheers. Whisp e ring 18:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Giga581 deletion concerns BaronVonBrunk.com
Dear Xoloz, I wish to ask why you deleted my article and what could have been done to prevent this from happening. Please reply as soon as possible. Thank you.

Giga581