User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2009/July

Canberra MRT Station
You recently deprodded this article with the reason "Remove prod - ineligible because previously deleted by prod". I believe you have misunderstood the guidelines of WP:PROD. An article is ineligible for PROD if it has previously been PRODDED but not deleted (i.e. a contested PROD). As I read the guideline, an article that has previously been deleted through PROD, and then reintroduced in its original form is as valid for a PROD as the original article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies. It appears this article was discussed under a prior AfD discussion, which DOES make it ineligible for PROD.  Your edit summary mislead me, but your deprodding was appropriate.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob, thanks for letting me know. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  10:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Pimp_Tax
Due to a mistake on my part (I got mixed up at WP:AFDO) I thought this debate had run a full week after you relisted it, rather than actually being relisted about thirty minutes previously; and I ended up closing it. Had I noticed this I probably wouldn't have closed it as yet, but I'm reasonably happy with the close and I don't propose to undo it. Let me know if you disagree, and I'll happily do so. Thanks! ~ mazca  talk 22:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, no worries. I'm not one of those who thinks that a relist has to run for some magic period of time. It was a bit of a cop-out by me in any event; I probably could have closed it, but I was going to let things shake out a bit more. Congrats on the bit BTW. :) Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  10:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, and thanks. :) I agree that a relist doesn't have to magically run for a week; I just thought I'd let you know as generally relists do run for a little more than half an hour, haha. Cheers ~ mazca  talk 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please...
The record shows you deleted Basij (Afghan student organization), as an uncontested prod. My recollection is that I did contest this prod.

Didn't I ask the tag placer some questions on Talk:Basij (Afghan student organization)? If my recollection is correct, at the very least I would like to see if the tagger replied. Geo Swan (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. You did indeed place a question to the tagger on the talk page. I didn't see it, or I would have treated it as an objection to the deletion. Since prods can be contested by anyone for any reason, I'll restore the page. Still, the easiest way to contest deletion is to simply remove the prod tag - that is what I was looking for. I will say that the tagger's point may bear some further investigation - my admittedly quick reading of the reference did not show that the Basij was unequivocally claimed to be an Afghan organization. Anyway, sorry for missing your comment before. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  17:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection
Thanks. I left it for a while, but since I saw Rootology had been around and was editing his(his?) talk page, I thought I'd ask for unprotection - Rootology seems ok, but you shouldn't protect an article and just walk away like that, plus of course when the main problem seems to be an editor already blocked for editwarring on the article... Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't know if Root missed it or what, but I agree that it was appropriate to unprotect, especially since other non-problematic editors (you) are ready to edit it. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sales 2.0 deletion
Wanted to write you about your decision to delete the Sales 2.0 entry. As multiple people noted in the deletion-review process, this is a genuine term, much like "Web 2.0" and deserves to have an entry. The term is an emerging sales industry concept and is used entirely separate from the company which you noted has a trademark on "Sales 2.0." The references cited were genuine third-party sources, and there are many more which can, and should, be included. Would like to request a review of your deletion of this. Thanks. Emiliecole (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. The place for such a review is deletion review. It can be a bit tricky to set up a request, but if you want I'll do it for you. In the alternative, I can restore a copy to your user space for you or others to work on. If there are reliable sources that will show notability, and the article is sufficiently neutral and verifiable, you could then list it at deletion review to see if they agree to restore it. Just let me know how you'd like to proceed. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Please restore the copy to my user space and I will create a new entry with additional/verifiable sources as you mentioned.Emiliecole (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, the article has been restored to User:Emiliecole/Sandbox/Sales 2.0. If you think you've got it ready to return to mainspace, just list it at deletion review if you want an official blessing. If it is restored to mainspace without going to deletion review it may be summarily deleted as a recreation of an article that has been deleted pursuant to a deletion discussion, see here for more. Take care, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  20:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I want to make sure I do this correctly. I have revised the entry significantly inside of my Sandbox but am not sure if I "save page" or what. I don't want to "save page" if that throws it back into the mainspace, resulting in what you mentioned. But I am not sure how, in deletion review, the reviewer would know which version to review, unless I save my revision. Please advise and many thanks.Emiliecole (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh no, save away. The only way the article can come back into mainspace is if someone uses the "move" function to change it. You can't do it by accident so by all means, revise to your heart's content. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xymmax - I've saved the revised version, which addresses all of the previous concerns. Can you take a look and, as the original deletor, reinstate the entry from your end? Additionally, the Wikipedia entry for "sales" mentions the term "Sales 2.0" alongside topics such as sales and marketing alignment and integration - indeed a main theme of the term itself. There is not a way to link to another Wiki page's anchored section, but this should be noted on your end. Please let me know if you can reinstate the entry in its new form. If not, would appreciate your help listing it for deletion review.Emiliecole (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I have listed this at deletion review, the entry is here. Please feel free to modify the nomination statement I made with one of your own. My intention is to remain neutral and await the outcome of DRV. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you have a keen eye...
I am considering going live with User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/National Fibromyalgia Association. I'm feeling pretty good about 10 hours of work. Please take a look and advise of any concerns. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have no concerns about moving that article into main space, nice work :) If you get a chance check out WP:WBM for help in formatting references to an archive; you'll find it useful in your rescue work. Please let me know if you need any assistance from me, and know that your efforts are appreciated. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh... some homework. If I have questions, I'll shout back. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Grebner edits
Thank you for protecting Mark Grebner's page. However I was a bit frustrated by the lock-down, and I wasn't sure how to personally become more "registered" (I will try after I finish this note to you). Although a very consistent Wikipedia reader, I'm admittedly a very infrequent contributor, and failed in attempting to add this highly relevant article

