User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2009/April

Carl W. Thompson, Sr.
Hi there. You commented on the discussion page for Carl W. Thompson, Sr., so that is why I'm leaving this comment here. I apologize if I should have directed this somewhere else. I have tried to make the article accurate, but the niece of the man in the article has taken upon herself to add statements that are suspect. Carl W. Thompson, Sr. never played minor league ball, so that statement is false. Also, the Stockton Ports did not play in 1973, yet she insists on saying he owned the team in 1971-1973 without any reference to the season they didn't play. If wikipedia wants to protect its credibility, its issues like these that need to be watched. I have tried to make it factually correct, but I no longer wish to engage with the other editor of this article.

Respectfully 98.208.104.14 (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have another look. I'm going to try to get a Nexis search run to see if any hits show up. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fucked Company Excessive Spamming
You protected Fucked Company for excessive spamming. The spammer registered and is now spamming again. I am not registered so can't revert since the page is now protected. Can you address this? 70.91.104.249 (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look, thanks for the heads up. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review
You commented about my close on Dan Schlund on my talk page--it is now at Deletion Review. DGG (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Commented there, thanks. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dropped you an e-mail
Thanks!
 * And thanks again! Hobit (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Page: Rebel Legion
Today I noticed that the Rebel Legion article was deleted 3 March 2009. I looked through what logs I could find, but there seemed to be little information on why the deletion was originally proposed. More out of curiosity than any other force (I'm a member of the group, and noted the Rebel Legion's sister-group, the 501st, still has an article), may I ask the reason behind it? Thanks! Syagria (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syagria (talk • contribs) 11:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The article was proposed for deletion by EEMIV with the rationale "No citiations to show that this organization is notable." No one removed the prod within 5 days, so it was eligible for deletion. There were two citations in the article - one to a dead page at starwars.com, the other to a Star Wars blog. These did not constitute reliable sources, so I deleted the page. A prod is only for uncontroversial deletions, therefore I will restore the article if you (or anyone else) asks. I will say, though, that the artiCle in its current form might get nominated through the articles for deletion process since it lacks sources to prove that it is notable. I also can restore it into your user space with the idea that once some reliable sources are added to the article, it could be moved back into main space. Just let me know. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  13:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Scott Waddle
I'm a bit puzzled by your close of this AfD given that there was serious canvassing for deletion. This is aside from the fact that no consensus doesn't default to deletion. No consensus defaults to keeping. Attempts to change that at both deletion policy pages and at WP:BLP have consistently failed. I strongly urge you to reconsider your close. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I just closed it a few minutes ago, so I'm not sure that now's the best time for reconsideration. :) Re: any canvassing, I admit that I pretty much took the arguments raised in the discussion at face value. I am aware that no consensus per policy defaults to keep, and that the community has not supported any across the board change. However, there have been previous BLP Afds wherein the closer defaulted to delete, and DRV upheld the close. I hope this doesn't have to go to DRV, but I do feel that in this particular case - where there content essentially is duplicated in an article that is much better watched and maintained - the close was appropriate. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, you may not have been aware, but the nominator canvassed delete votes pretty explicitly:. Moreoever, regarding DRV, DRV has to my knowledge never endorsed that as a result, it has merely gotten enough support that AfDs closed in that fashion have not had the consensus to be overturned. Important difference. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's reasonable to consider that canvassing. In an effort to meet you halfway, I have undeleted the article history and talk page per my comment below. It's still redirected though. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  12:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a delete/merge, but I also thought the closing rationale was a bit fishy. Anyway, would you consider undeleting the history of Scott Waddle, while keeping it redirected to Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision? --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, in an effort to meet the concerns here I have undeleted the non-vandalism history of the article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  12:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So am I to understand that this close constitutes a merge, not a deletion? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess it effectively is a merge, or at least a redirect, now. However, I don't think I'm going to change the no consensus rationale, because I don't believe the discussion showed consensus to do anything, and I don't mean to indicate that it did. Rather, I just concluded that for this article, in these circumstances, the interplay of BLP and N led to this. No doubt that just as confusing as my original rationale :) I will, however, remove the "delete" part of the rationale. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyking restored the article. You may want to discuss that. Also, it was semi-protected before the deletion. Perhaps that should be restored in any case. Indefinite semi was a bit of admin viliganteism from Lar though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, but I don't think it's a good idea to try and continue to modify the AfD. That discussion is closed, and other editors are free to work on the page. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Dereck Faulkner
Hey, you closed Articles for deletion/Dereck Faulkner, in early December and today Faulkner was signed by the BC Lions thus making him notable, so can you transclude the old version onto User:Giants27/Dereck Faulkner so I can see if it's usable?--Giants27 T/ C  02:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done :) Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that just made my job a little easier :)--Giants27 T/ C  21:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Permanent move protection pagemove revert war, the name of the software program is VistA. It is the largest EMR in the US (part of the Veterans Administration health system). However, an attempt to strip all references to VistA from the title, to create redirects to pages that do not include VistA in the title, and to appropriate the search term vista in all flavours as a direct link to Windows Vista continues as an ongoing redirect war. The redirect for Vista to the Vista_(disambiguation) page has also been removed in favour of a direct link to Windows Vista, despite this having been discussed and voted down in talk pages several times.

This appears to be an direct attempt to have an exclusive redirect of all instances of the word Vista in Wikipedia to Windows Vista. The VA's VistA program (and name) predates Windows Vista by almost a decade and has been referred to the name VistA even in the US Congress. However, in Wikipedia it is impossible to search for VistA and find the VA's VistA page due to the move and redirect wars. Perspectoff (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined I see neither consensus for this action nor a policy reason to enforce it. The prior discussion that clearly rejected the redirect to Microsoft Vista was in 2007, and certainly consensus can change. If you really think that consensus favors this, perhaps a request for comment may be helpful in getting the opinions of outside editors. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  14:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning for declining the request does not address the request. The request is for page protection for Veterans_Health_Information_Systems_and_Technology_Architecture_(VistA), not to arbitrate the overall vista redirect wars. Perspectoff (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, now I understand. I did read your request too quickly; you simply want to lock the current page to include "VistA" in the title. I'm sorry for misunderstanding. Normally I'd be happy to reconsider that request, but it looks like Anthony Appleyard did the move as part a history merge. Since he's all ready taken administrative action on this article, I'll defer to him. Could you put please make this request of his page? Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! Perspectoff (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking isn't dead?!
Hi,

Unless you know something you havn't told Stephen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking has him down as dying tomorrow?!!

Kind regards

Alastair —Preceding unsigned comment added by I love football 1982 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry I wasn't logged in to help. Someone else got it though. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  12:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please undelete Australian & New Zealand Handgun?
This article has been deleted for "not being notable", despite the fact the publication has been referenced in several Wikipedia articles and it's one of- if not the only- English-language handgun shooting magazine published outside the US. Whoever nominated it for deletion did not notify the WP:GUNS project, and curiously, the other SSAA publication Australian Shooter is apparently notable enough to keep its article. I suspect the deletion request was either A) made by someone ignorant of the shooting sports situation outside the US, B) with a political axe to grind, or C) as a result of a misunderstanding. If you could reverse the deletion it would be greatly appreciated. Commander Zulu (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep! I deleted it as an expired prod. It was nominated by EEMIV, and went the required five days without removal. I've restored it as requested. :) Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Commander Zulu (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)