User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2009/March

List of Naruto characters
The edits continue. Almost (if not all) related to just Hinata Hyouga about the last chapter and are more than yesterday when I originally submitted the FPP. じん ない  06:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Semi-protected for 2 weeks. Hopefully the issue will be settled by then. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

does not violate that policy
The user outed himself by publicly giving an interview about his Wikipedia editing. It's hardly as if I did any detective work, since the only user who has been pushing negative information in that article to give a public interview about how he's been pushing negative information in that article. --Delirium (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * However, I've now made it less explicit. --Delirium (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there would actually be less drama simply by banning the one problematic editor. Only one editor in the entire history of this article has caused BLP problems, the same one who went on record admitting that his sole purpose at Wikipedia is to cause BLP problems. Seems like there's an easy fix, there. --Delirium (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, for now I'm hoping some other people will wander over from the BLP noticeboard before doing anything else. --Delirium (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

hi
hi, i would like my page about zinnah tokpah to be an encyclopedia article, can you please help me put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.216.73 (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is from almost a year ago. I'm assuming that you are referring to the page that I moved in April of last year from article space to User:Zico1. I can tell you right now that the article as written will be deleted if you move it to article space. You will need to add more information to show that Mr. Tokpah has been mentioned by third-party sources such as newspapers, magazines, radio stories, certain websites, and so on. This is called notability, and in the Wikipedia world articles about people that cannot meet that standard are deleted - often within minutes of you starting the article. That is the reason that I moved the article in the first place. I couldn't anything in Google to show notability, so I think you will have your work cut out for you. Since I did not ask you ahead of time before, if you still want it moved into mainspace to try your luck, let me know and I will do it. Take care. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Call of Duty: Mordern Warfare 2 unprotection request
I'm requesting that you put on an unprotection for this page. It's still being developed, news of the title game will come along, and I wanted to add a new category to the page. Please and thank you for taking your time and reading this request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omniryu (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, it looks as if things have stabilized a bit. Unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I reckon
I've addresed all your comments at the GA review for Reckoning. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding request for page protection
Please note that an account is still trying to add comments into the archived discussion. The account in question is an admitted sock puppet associated with this arbcom case, which as you can see dealt with harassment. Now when White Cat and I originally argued to block the User:Jack Merridew account at Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Workshop as a sockpuppet we had to contend with all this hyperbole of how our suspicions were wrong and all only to as his userpage reveals it be confirmed that he and several other accounts were indeed reincarnations of the same editor who had used these multiple accounts to evade blocks and to harass inclusionists. These accounts were blocked indefinitely, but the sock account rather than the original account has been allowed to edit with a host of restrictions at Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion. As I changed my username and requested oversight of various stuff in my userspace due to harassment and given what I, White Cat, and others had to deal with unpleasantries with regards to the various incarnations of this user, I am sorry, but I refuse to be talked down by it in any venue, especially after attempting to assume good faith and be nice to him at User_talk:Jack_Merridew/Archive_3. Therefore, please revert back to the archived version and protect this page. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm logging off for a few hours. Since a high number of the mistakes I've regretted have come about when trying to rush decisions, or make them without enough sleep, I'll look at this when I'm fresh and reply then. If it isn't a moot point (because another admin has taken action) I'll be happy to see what I can do. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  06:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm unblocked per arbcom and was told to use this account. There is no restriction re A Nobody. He has disrupted that whole editor review and others made stronger versions of the criticisms I made and rebuked him for attempts to censor my reasonable comments. The review should be closed in an intact state. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Per "5. User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing." Your posting constitutes disruptive editing by being deliberately immflammatory in a foum I opened in the hope of constructive feedback (your initial post offers no atcual suggestion, just attacks me) and is patently dishonest.  You say falsely that I "continues disruptive participation in AfD" when the last two AfDs I commented in were Articles for deletion/Laws of compression and Articles for deletion/Jeremy the jellyfish seven days ago.  In those discussions in which I argued to delete I cited a policy based reason for doing so and the articles were indeed deleted, as opposed to say what you have done, i.e. in  (using swear words and a WP:PERNOM) or, , , , and  (copy and paste WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:PERNOM in multiple AfDs with twice doing two in under a miniute that given the lengths of those articles cannot possible reflect actually reading the individual articles and looking for sources per WP:BEFORE).  Given that, do you really think you're in a position to tell me anything about AfD participation that I can take seriously?  I'm not censoring you in the sense of trying to stifle a negative review; if that were the case, then I would have done so with others before you there; however, I am not okay with being belittled given the above-mentioned hypocrisy,  given how White Cat and I were treated negatively when we were right about the nature of your account, and given that my good faith efforts to be nice to you by welcoming you back and by creating an article I thought you would appreciate are apparently not worth mentioning or acknowledging.  If my good faith efforts are just going to be ignored, well, then I'm not going to just sit by and be cool with getting slammed by someone I actively tried to be nice toward.  If say you returned to editing and since being unblocked were making strong and compelling arguments in AfDs and like me were more open minded to argue for both keeping and deleting, i.e. really turned a new leaf in that regard, then okay, but when you aren't doing so, it's like, come again?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All right gentlefolk. I'm familiar with each of the accounts here through my AfD reading. I also am aware that this but a small wiki-skirmish of a larger dispute that has spilled over here. I still am not inclined to protect the page. As I write this, another administrator has declined to protect the page as well. Given that the only proper purpose of an editor review is to provide an editor with feedback, and that this editor has made it clear that he has received all the feedback he needs, I would hope we can all agree it would be inappropriate to alter the archive any further. I would consider it disruptive. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

