User talk:Xoloz/archive17

Kudzu.com
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kudzu.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Edmur 00:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

World TV Title.
The World TV Title was created in 1974 by Mid-Atlantic Wrestling.

In the mid 80's, Mid Atlantic bought out several other NWA Territories such as Georgia Championship Wrestling, The Florida territory run by Dusty Rhodes, and the old Mid-South/UWF promotion in Oklahoma.

As Mid Atlantic expanded, they became known as Jim Crockett Promotions (JCP). And as JCP was by far the NWA's biggest territory, NWA granted JCP the right to put the NWA name on the 5 titles JCP created, promoted, and owned (The U.S., TV, World Tag Team,  U.S. Tag Team, and 6-Man Tag Titles).

Shortly after Ted Turner bought JCP and renamed it WCW, they pulled out of the NWA and took the titles that they owned with them (U.S., TV, World Tag Team, U.S. Tag Team, and 6-Man Tag Team). Obviously that meant that the NWA name disappeared and the belts were all re-christened as WCW Titles.

So all this means is that the Mid-Atlantic/NWA/WCW TV Title are all one in the same and thus should only need to be listed under the WCW name as that is what the title was last known as.

Any separate lists under the NWA name are redundant and repetitive.

Ohgltxg 01:46 July 8, 2007 (UTC)


 * As a somewhat-knowledgeable wrestling fan, I dispute your characterization. The NWA continues to exist, and may claim that the lineage of its TV title is separate from Crockett (later WCW.)  For reader convenience, it might make sense to list the various title-holders at separate articles, depending on the organization claiming the TV title at the time of their Championship reign.


 * As an administrator, I advise you that, even if your concerns are correct, speedy deletion is not the appropriate form to address the problem. Speedy deletion is governed by the narrow criteria for speedy deletion, and your reason fits none of those criteria.  You need to refer the articles to Articles for Deletion to address your concerns.  Best wishes, Xoloz 01:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

NWA never promoted their own TV Championship. They didn't even promote their own Tag Team Titles until 1992.

The only championship that the NWA owned during this time period was the NWA World Title. all the other championships were owned by their respective territories and only stamped with the NWA name if given the proper blessings.

Mid-Atlantic/JCP/WCW created, promoted, and owned the World TV Title, all the NWA did was give that promotion the right to stamp the NWA name on it. And when they parted company, the NWA name went with them. But the same promotion owned the title the whole time, so it is all one big lineage starting with Danny Miller, and it doesn't end with Arn Anderson, it ends with Jim Duggan.

Ohgltxg 02:08 July 8, 2007 (UTC)


 * If NWA wants to have a TV Title the lineage starts from scratch because WWE now owns the rights and the histories of WCW's Championships.


 * Take the U.S. Title for example: WWE can use the past history because they own the title, as it was part of the WCW purchase. NWA couldn't (assuming they wanted their own U.S. Title).  Same theory goes for the TV Title.  WWE owns the title, and with it the lineage.

Ohgltxg 2:45 July 8, 2007 (UTC)

Deleting
OK, thanks for the tips. I really do appreciate them. -- But | seriously | folks   02:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Move revert of Ichiro (baseball player) to Ichiro Suzuki
Just a quick heads up, the talk page is still on the Ichiro (baseball player) format, so whenever you get a chance, delete the redirect and then move the talk page over. Cheers =) -- slakr 21:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fur Massage Deletion
I noticed that you removed the speedy deletion spam tag from the fur massage article. I posted about it on the talk page, and I'd like your input. Thanks. Ketsuekigata 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ral315 RfB
So I'm having second thoughts on opposing Ral's RfB. I've noticed we often tend to be on more or less the same wavelength at RfA and RfB, so I wanted to run my thoughts by you. So I don't know. I'm also uncomfortable with the incredible weight an oppose vote carries in an RfB. What do you think? Apologies for using your talk page to think this through, but I didn't want to clutter up the RfB with all of that. --JayHenry 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) At first, I didn't think Ral explained himself as well as he could have.  But when asked to clarify, he's done so rather well in my estimation.
 * 2) I think Ral is sensitive to potential bureaucrat/Signpost conflict and I think if a conflict arose he probably would step down from one position or the other.  Although I think the conflict is stronger than he does, I think he is mindful of it, and I think after this RfB he will be forever wary of it.
 * 3) I think he might step down from the Signpost even if there were someone available to step up and do it reliably, but I don't think anyone else is quite ready and he was just being diplomatic in not saying so.
 * 4) Signpost editor-in-chief may indeed be a somewhat misleading title.  It really may be primarily (or at least largely) a maintenance position, not an editorial or leadership one.  In terms of leadership, I doubt he'd have a larger following than, say, the de facto leader of a large WikiProject.
 * 5) If not for the Signpost issue, I think he'd probably be a better bureaucrat than the rest.
 * 6) On the other hand, my concerns about consolidation of power are genuine and the project has had too much trouble in the past from super-users.


 * Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. You're wrong, of course, that your thought patterns are too eccentric for someone to be influenced by them.  My gosh, have you seen most of the thinking that goes on at this place?  Whenever I oppose anyone it really weighs on me.  After all, this is just a Web site, but real people often have their feelings hurt, even by good faith opposes, and I seem to oppose more often than most.  I was worried it was perhaps absurd for me to take the Signpost more seriously than it seems to take itself.  But you're right, it is a valid concern, and if Ral315 gave it up, which he could do, I think he would pass easily as a bureaucrat.  Thanks again for taking as much time as you did to respond. --JayHenry 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I spoke much too soon. I didn't even read the Signpost story on the bureaucrats because I had followed it so closely, but after reading the stories and seeing the points that Cecropia just made at the RfB, I feel more confident that I made the right decision. --JayHenry 02:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Which way out?
I think you were wise to select the "third way out" (both technically and to preserve peace and goodwill) but I think the more appropriate label is "chicken's way out"... :) That was way too easy! -- DS1953 talk  21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat
Thanks for your comments. I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I enjoyed our discussion, and I will do my best to keep your concerns in mind as I perform my duties. Andre (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice close
You edit-conflicted with me on the Portal:RuneScape close. Very nice job on the closing statement, even though I was closing it differently than you did. :-) Best, IronGargoyle 15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mario Kart Wii
Now that Mario Kart Wii has finally been announced, I will like a history undeletion on it. SNS 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised no one had made an article on Mario Party DS since it was announced but then I noticed it was protected from being recreated. Can you remove the protection & undelete the history? SNS 03:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

MFD Restoration, Again
Hello. As per a MFD discussion, I userfied a userbox. Today, I see that box has been summarily deleted by an admin who is beginning a long Wikibreak. Could you please restore it again, as per the previous discussion? The box was located at: User:Jenolen/Userboxes/User_no_GFDL. Thanks. Jenolen   speak it!  06:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As for the Star Trek reference, good catch!  Indeed, this dates back to the early, early days of the consumer Internet - say, 1995 - and an attempt with one of the popular online services to see which obscure Trek references were still available as screenames, by entering them during signup.  Most of the "good" ones were taken, and I thought they'd give me a chance to make a "yes or no" decision on whatever I entered, but when I entered Jenolen, up popped a message that said, "This is now your master screen name for your account..."  "Oh, so it's Jenolen, then...", and indeed, has been ever since.  (Notwithstanding the whole "Jenolen/Jenolan/Jenolin" contreversy over at Memory Alpha.  Thanks again for your help.  Jenolen    speak it!  18:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Libby and the Arbcom
Just saw your edit adding the category to Libby's page. Your edit summary said that the Arbcom decision supports this. While they clearly supported including his religion in his bio, they made no ruling regarding the categorization issue (despite my specific request that they do so). I think it is still an open question as to whether Temple membership satisfies the requirement in WP:BLP that the person publicly self-identify with the religion. Notmyrealname 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. The Arbcom's ruling, to my reading, did not take a position on the issue of categorization. Categorization based on religion and sexual orientation are, quite rightly, singled out with additional criteria that do not apply to information in the text of an article. I think there is a serious question that remains as to whether membership in a house of worship, by itself, satisfies the "public self-identification" requirement of the rule. This issue will very likely come up in other biographies of people from a variety of faiths. Categories, especially regarding religion and sexual orientation, are more than simple navigational tools, but can give undue weight to specific elements of a person's background. I directed these comments to you since, as an administrator, you might be more concerned about the implications of these things than the average editor. Given the ruling concerning "edit warring," I don't plan to make any further edits to the article regarding this matter. Notmyrealname 07:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi
I was just wondering why you deleted Janet Kenyon as G11. How is it advertising? Please respond on my talk.  Zap Boy  (contribs) (sign here) 15:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on the User:UBX/sex MfD
In response to your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/sex, I quite agree that sex is a valid encyclopedic topic - so are a lot of other things which can be considered indecent or offensive. As Wikipedia is not censored, I do not object to our preponderance of articles about sexual techniques, pornography etc., nor to the existence of Wikiprojects in those areas. Those are legitimate. However, it is my understanding that userspace content (which does not form part of the encyclopedia per se) should avoid offending people, wherever possible. Just as we do not permit usernames that refer to sex, so it should be avoided on userpages. Obviously the concept of what is "indecent" is subjective, but I would advocate following similar guidelines to those already in use at WP:U, viz. no reproductive or excretory references or racial or ethnic slurs. Although I would never advocate censorship for encyclopedic content, as it contradicts our core mission, censorship in userspace and projectspace is entirely legitimate, as inoffensive content is more likely to build a collegial working atmosphere. WaltonOne 16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I think I understand your position, and sympathize with it, to a degree. There must be, however, an acceptable dispassionate manner to express interest in any (potentially offensive) encyclopedic topic.  This userbox does not say, "I like f_cking" or "I will copulate with anything that moves."  Saying "I like sex" must be considered neutral, because there is no alternative, in more dispassionate language, that still expresses that preference.  No encyclopedic topic can be considered so taboo that it is beyond the pale even to mention it on a user-page.  This isn't so much an issue of freedom of expression for contributors; they must state their views as dispassionately as possible.  For the sake of the encyclopedic, though, expressing a simple interest in -- or affection for -- any topic of encyclopedic merit cannot be verboten, once it is established that the contributor has employed the most dispassionate language that can reasonably be expected.  I consider "I like sex" to be such a case: no undue emphasis on the lewd or grotesque is employed, no overstatement occurs.  It is as basic an expression of inclination toward a subject as it is possible to frame.  Those who might be offended such be counseled that, if minimal expressions of preference can be called "indecent", then the project's ease of operation is endangered.  The simple word "sex" is no more inherently indecent than the word "philosophy", or the word "sailing", or the word "conservative."  There is no more clear, objective label possible for the act.  For this reason, it must be permitted.


