User talk:Xoloz/archive7

MfD
Can you explain your removal of Elaine Reynolds from MfD? I think I ought to point you to WP:DP. --&#123;&#123;subst:user&#124;4836.03}} 18:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And while you're at it, can you please archive this? --&#123;&#123;subst:user&#124;4836.03}} 18:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)í
 * It was User:Garrybowers who made the edit. See . --&#123;&#123;subst:user&#124;4836.03}} 20:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. I was trying to format it myself. And thankyou, thankyou for archiving your talkpage. --&#123;&#123;subst:user&#124;4836.03}} 11:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sea shanties
Humm. That's interesting. I couldn't find anything on, or List of Wikia, either. My immediate thought was, but as you say there does not appear to be much there. I reckon this is just because s: is titchy compared to enwiki, though, and it could probably use all the material it can get. I did manage to find s:Transwiki:Ten Thousand Miles Away, which self-declares as a sea-shanty. It was originally here, at Ten Thousand Miles Away. It was Dmcdevit who transwiki'd and PRODded it (back in mid-Feb), and he is God of Transwiki, so I'm inclined to go with his opinion. (If you go wikisource, then that Transwiki would probably be happy of your attentions!) -Splash talk 04:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA
Hello, Xoloz! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. I am not sure that I am wise, though. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 20:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for support
Hi Xolox- thanks a lot for your support on my recent, (barely) successful rfa, even if it was only because i'm a "Cantabridgian by birth". ;) Please feel free to leave me any comments or criticisms on my talk page!  --He:ah? 22:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My promotion
Hi, Xoloz. I'd be more than happy to explain my reasoning behind the promotion of Tawker.

First, Tawker's RFA was very close. All things considered, the 80% thing is an absolute. At 80%, that's when you know that the community says "yes". I promote without question that that point.

However, from 75 to 79%, that is when it's up to the bureaucrat to decide. I thought about this one for a while. Generally speaking, the further away from 80% the vote is, the less likely I am to extend bureaucratic decision and the more likely I am to say "no promotion". I looked at every vote on Tawker's RFA and took everything into consideration. This is what I came up with for rationale (both supporting and opposing):

1.) The supporters generally agree that while Tawker's rise in Wikipedia was very speedy, he has also contributed greatly to admin-related activities. Trust was voiced by numerous voters. 16 out of 129 support votes (a little over 12%) were listed as "strong support".

2.) The opposers generally agree that Tawker does not have a lot of time on Wikipedia (a little over two months worth). A sizeable minority of these state that support would be cast given a few more months. 1 out of 35 oppose votes (almost 3%) were listed as "strong oppose" and 3 out of 35 oppose votes (about 8.5%) were listed as "weak oppose". Evilphoenix gives an excellent (albeit lengthy) oppose reason which I took into consideration. TimPope's oppose vote was not entirely appropriate. Dragon's Blood's oppose vote was also not entirely sound because he created the account on the very same day as his vote (and therefore is not in a position to assert what he said, some of which was misinformed). Primetime's oppose vote was also dubious, given one of his reasons was "too young" (as in age). I'm only 19, and look where I am now!

3.) The neutral votes generally agree that Tawker is a good asset but is too new to be given support. I saw nothing that was of notable interest in this section that swayed me one way or the other.

So, there you have it. I feel that the opposers had valid concerns, but I also feel that there was enough people that were not concerned that Tawker should be given access. I stand by this decision. Please feel free to ask me any followup questions that you may have. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, but I am a stickler! The 80% rule is a definite promote, sockpuppets and unqualified votes discounted. I also am a stickler for rules that exist for good reasons. I am not afraid however to use discretion where appropriate. Everything depends on the situation, I suppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 21:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, just because I feel like it, I'm actually 18, just off the threshold of being a minor, just old enough to vote (and drink and waste money and all of those other horrible things but thats besides the point) - anyways, feel free to check my logs, I've been mostly dealing with Tawkerbot2's very annoying server the last couple days but I've made the odd little edit. If you have any comments / questions / suggestions for improvement please feel free to leave me a message, even the most experienced users on this site ask for advice, I see no reason not to follow their lead of a 24 hour open door on my talk page :) -- Tawker 05:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol, ok, no worries. Should I give you a no personal attacks for calling yourself nuts or does npa not apply to self insults :o :) -- Tawker 23:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A KISS Rfa Thanks
Thank you, I've been promoted. psch e  mp  |  talk  01:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Userbox
On Aaron's talk page you wrote:
 * Thank you! Thank you! for clearing out DRV. The closure above was a bit strange as the page in question redirects to protected empty page Userbox.  It should redirect to Userboxes (I think.)  I'd do this myself, but apparently Userboxes remains protected too -- or, at least, I can't edit it.  Hence, this gets laid in your able lap.