D Schlund
You really are way out of line protecting the article Dan Schlund. I made the redirect under perferctly reasonable grounds, all of which have been ignored. Becoming an administrator does not give you the right to enforce an editor's opinion on everyone else. Also, please see my comment on the Dan Schlund talk page. smooth0707 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, maybe you're right. Still, I thought (and actually still think) that the protection was justified by the fact the article was reverted between redirect and article 7 times in the 5 days after the AfD. In fact, it's been flipped 13x in the last 50 edits. That's disruptive, and needed to stop, so I protected the page to calm things down, and try to get everyone to talk. Of the main participants, you're the only one to make substantive comments on the talk page since the protection went in place. 2 of the other editors have gone off and continued to redirect/revert each other on another article. You shouldn't assume that I'm against a redirect here, though, I'm not. If the consensus is to redirect, I'm happy to do it. Perhaps I should note that again on the page, so that those who favor the article in its current form don't assume it will automatically stay that way. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou
Thanks for semi-protecting FIFA World Player of the Year. I requested it be protected a few days ago due to high vandalism by IP's but it was declined. Neutralle 10:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I probably would have declined it a few days ago too, but it definitely had gotten worse. Take care, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input
I'll do my best to straighten up "MY" article  :) thanks again for your time.  Eli  +  21:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quite interesting, and was all new to me. Just let me know when you're ready to let me take another look at it :) Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Latruff
Thanks. Sorry about the delay, but I actually do have to work every now and then :) PS. What does Xymmax have to do with Creeping Death? 8-) -- Avi (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Both less and more than you possibly could imagine :P Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  12:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

KAL 007 GA
Hello. Thank you for taking the time to review this article. For some reason, your comments have not been transcluded in to the talk page, so I've only noticed them now. Will take a look ASAP. Cheers   Socrates2008 ( Talk )   12:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. I all ready was planning on being loose with the seven day thing given the size of the article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  12:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome behavior
User:Turkish Flame continues to ignore Articles for deletion/Afghanistan–Kosovo relations and is re-creating articles that have been deleted. User:Turkish Flame is re-creating Colombia–Kosovo relations (history = ) and Kosovo–United Arab Emirates relations (history = ) despite these articles being listed for deletion under the Afghanistan-Kosovo AfD. I thought I would come to you since you were the one who decided on the AfD. --Tocino 04:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring AFD decisions. For example: i'm not re-creating Kosovo–Sierra Leone relations . I'm only re-creating Colombia and the UAE articles because these are important from now on. Kosovo decided to open embassies in Bogotá and Abu Dhabi. -- Turkish Flame ☎  05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No they haven't. They said they might do so in the future, but this is wishful thinking because the Kosovo authorities don't have the resources to open embassies in these nations. And even if they did open embassies, the so-called relations between Kosovo and Colombia or UAE are not notable and not worthy of an article as decided by the previous AfD. --Tocino 06:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * These articles only nomitated for deletion but they weren't deleted. They redirected to Kosovo recognition article until they become notable articles. Now they are notable. . -- Turkish Flame ☎  06:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Kosovo has not established embassies in these nations. The WP community agreed that these two articles should not exist. --Tocino 06:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) This sounds like a good faith expansion to me. I haven't taken a lot of time to read the article histories, but I note that there's no reason that an Afd from five months ago can't be revisited if the underlying conditions have changed. It sounds as if there is a bit of disagreement on this point. How do these articles compare with the ones that were withdrawn from the previous AfD? (I'll check later myself when I have a bit more time). Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't any different from the other articles listed on AfD other than the fact that a minister in Kosovo said that they would possibly establish embassies in the two countries. But let's wait until these embassies are actually real until we re-start the article. Remember, the Kosovo authorities don't exactly have the greatest track record with their optimistic comments. For example, they have said that they would be recognized by over 100 countries within a month of the declaration of independence. This turned out to be horribly wrong of course. --Tocino 05:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