 * To harken back to our prior discussions on the right-left divide, there are certainly many who find all war morally offensive. This does mean that the expression "I support war (or a given war)" should be barred.  In fact, very few people on earth find sex morally offensive in every given context (eg. Cathars), which is a blessing for those who value the continuation of the species.  Best wishes, Xoloz 18:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough. I suppose this does tend to reflect my own innate biases - tho' I no longer loudly advertise my right-wing views on-wiki, I still have strongly-held beliefs. But objectively, I understand the parallel you're drawing between this userbox and those which state "I support the war on X" or "I am a conservative/liberal/socialist/anarchist", etc. I would concede, intellectually, that there are people who would find my own political views far more shocking than a simple statement in favour of sex. So I'll concede that you may be right on this one. WaltonOne 13:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call on the DRV for User:Rfwoolf/Evidence
I like the way you closed that DRV. Thanks for closing it in a way that reflects consensus and yet is fair to Rfwoolf. --Richard 03:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment, but the real credit goes to Black Falcon, who was the first to discern the fair compromise position. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hadn't had a "compromise" named after me yet. Cool! I feel I should say something ...
 * Ladies and gentlemen, I'm honoured to have the opportunity to speak before you today. If elected, I promise to ... What's that? WP:NOT?!? Oh ...... never mind, everyone.
 * :P Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 04:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Richard also offered an interesting compromise. And to be accurate, "the way" Xoloz closed the DRV was "Deletion endorsed, per the Black Falcon compromise" - yet you will see that Black Falcon never endorsed the deletion, in fact he opposed it and even voted 'overturn'. Even if you agree that the article should be deleted, the question was whether or not it should be speedy-deleted citing "attack page". While there is nothing I can feasibly do, it is still worth pointing out there was definitely no consensus to endorse the deletion. Thus condinuing the general flaw in process.
 * I'm going to have to put this issue to bed now. I will walk away not relieved that there is fairness and justice on Wikipedia, not knowing that admins are held accountable for their actions, not even knowing that admins are susceptible to the laws of reason and civility, but rather that the admins on Wikipedia are above reason and civility, that decisions are made on sentimentality, and incivlity is tolerated from admins but not from other users.