 * I've responded there but I'll do so here too:


 * We don't tend to redirect from article space to wikipedia space, with the exception of shortcuts. See WP:REDIRECT and WP:RFD. Steve block  talk 15:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops. Okay, I'll have a look at the DRV and see how Aaron closed it. Steve block  talk 15:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Aaron's close looks to me to be closed as is. So it remains as it is.  You're right, it's best left in his lap.  Apologies for interfering. Steve block  talk 16:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're too kind. Steve block talk 16:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 19:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Xorox
Don't suppose (s)he's a friend of yours. Might be worthwhile keeping an eye on the contribs, although so far I think it looks legit. — Encephalon 12:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You may still wish to request a username change, however, per Username. — Encephalon 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems by coincident I chose a user name which shares three letters with yours. My initial favourite, Xerex, was already taken. No evil intentions, though. The difference seems obvious by me. --Xorox 07:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, kind Xoloz
Thank you. And thank you so much for waiting around on a bum like me. I shall formally accept later this evening, but thought you might like to know I have seen it. I'll make my opening statements and let you take one last peek at it before posting it to the RfA page. Thanks again for your patience. -- LV (Dark Mark)  17:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have made my comments and will be posting the nom to the RfA main page in a little bit. If you wish to withdraw your nomination, now is the time to do so. See ya. -- LV (Dark Mark)  15:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to ping you on linking the rfa from the rfa page. Its not linked even though he's accepted and you've updated the time stamps. Did you just miss a step? I only ask because I'm chomping at the bit, but if I support now then I just look like some weirdo talk page stalker for both of you. Nevermind that I am a weirdo talk page stalker apparently. ;) Syrthiss 17:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * *sigh* nevermind. :) Syrthiss 17:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, someone put it up. I assume it was him, I hadn't read his comment above too closely.  Cheers! Syrthiss 17:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Many thanks for your support of my RFA, which passed narrowly. I'm sure you've seen this, but just in case... Regards, Kaisershatner 20:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Bridges
Hello Xoloz. I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for the comments that I made in the past that you felt were uncivil. We may have been at odds in the past, however, today is a new day, and I hope that we can start fresh from here. Regards,  Jay  (Reply)  03:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

DRV reply
Hiya. Thank for the chatty note on my talk page regarding the drv debate, sorry I didn't get back sooner, but I went on holiday for two weeks :)

As I said on DRV, I'm a great believer in consistancy in process. If policy is to mean anything, it has to apply equally to all editors/articles. If it is accepted that policy can be ignored for "bad" editors/articles, then it is not a policy, it becomes an arbitary decision. Ignoring policy when the outcome is unfavourable implicitly removes the authority to use policy as justification when the outome is desirable. People trying to use both are basically saying "I agree with policy only if it gives the answer I want". The discussion between Roper and Moore in A Man for All Seasons comes to mind as another way of describing this I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

(That leads to an aside on why I think process is more important for "bad" articles. I, like everyone else, have inherit biases, so it's my way of trying to compensate for that. If I find myself getting preconceived notions on what should happen to an article without thinking of the policies, that's a sure sign for me that I may be unfair, and as a result, I try and follow processes more closely. The axiom of law that "it is not enough that justice is done, but that justice is seen to be done" has a parallel here, people seeing clearly that policy is applied is as imporant as the end result being policy compliant.

Consistant policies are especially important for newbies, or else there is the risk of giving a mixed message of telling a newbie "these are the rules everyone must obey", and at the same breaking those same rules. (I found it ironic that one of the comments was an endorse deletion with a request for new users to "read up on policy", when policy did not endorse the deletion)

For the case in point, if an article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, then it should not be speedied, regardless of how "bad" the article is. A speedy deletion is a deletion of someone's work without any discussion, and, as such, is a very extreme action. Policy recognises that the ability to speedy delete is required, but it also recognises that this should not be used lightly, and as such lists specific criteria that must apply. Otherwise, it should go to the correct *fd. Invalid speedies create more policy confusion that it fixes. For the sake of a few days, I would much prefer a snowballed discussion than an invalid speedy, contested, and incorrectly justified, even if the end result for the article is the same.