List of TV affiliates
Hello, can you please look over this AfD again. I don't see the consensus as being to keep the article as the problems that many people listed were not fixed with the cleanup. Thanks.  Them From  Space  15:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. I have only a brief window to log on right now, and want to handle another issue. I will take a look in a few hours. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've looked at it again. Keep may have been a bit of a stretch, but the way I got there was discounting a number of IDONTLIKEIT delete votes. The list doesn't violate WP:NOTDIR nor, in my opinion, was it indiscriminate. The list was still being actively worked on during the Afd, and while there was some duplication with other lists, no one pointed to a violation of WP:LIST or WP:NOT, and therefore there was no policy reason behind the deletion request. I'm not especially invested in this call though - I'm perfectly willing to listen if you have a take on how the list violates our policy/guidelines. Take care, Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  13:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Johnny Kitagawa/GA1
You seem to have a tendency to intersperse your comments in among mine in responses. No worries or anything - but at Talk:Johnny Kitagawa/GA1 could you please move each of your responses to the bottom, below my signature in each section? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Sorry, didn't mean to mess up your review. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  00:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for the fix. :) Cirt (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

IP has returned at Talim
The IP has returned at the article, I think it's time for rangeblock. Momusufan (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't around to help. I see that the article is semi-protected, which is what I probably would have done anyway, because the IP jumped into a different range. Good luck on the article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Korean Air Lines Flight 007
Hello, I was wondering if you could drop by again and let us know if there's anything else outstanding for this GAN. Thank you.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   11:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will give it a look tonight. I saw that there was quite a bit of work being done on it, so I figured I'd just wait for the current round of improvement to run its course. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, 'tis done. :) Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  10:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have taken the advice.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   11:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Zena removal
Hi !

I saw that zena has been removed on the purpose that it is not a notable software and thus should not be present on wikipedia. I understand the criteria. We do not want to have a wikipedia entry for each and every project that is started. I still think that it is not the case for zena, even if it doesn't have a huge visibility right now.

The lack of current notability of zena comes from the priorities in this project: quality versus loud noise.

I still think zena has it's place in wikipedia and the latter should not be a place to only list comercial products with high marketing funds.

Thanks for considering the inclusion of the Zena_(software) page back in wikipedia.

Gaspard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazoduc (talk • contribs) 18:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. I deleted this article because another editor had submitted it for proposed deletion, and the article appeared to qualify. The proposed deletion process is only for uncontroversial deletions. This deletion is not uncontroversial since you object to it, accordingly I have restored the article. Please understand, however, that the article may be submitted for deletion again via our Articles for Deletion process. The best way to prevent this is to improve the article so that it is written with a neutral point of view and establishes notability, which has a bit of a specialized meaning on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you need any help. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  12:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * done you may care to comment. Articles for deletion/Zena (software) 16x9 (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!
In addition, you may use the userbox located at User:Drilnoth/Userboxes/GAN backlog elimination drive to indicate your participation on your user page. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankspam
Hi Xymmax, very very belated thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed by an embarrassingly wide margin, there's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here. The advantage of averaging two or three thanks a day is that I've already clocked up loads of admin actions - mostly deleting attack pages and rescuing stubs at CSD; so any feedback you care to give as to my article rescue work would be very welcome.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 21:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)