 * Xoloz I appreciate that you had to close the DRV, and decided to go with a compromise suggestion, but if you actually read the DRV from top to bottom you will definitely find that there was no consensus to endorse the speedy-delete, and enough votes to 'overturn' to overturn the speedy-delete and allow the MfD debate to resume. I am wiki-legally obligated to accept and respect your ruling, but please accept my concerns. Rfwoolf 06:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, let's figure a way to let this one go now that it has been closed. I will make one last comment, though. The right close to the DRV was "No consensus to overturn". In DRV, you don't need a consensus to delete. You need a consensus to overturn. Lack of consensus means the original delete decision stands. If you counted votes, the tally was approximately even meaning that there was "no consensus to overturn". I could see early on that there were enough "delete" votes to frustrate formation of a consensus so I had long stopped hoping for an "overturn" result. --Richard 06:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See, that's the problem with the whole DRV process - it encourages admins to speedy delete something that may not otherwise be deleted via AfD. AfD needs consensus to delete, DRV needs consensus to keep, so when an admin speedies a closely contested AfD, it flips it from a probable no-consensus AfD keep to a probable no-consensus DRV delete. It's a flawed process. Not that I necessarily dispute the outcome in this case (I think Rfwoolf should just accept this and file the RfC or let it drop now, even if the deletion was unfair) but in general, this process encourages aggressive use of the speedy button by admins who favor deletion. ATren 12:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How insightful. During this tomultuous debate I of course went through a bit of the Speedy-Delete policy for obvious reasons, and I followed some links to see how a lot of the "rules" were formulated and the debate that went behind them. There were some far-thinking Wikipedians that pointed out that the "Attack page" speedy-deletion policy should have a specific clause about evidence pages, (RfC was referred to as well as Arbcom) - that pages such as those should not be speedy-deleted on those grounds. Fortunately as much was included in the actual policy, in the definition of what constitutes an attack page, i.e. a page that serves no other purpose than to disprage its subject. The logic being that if a page was an evidence page, or an RfC or Arbcom preparation page, then indeed it would not server as no other purpose but to disparage and therefore be non-speedy deletable. Unfortunately a lot of our admins/editors don't seem to be able to read, or weren't capable of responding to that specific point. Then the other piece of policy that's relevant to your point is the one about "if there is any doubt then don't speedy-delete" - when clearly there was doubt.


 * Considering the "doubt" clause to speedy-delete, I once again disagree with the ruling made by Xoloz - the result should have been overturn speedy-delete, resume with MfD.


 * So, very interesting insight there ATren, but like Richard has reminded me, we gotta put this to bed.


 * If Wikipedia had its own wikilaw-review, I personally would have expected this to be one of its articles. Rfwoolf 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So, let's put it to bed then, shall we? Yes, the DRV process flaws are certainly a concern to me, and my hope is that it will be fixed eventually. But please Rfwoolf, just post the RfC or drop it, before you drive everyone nuts? :-) ATren 14:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Goodness... "wiki-law review"! As Wikipedians go, I'm more tolerant of legal argumentation than most (since it's my livelihood), but this is one of those times when the legal model goes too far.  WP:NOT a state, remember.  If WP's discussion fora are courts in any sense, they are courts of equity only.  Compromise solutions were/are quite common in courts of equity.  By the way, Mr. Woolf, would you like me to send you the content in question?  Best wishes, Xoloz 14:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Granted, and I hope u know I wasn't serious about my law-review remark, I was saying that there appears to be fogginess in the relevant policy. Oh, I have already made a harddrive backup of the Evidence page thanks to the Deletion Review which temporarily restores it. Thank the heavens for that! But thank-you anyways. Rfwoolf 15:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ancient history but...
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kudzu.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --W.marsh 00:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnraisers
And I hope that, like Jabba the Hutt, Wikipedia chokes on its own slime one day. I've said it before and I'll say it again; Wikipedia is a glorified chat room for petty nerds who delight in the smug dismissal of anything that doesn't interest them. Perhaps the DRV for Barnraisers could be cross-referenced with pearls before swine. Emerson1975 13:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

History Undeletions
I'll like history undeletions on Wii Health, Wii Health Pack, Jungle Fury, Wood Zone, Banana Hoard, & Sonic RPG. SNS 16:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And further more...
I couldn't care less about the exact details of Jabba the Hutt's death. But thank goodness someone does. And I was writing metaphorically; so if you think you may choke on your own slime, I'd like to go on record as saying it will be because of nothing I have done. Emerson1975 18:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
Hello. About 2.5 months ago, you voted against my RfA. I would like to now ask you what you think of my use of the tools to date.

Thanks. --Eyrian 20:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Some more history undeletions
I'll like history undeletions on Mario kart wii, Mario party ds, Mario party DS, Wii health, Superjail, & Blast-o-Matic. SNS 21:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Recently I noticed that The Legend of Zelda (Wii), which as you might recall you undeleted the history last year, no longer has most of it's history because someone made it into an article then that got deleted (then it got made into an article again & deleted again). Now it's a redirect again. What I was wondering though is if the history should be undeleted (it could end up getting deleted again in the near future). SNS 02:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

List_of_songs_about_masturbation is in it's 5th AfD
List_of_songs_about_masturbation is up for it's fifth AfD. You participated in an earlier one. If you wish to participate again, please go to Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_about_masturbation_%285th_nomination%29 -- Lentower 03:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject User Help
I'm not here to challenge it or anything, but some templates were actually being used on people's user pages and talk pages. If you could, would you please restore them and move them into my user space? Thanks. —Andrew Hampe Talk 04:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I might have some more i would like to have restored and moved.