(Personally I think speedys should involve at least two people to reduce the chance of incorrect usage. I'm aware admins can "delete on sight", but I think it might work better if admins only deleted tagged articles, so if an admin finds an valid speedible article, they tag it, and another admin can delete it. Thus, there are always two people, one tagger, and one deleter that have to agree that the article meets the criteria)

Wow, lots of words for my first day back, think I need a WP:BEER now! Hope my wild ramblings amused you for a little while! MartinRe 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Grace Note
Thanks, I was wondering what I could have possibly done to have someone dislike me on Wikipedia. I mean real life, yeah, but Wikipedia? Surely nobody could have formed such a strong opinion over 7,500 edits to an internet community where the primary focus is writing encyclopedaically? Anyway, thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 22:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC) PS, I really don't mind the opposes per Bulbasaur and lack of time. I just need to prove that I have learnt from the experience and continue to work as I am and sometime eventually I will be appointed :). Esperanzial regards, --Cel es tianpower háblame 22:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for butting in with Aaron & Friday. I'm glad I missed that exchange while it was fresh - my comments would have been a lot less measured. Thanks for being a voice of reason. Guettarda 00:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re your comment to Aaron:
 * A few years ago I had an interesting conversation with a South African "coloured" academic. She said that she was happier dealing with openly racist Afrikaaners than she was with Anglo South Africans who pretended that they were colourblind.  Guettarda 16:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

1WW Refactor
Please see Refactor and New discussion.

You were gracious enough to comment on 1WW; as you may know there are now seven competing proposals. On April 6 I suggested that I be permitted to refactor the proposal page into a single, unified proposal. It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I think it's unwieldy, though, as it stands. A fair number of editors have commented on these distinct versions but (precisely because they are so similar) no single one has gained undisputed consensus. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy.

Just as I proposed the refactor, an editor brought to our attention yet another competing proposal, which I merged into the others, using the same format. Still another proposal has since been added, bringing the total to 7. The two new proposals are encountering an indifferent reception but they, too, have some merit.

At the time I suggested refactor, I also put myself forward as the editor to write the initial draft, based on the plurality of support for "my" version. Since the two new proposals have been added, this plurality has held.

I don't for a moment feel that this gives me any special right to dictate terms; rather I hope to draft a proposal uniting the best features of existing proposals. Unlike any of the seven currently competing versions, this refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart.

I come to your talk page today to ask for your comment on this refactor. Clearly this will be a major change to the proposal page and I don't feel comfortable being quite that bold without some expression of interest in the idea. Once the new draft is in place, I hope also for your participation to polish it into a true expression of our values. Let's move forward with this complement to WP:3RR. John Reid 04:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

DRV
I ought perhaps to have been more clear with respect to the standard of review by which DRV ought to operate, and I've tried in a subsequent comment better to explain my view. In short, though, I didn't mean to suggest that DRV ought to reopen (or, worse, start anew) the deletion debate, only that it ought to reopen--and start anew--a debate over how properly the discussion ought to have been closed, without respect to the decision of the closing admin. I recognize that, even as this position is distinct from that which you ostensibly imputed to me, it may well not reflect a position with which the community writ large concur; I wouldn't think it appropriate, then, for me to attempt to effect a wholesale revision of DRV, but I do think it appropriate to operate by the standard I think appropriate and to try to convince others of the propriety of our using that standard. In any case, though, the logistical concerns raised in the post below yours at DRV are legitimate; I think that WP:SNOWBALL and WP:POINT, though, would tend to permit our readily removing/closing spurious deletion reviews. You are certainly correct, I should say, that DRV oughtn't to reopen a deletion discussion (if there is great controversy, an article likely should be relisted, although it's unlikely a consensus for "delete" would develop over articles about the notability of the subjects of which great masses of editors feel quite differently), and I'm not precisely sure how a new review of the proper closure is different from a new review of the deletion case itself; it seems to be different, though. Finally, I ought to note that I love your user page; on more than one occasion I've come to it and had several chuckles; my favorite line: "I think I speak French, but native speakers have disagreed", if only because my high school French teacher repeatedly told my class the same thing, apparently not thinking it problematic that her French skills didn't permit her readily to converse with native speakers. Joe 20:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

please visit this RFC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219

I'm not disagreeing with your decision on the MfD, but having stated the way forward is instead mediation (which has been refused) I'd be grateful if you would visit the RFC and give any comment you feel is appropriate. Midgley 23:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Pharaohs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pharaohs