Alleged Wikipedia edits lead to lawsuit

with an addition such as -

"Mr. Grebner has brought defamation lawsuits against students and political opponents who inappropriately edited this page." would seem reasonable

Also, on a purely opinionated note I also take issue with the word "liberal" as used describing Mr. Grebner here: "frequently involved in public controversies, typically as an advocate for liberal positions"

that word is used without regard to classical liberalism or even the current Liberal while as a libertarian I prefer the words totalitarian or statist to describe Mr. Grebner (i.e. his views on smoking, voting, taxes, Wikipedia, etc...)

I will acknowledge that the words social liberal may be appropriate, but I hardly seem him as a fellow liberal.

Dabagboy (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on your talk page I have granted you confirmed status so that you can edit semi-protected pages. Take care, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  01:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Twisted Texan
I redeleted this -- I think you were right the first time. This is, in fact, a character from the author's selfpublished books, and I would consider this both a7 nonnotable and g11 advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm not comfortable doing that as the sole set of eyes, but since you independently came to the same conclusion, that's fine by me. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yuki-onna
Based on the talk page, your creation of Yuki Joro is a mis-redirect, how do we blank it again? Though it is similar, it is not the same idea. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have no strong feelings about this either way. I added the redirect based on a quick Google books for "Yuki joro." I saw that at least a couple of encyclopedias of japanese folklore do treat them as being the same. I also saw posts that drew a distinction between the two, but it didn't seem like enough of a difference for a separate article at this point. Still if you think it would be better to have a redlink (and I know that redlinks help encourage people to write articles) I don't mind deleting it; just let me know. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, else it will get taken of the Japan wishlist. Thanks for your understanding, most cool of you! :) Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's done. Now, if you're in Japan, please go get some sleep ;) Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

R. L. Hymers, Jr. wikipage
Dear Xy:

The above wikipedia article has been repeatedly edited by "Scooge" who has had a complaint against her reported to the FBI for hate speech on her website against Dr. Hymers. Your readers should know that the Wikipedia article has been edited by someone who uses hate speech on her website. I will repeat that information later today.

If you take it down, I will report your actions to the FBI. Scooge, on her website, has physically threatened Dr. Hymers with violence with the use of a gun.

If any physical harm comes to Dr. Hymers, please be assured that you and Wikipedia will come under criminal investigation from the FBI.

21:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC) wiki user: kdl4082

cc: Jeremy Osher, Attorney at Law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.152.15 (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Kdl4082, please understand that your message comes across as being a threat to resort to legal process. While of course there is nothing improper about that, it is Wikipedia policy that your account be blocked until the legal threat is rescinded. This is in order ensure that legal matters are resolved through proper channels, and not exacerbated by activities on-wiki. Having said that, I see nothing in the R. L. Hymers article that would create any risk of physical harm to anyone. It sounds as if you (assuming that you are authorized to speak for Mr. Hymers) or his representative may wish to contact the Wikimedia Foundation (the "owners" of Wikipedia) with any concerns. The proper means to do so is by email to OTRS@wikimedia.org.


 * With respect to any further edits to the article, if they violate Wikipedia policy (and as I mentioned previously, this one did) I am confident that they will again be quickly reverted. You are welcome to civilly discuss your concerns on the page designated for that purpose, which is Talk:R. L. Hymers, Jr.. If you are concerned about the tone of the article, you could use the template (just type that out at the top of the page). However, adding edits such as your last one is not the best way to accomplish your aims. I will post a copy of this response at your talk page; if you wish to reply please do so at my page. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  21:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)