Thanks for your thoughtful DRV close on Plot of Les Mis
I appreciated the thoughtfulness and the explanation in your comments. Thanks for taking the time with it.

For the most part, I didn't disagree with your reading of the discussion: I think it adequately reflected the consensus. I don't think there's any way around the idea that IAR is and should be a steep hill to climb in a deletion discussion (and probably everywhere else as well). But I disagree on your central point, and maybe you can help my thinking with it: It seems to me that if we believe IAR can form a consensus there is no logical, consistent reason to say that it can't block a consensus by getting such a large amount of support in a discussion. I'm talking about the principle here, not the specific case (where other factors may intrude: perhaps the case made here just wasn't good enough or my reading of the support for IAR was faulty -- none of that matters now). All things being equal, to the extent that a !vote with IAR carries weight in a consensus, it should carry the same weight when IAR doesn't get enough support for consensus.

It was because of just that point that in the end I turned to accepting IAR decisions by closing admins in these situations. (Only after Maclean brought it up, and after I read his post a few times, did I realize that Kurykh had actually said he was using IAR in his own closing decision. His comments had been so annoying and so cryptic that I didn't pick up on that for days. If I had, my approach to the DRV would have been different.)

I also don't at all disagree with what you said about what a better, more deletion-resistant article would look like. In fact, that's very much what my (currently defunct) proposal over at WP:NOT would do (allow for a plot summary article with other plot-related encyclopedic content, although I'd scrap the WP:UNDUE rule), although my ideal still would be to allow stand-alone plot summaries for long works (for space reasons &mdash; but I don't think there's ever going to be support for stand-alone summaries).

You mention that we IAR editors shot ourselves in the foot with the argument. Well, it was really the only argument that we had, so we did what we could. I don't think anything else would have attracted even as much support as we got. The ideal would have been to change the article before the discussion was over, but I don't have access to a college library and there simply aren't enough books that focus enough on the plot in the local libraries around here. The Internet is no help either.

Anyway, thanks for your care in going over the discussions. I appreciate it, and I'm sure others do, too. Noroton 20:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. If you'd like to respond, feel free to do so here and I'll watch the page. I think that might be easier. Noroton 20:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll clarify one area of your concern: I didn't mean to say that a failed claim of IAR was necessarily "useless", and should automatically be discounted by a closing admin if it fails to garner wide support. An admin could use a good-faith claim of IAR with substantial (but not overwhelming) support to justify a "no consensus" close.  However, it is always within admin discretion to discount failed IAR comments -- it's up to the closer.  One corollary of IAR is that it is self-reciprocal: any use of it is liable to being ignored under its own auspices.  That's why the policy is so very tricky, and not something to be employed in controversial situations.


 * When a closing admin invokes IAR in a close, sometimes it's a good idea to take that claim with a "grain of salt". Some admins are less willing (or skilled) in navigating the finer points of wiki-process; IAR can be used as a shorthand by these folks for "WP:NOT a democracy, policy concerns over-ride !vote count."  That's a satisfactory way of explaining the result, often enough; but, those closes are usually just an application of WP:NOT a democracy.  Only very, very rarely is a deletion carried out with no possible justification but IAR -- and those are usually overturned by DRV. ;)  When an admin invokes IAR, there might be another justification for what he is doing, one that he grasps intuitively, but fails to articulate at the moment.  (This is a failing, of course, but a human one that anybody is prone to making from time to time.)  This is an alternative rationale for those pesky AfD closures that you said you have had difficulty accepting in the past.


 * You're right that IAR was the only real refuge left to you, given the state the article was in. This is an indicator that the draft didn't belong in the main-space yet.  Wikipedia cannot become Cliff's Notes: there are thousands of seminal literary works throughout history, and WP has made the decision to exclude any article that is just a "plot summary".  Les Miserables is a transcendent classic (and a favorite of mine), but WP:NOT governs the The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Iliad, and the Bible, too; no IAR argument has succeeded for them, and Les Mis is, at best, their peer.


 * This, of course, does not mean that the article specifically for the Plot of Les Mis is a bad idea; Wikipedia does have articles for individual biblical verses, after all! The key is that "plot" articles do not exist under the grace of IAR -- they are always more than plot summaries, and are structured around scholarly analysis of the importance of certain elements, themes, etc., against an academic backdrop.  For great works, these articles are wonderful encyclopedic additions.  WP:NOT says, "Wikipedia articles... should contain... not solely a detailed plot summary..." (emp. added) "Solely" is operative word -- it was once called WP:NOT just a plot summary.  Given scholarly support, WP:NOT is rendered inapplicable.