I just used the information from the infoboxes. Probably not the best idea since they weren't sourced. I stopped doing it since I realized that shortly after I worked on them; probably forgot to delete them; should the articles be deleted? --FeanorStar7 22:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC/Ar
Hmm. I think that using either of these during the RfA is probably just going to cause a ForestFire. There's quite a lot of ...chat... on WT:RFA as it is that is probably generating enough by way of comments. ArbCom does not, usually, issue emergency injunctions which is essentially the only thing that would have an effect here. It's probably best to wait and see how it pans out. The creative bludgeoning does need to stop though, at least from a determined-to-close 'crat. -Splash talk 15:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thought I'd take a second or two
Just stopping by to thank you for all your encouragement and gentle goading dealing with my adminship. I'll try and not let you down. Thanks for all your help... although you may be getting a question or two about all these Moptastic new tools. ;-) Thanks again, Xoloz. -- LV (Dark Mark)  02:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Drmagic and RFA stuff
Well, I was just wondering; if you saw somebody blanking his talk page because of warnings, and repeating this action when you restored it without any comment, what would you do? As stated above your comment, the user blanked multiple times, and only started to actually comment on the conflict a good time after.   _-M     o     P-_     00:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If all that he is doing is blocking his talk page, I'd keep repeating the warning, and then I'd go fetch an admin to leave a sterner warning. It is his talkpage -- although we know he doesn't WP:OWN it, it is good-faith confusion for a newbie to think he does. Ultimately, if he is so incredibly dense that he doesn't understand this after warnings from several users, I'd briefly protect his talkpage before I'd block him. Rule of thumb is that users doing stupid things in their userspace are just confused, and are not vandals. If they were vandals, you'd expect they'd have an interest in mucking up pages that don't have their own names at the top. ;)

Of course, this is hardly an earth-shaking issue -- the only point of my oppose at the RfA is that you need more time. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was protected for a point, but then some other parties stepped in and the issue was resolved. Thank you for your constructive critisisms, though!   _-M     o     P-_     00:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting on my RfA
--M e ts501talk &bull; contribs 01:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa
I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You should be an admin
I know you've said you're not interested; could this be a modest refusal of power? Now that the summer's here could you set aside some time for an RfA? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Kindness noted
Hello Xoloz : ) I noticed your kind comment. It was just what the situation needed. Thank you for doing it. regards, FloNight   talk  23:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC) ''Moral Support Very cute, somewhat obscure Star Trek username. That's always a plus! ;) Please consider withdrawing for now though, as this request is premature -- 3000 edits/5 months is a median if one wants an RfA to succeed. Xoloz 19:56, 29 April 2006''

Thanks (belatedly) for your note
I appreciate your sharing your concerns about Master Jay's promotion. While I of course feel that my reasoning was sound, I sincerely wanted to hear from those who disagreed, and I am very thankful that you were willing to be honest with me. I will, I promise, keep your comments in mind as I promote in the future (which will, thanks to work, be less than I would like). If there are any points on which you'd like to hear my response, please let me know--I don't think you were seeking a back-and-forth with me over why I promoted, but if you are I will absolutely oblige. Otherwise, I'll just look forward to encountering you again around here soon--you seem a very thoughtful and dedicated Wikipedian from the comments I've seen. Thanks again! Jwrosenzweig 03:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

How do I archive Deaths in 2006?
I see you've done it in the past, and just wanted to know the procedure... Do you just do a cut and paste of the current listing to Deaths in April 2006, update the link on the Deaths in 2006 page for april and set up a May header? --Syrthiss 12:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm already morbid and pessimistic. ;) Does the final tone of your note mean that you are leaving? :( --Syrthiss 15:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.
Dear ,
 * Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, <font color="D70000">_-M  o   P-_  22:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Recreation of a deleted redirect
Hello Xoloz. I see you have recreated the redirect from Insert Text to Bad title. Please note that it was previously deleted because the phrase "Insert text" is quite common and should be reserved for a future article, it is easier to find vandalism if it contains redlinks, and readers may be confused by the error message if they click through. Further, the standard edit toolbar button (which this redirect is likely meant for) inserts "Insert text" (lowercase 't'), not "Insert Text".

If you disagree and believe that the redirect should be kept, please reply as such and I'll nominate it at redirects for deletion instead. // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)