 * It is true that such an article takes time and effort, and that any one editor might find the task insuperable for any number of good reasons. WP does, however, have an article of Les Mis; that suffices, until someone (or some group) finds the time to craft a decent article.  Neither Wikipedia, nor Les Mis, is served well by a plot summary comparable to a high-school student's class notes.  That doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and simply detracts from the importance, and beauty, of the novel.


 * So, those are some extended thoughts. Still, don't be discouraged!  You deserve tons of credit for original thinking, and for elucidating another aspect of the mysterious policy called IAR.  I'm very happy that the argument was made under your skilled, dispassionate guidance, and it well might succeed in other circumstances.  You deserve a medal for the innovation; the only reason I'm not sending one is that, in less-skilled hands, the argument is a scary cudgel, so WP:BEANS applies. ;)  Best wishes, Xoloz 05:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Swami Shankarananda Saraswati
This article has been updated with additional references pertinent to notability. Since the article was updated two others have decided to change their decision vis. delete keep. I invite you to take the opportunity to reconsider your position also. Yogidude 23:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

DaxFlame DRV
Deletion endorsed?! With no explanation whatsoever? Did you honestly read the whole deletion review? Because this is just mind-boggling... Can you please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that there was a consensus in the second Afd? Because I really don't see it. — Slaapwel 03:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly you did not read the DRV, otherwise you would not claim my argument was about "count of heads or votes". My argument was based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The issue at hand was the validity of the sources. (i.e. are they reliable or not?) This was not sufficiently discussed in the second AfD. That was the reason I nominated the article for Deletion review, because "not enough discussion happened to determine a consensus." (WP:DPR) If you dismiss this argument because I haven't made as much edits as others and have only recently acquired a username (I've actually edited before the username as well), then that's a prejudice in itself. — Slaapwel 19:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree, considering we're talking about an article on web content here. (So we're not looking for scientific sources.) Globe and Mail and G4tv are reliable insofar that they have "editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability".  They are an established newspaper and television channel. (independent of the subject) — Slaapwel 20:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually there was general consensus on the reliability of the Globe and Mail source. The reliability of the G4tv source however was on debate, but I believe that was mainly because the link provided in the article wasn't of the integral recording of the show or a synopsis, but merely a link to a page on the official website as proof. Giving the wrong impression that it was just a site with YouTube links, while it was refering to the actual television show. I don't know what the policy is on how to reference television shows, but I am sure being featured on a television show is a way to establish notability. I have to agree the seneweb.com source was not reliable. My point however is that the consensus and debate I mentioned only took place in the DRV not in the AfD. — Slaapwel 20:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are partly right, the sources were mentioned by me in the second AfD. However, as I tried to point out: the only person who discussed the G4tv source in the second AfD misinterpreted the source. The editor Corpx stated "G4tv is not a notable media site - It's a compilation of videos site". I corrected him (clarifying it was refering to an actual television show Daxflame was featured on), to which he didn't respond. So considering the Wikipedia policy on consensus (WP:CON): "silence equals consent", how can you claim "valid consensus remained in favor of deletion"? — Slaapwel 21:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying I'm misrepresenting the situation? I'm more than willing to learn and I have actually asked questions to other editors concerning the deletion process. But the (verifiable) fact still remains that nobody has been able to explain to me why the G4tv/Attack of the Show! source doesn't meet the reliability criterion according to them. Note that the admin C.Fred changed his vote from strong delete to delete in the first AfD, because of the G4tv source. (Can I gather from this he acknowledges it as a valid source?) So suddenly in the second AfD it isn't valid anymore because one person misinterprets it as a "video compilation site"? Call me stubborn, but I simply don't understand this logic. — Slaapwel 22:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I only started the DRV procedure after I consulted with the closing admin. He (Jaranda) was the one who advised me to take it to DRV. Secondly, I didn't claim unencyclopedic is "an invalid rationale for a deletion". However, unencyclopedic as rationale without argumentation or citing a specific policy is invalid or at least to be dismissed. (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC) Finally, and most important, I never said the validity or reliability of the G4tv source could not be debated. My point is -for the last time- that this debate or discussion did not take place during the AfD. Hence I don't think I misused the DRV procedure. If I believe not enough discussion happened to determine a consensus, that's a valid reason to take it to DRV. Your statement about "Daxflame does not belong on Wikipedia" reveals enough about your prejudice in this matter. The article needed work but certainly wasn't WP:SPAM. — Slaapwel 00:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you could, please go back to the second AfD and read the argumentation of the 4 delete voters. (There's not much to read so it won't take long.) If you do, you'll see that all the delete voters are clearly biased, making the assertion that "YouTube celebrities" simply don't belong on Wikipedia. It also becomes clear they make their initial vote without even reading the article or sources. Corpx first states that the subject has "no notable media mentions anywhere", although later he admits the Globe and Mail source is reliable. (The logic assumption would be that he made his vote without reading the article or sources) Haemo acknowledges the sources but states "a pop-culture possible fraud is not encyclopedic content". This is simply not true, hoaxes and pop-culture phenomena can be encyclopedic (Wikipedia) content. Go see the other two voters on the Afd page, I have refuted their statements there. Two editors vaguely discussing the sources does not constitute as sufficient discussion, in my opinion, and can certainly not be seen as a consensus. I didn't expect the outcome to be keep, but a relist to extend discussion and establish consensus would have been the fair thing to do. Especially since the controversial second reliable source (G4tv) was acknowledged in the first Afd by an admin, but was misinterpreted in the second Afd. This is not meant to be a personal attack on you, but it's hard to not suspect prejudice. — Slaapwel 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence? Aren't you wikilawyering yourself now? And what evidence are you talking about? I think I made a logic (objective) assumption concerning the points I brought up. We can test this easily. Do you agree with the following statements the voters made: "a pop-culture possible fraud is not encyclopedic content" and "G4tv is not a notable media site - It's a compliation of videos site."? In my opinion these statements are factually false and can be verified as such. — Slaapwel 17:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but claiming that "all evidence indicates the conclusion they reached was proper" without actually elucidating the alledged evidence is not "typical argumentation". It is unsubstantial argumentation. Furthermore you stated that my cited statements "may not obtain as general principles but do apply to the DaxFlame article specifically as it was written". This is simply not true. Do you actuallly understand what I mean when I say he misinterpreted the source? (I suggest you reread my message, because I have the impression you misinterpreted the source yourself. G4tv is a television channel, not a media site.) Thanks. — Slaapwel 20:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if your argument would be true ("YouTube star of the moment"), it is your argument and not the one of the editor in question. Who made a totally different statement and argument. Hence my original assertion (that insufficient discussion took place to establish a consensus) still holds up. Admins are supposed to base their final decision on the discussion that took place, not impose his or her personal opinion. Otherwise the reason to have a discussion in the first place becomes futile. It is telling that the closing admin didn't even deem it important enough to justify his decision on the DRV. I do find your reasoning deficient, since you too imposed your own thoughts about the article; instead of objectivly assessing if the closer interpreted the debate correctly or not. — Slaapwel 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of Fran Mérida
I think the result should have been no consensus, as per the DRV that overturned the previous AFD. It is clear that there is no consensus to delete, however many "votes" delete got (9-5 in the latest AFD, which is quite a low marging for a delete). Furthermore there seems to be evidence of canvassing, and some of the deletes had no argument, while most keep did. The nom itself was WP:IDONTLIKEIT! I am asking you revise and self-overturn based on this, before a WP:DRV is raised, as per WP:WMD. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I assumed that since you closed the AfD, you also deleted. Thanks!--Cerejota 16:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

History Undeletion Requests
I'll like history undeletions on Isle O' Hags, Mepsi Pax, Donkey Kong Wii, & Donkey Kong (Wii). SNS 19:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy Xoloz's Day!
Well done! The Rambling Man 08:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're too modest, dear Xoloz :) Me, on the contrary, I believe you should get years, and not just a day... but I'm so happy to know you enjoyed being our Star during yours! :) I hope you're enjoying your Summer, friend! Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Xoloz. And I haven't thanked you yet for your support and kind words at my RfA. (I made a decision not to send boilerplate thank yous to everyone who supported me, as I know it irritates some people, and I can't know in advance which people they are! So I thought I'd wait until I had a reason to be visiting someone's talk page anyway.) When I get round to it, I'll send you an email, but I have a backlog of emails that I owe to people. Just want to say that I do notice you around, and appreciate your kindness. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

History Merge
I request that the history of Power Rangers: Drive Force from this edit & older to be merged with Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive. As you can see from the earliest edit of the latter, it was originally moved through a copy & paste move. SNS 02:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

About article Anna Mae He
You probably don't remember the article Anna Mae He. It was one of the casualties of the WP:BLP dispute a few months ago and was speedily deleted. Then it was subsequently listed for deletion review and you closed it as "deletion endorsed" on 3 June. Well it looks like User:KareninChina re-created the article several days ago by copy-and-paste, and without going through another deletion review. Now that it's been re-created, I would love to improve it. But I don't want to waste the effort on it if it's going to be deleted again. What are the relevant policies here on this situation, if any exist? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviving the article under another name. If you don't mind, I'd like to move it to Anna Mae He custody dispute. Is that OK? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * While your proposed title has the virtue of precision, I think it sounds a tad "unencyclopedic." If this were just a custody dispute, it wouldn't belong on Wikipedia.  It is the precedent-setting nature of the case, and its international implications, that make the article notable.  The present title is patterned after Elian Gonzales.  I recommend no further change, but you are always welcome to take your idea to the article talk page.  Best wishes, Xoloz 15:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ward Churchill misconduct issues article
I am a wee bit confused as to what happened and how it happened. How and why did the arbitration committee become involved in it ? Was it due to a close vote ? I think that the article was so out of whack that someone may have asked them to intervene. If that is the case is there a public record of who did what and why ?? I am quite curious. Albion moonlight 07:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Undeletion Request
The logo of the game Super Mario Fushigi no Korokoro Party was deleted & the person who deleted it completely ignored me. Since it is the game's logo & important to the article, I would like it to be undeleted & it's history to be undeleted too. SNS 16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

When I originally created the article, I uploaded two images (the logo & one screen shot of the game) to illustrate the subject. Some time ago someone moved the screen shot into the location of the logo without an explanation (so it was tagged as unused). I then restored it to the article but it was deleted a few days later anyway. SNS 19:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Request
You removed my request here without fulfilling it, so I figured I would ask you to do this :). Can you perform a history merge as described here? I think this is required by the GFDL. If I'm wrong about the need for this, or if anything isn't clear, please let me know. Thanks! Pan Dan 18:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! In the future when I need an admin to do a similarly thankless but important task, I'm gonna ask you first :) Pan Dan 17:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments at RFA
Hi Xoloz. Your oppose at Requests_for_adminship/Coren_2 helps me a bit on a personal level. Given that some editors seemed to have rejected my findings / opinion on this I am pleased to see another editor (and indeed an admin) accepting that my oppose is valid (for want of a better word). Of course those other editors are more than entitled to reject my opinion, and thatis their perogative. I wish this candidate no ill will, and have strongly urged him to continue his excellent work here, but I was coming to the point of thinking that it was only me who felt his haste was a problem if granted the buttons. It is always sad to oppose an RFA and so I guess the point of my message to you is that I feel that at least you (and Daniel) also view things in the same light I do, and therefore I have not made a foolish judgement about the candidate and opposed without necesity. Very best. Pedro | Chat  15:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind word and honest reasoning. I feel good on my decision, which is important. Pedro | Chat  17:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts to the discussion at my recent Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 16:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

RFA
Hello and thank you for your input at my RFA. I have responded to your comments and I hope you can perhaps comment. Thank you.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Hi, Xoloz, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy  UCP 04:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Anna Mae He should probably have been renamed but not deleted too fast
On, 28 May 2007, Doc glasgow deleted "Anna Mae He" (reason: WP:BLP not this) and ceased to be an admin next month. I cannot find any pre-deletion discussion. Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30 got the "deletion endorsed". On 26 July 2007, you, Xoloz, deleted "Anna Mae He" (reason: CSD G4 -- the DRV endorsed the early BLP speedy, and this is the same content. I may bring this to DRV/AfD later, on my own initiative as deleting admin.) while I see no discussion other than Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop and I see no arbitrators' comments at Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.

I do not intend to blame you or anyone else. However, as this disputed article does have Chinese Wikipedia article (zh:贺梅案 (Anna Mae He affair redirected from 贺梅 (Anna Mae He)), I, administering both English and Chinese Wikipedias, have to talk about this.

After reviewing the deleted contents, I do not consider speedy deletion appropriate. As I have found Elian Gonzalez redirected to Elián González affair so the article focuses on the custody dispute of the Cuban boy rather than on the boy directly, how about this:
 * 1) Undelete Anna Mae He and the talk page, possibly except Bakerhater's attack page made on 27 July 2007 after your deletion.
 * 2) Rename the page by moving to Anna Mae He affair so we focus on the custody dispute rather than on the girl directly.
 * 3) Clean up unsourced info if subject to intense dispute.

I look forward to hearing you soon. Thanks in advance.--Jusjih 16:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC) (en.wp and zh.wp admin)
 * Thank you very much for your reply and actions. I appreciate the undeletion and page move renaming while Bakerhater's personal attack would not worth undeletion. I undeleted the talk page history and moved it according to the article move. I have also adjusted interwiki links to and from Chinese Wikipedia.--Jusjih 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)