User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2009/May

Rebel Legion Page deletion
Hello,

I am curious as to the reason for the delation of the Star Wars Organization: Rebel Legion. Seeing that the 501st Legion is the "villians" portion of the Star Wars costuming group and has not been removed, I'm wondering why the "heroes" costuming group was removed?

Thank you,

jrhermle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.147.18 (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied previously here. Since this is the second inquiry I've received about it, I will restore the page. It still is subject to being submitted through the Articles for deletion process. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/BQZip01 4
Thank you for your support — BQZip01 —  talk 13:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hoshino Fuuta
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hoshino Fuuta. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Farix (Talk) 02:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

1990s
Hey, I protected 1990s for two weeks, without knowing that you had already declined the RFPP request. Are you alright with that? If not, just let me know, and I'll unprotect it. Regards, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. It looks like the vandalism started back up anyway. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  01:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Interested?
Please have another look at Requests_for_page_protection. Not only because I replied to your coment, but also because I added another related template. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Commented there, thanks. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sports Desks
That's a sock of the banned User:Ron liebman. He probably won't use that ID again, but just in case, please change the block from a week to indef, as is normally done with his socks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. It looks like he's been indef blocked all ready. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, he's gone, until the next time. >:( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

How to choose?
Can you tell me who/how you decide which articles to delete and who has the power to make the final decision?

I was just watching one discussion, where the person who had initiated the "reasons for deletion" had a personal reason for wanting this article deleted (and was being quite aggresive and spiteful in doing it -which I believe is against the Wikipedia ethos?). But despite arguments coming from both sides of the fence, and the issue being very torn, this person succeeded. Incidentally, the article in question had also been flagged several times, by several people, for rescue. But this seems to have been ignored too. Can you advise me on why such a situation would occur as it does not seem correct?

I am just trying to understand how Wikipedia works at the moment as, obviously, it works best if it, uh, works best.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.17.99 (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone can nominate an article to be deleted - you can see the deletion policy for more detail, but in general, people pick articles that they think violate one of the content policies. The most common one is notability, but there are others. The discussion you watched sounds like it was part of the Articles for deletion process. The way those work is someone nominates the article, then anyone - and I mean anyone - can comment on whether the article should be deleted. People refer to wikipedia policies during the discussion, so you will see things like "fails WP:V" which means that the poster thinks that the article isn't verifiable. After seven days, the discussion may be closed. Generally speaking, administrators close the discussions. Non-administrators who are experienced participants in the discussions also close some discussions, but only administrators have the power to delete an article. The closer is supposed to read the article and discussion, weigh the arguments against the various policies, then make a decision. Anyone who disagrees ask the administrator to change their mind on their talk page. If they still disagree, the decision to delete (or keep) can be taken to deletion review.

To address your point about the specific discussion (and I don't know whether or not this was one of mine) I can say that if there is wide participation in a discussion, I worry less about whether the nominator has a personal reason for seeking the deletion. The times that a personal bias is concerning to me is when few people are involved in the discussion, and it seems that one side is not being properly represented. In those cases I will generally leave a comment (sometimes called an !vote) rather than close the discussion.

The thing to remember, ultimately, is that all deleted articles can be restored. If an article is deleted because there are no reliable sources about it, anyone can go, find sources, ask for a copy of the article to be undeleted in their user space, and make an article that will meet the standards. The only time you are unlikely to get an old copy is if the article violated the biographies of living persons policy (think along the lines of defamation, although the policy is much broader than that) or a copyright violation.

Sorry that was so long. If I haven't answered your question, feel free to follow up. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No that was really helpful. Thanks very much for taking the time to explain.  I'm relieved to hear all deleted articles will be restored.  The page I was watching was for a young, upcoming person, so whereas it may have been a wee bit premature (although the debate was split 50/50 on this) there will almost definitely be a lot more to add anon and it would be a pity for someone to have to start from scratch again.


 * I'd like to keep an eye on it and update as necessary. When it comes to this stage, would the thing to do be to contact an administrator, such as yourself to retrieve the document? Or is there another process?


 * Most admins will place a copy of a deleted article in your user space, or email it to you on request. All of the admins in CAT:RESTORE have specifically indicated they will do so. I think that there was talk of starting a noticeboard where you could place such a request, but I don't know what became of it. You also could ask at WP:AN. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My userpage
Thanks for the action on my userpage. I actually didn't realize that "full protection" meant editing was restricted to admins (having never actually read WP:PROTECT). And likewise, I didn't realize that semi-protect meant new accounts were barred from editing that page as well. Now I know. Thanks again.  freshacconci  talk talk  13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Let me know if you need it extended. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

you closed as no consensus, but the article got deleted and replaced by a redirect anyway. Comments please
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Contraception In the talk page, we're having some disagreements. Did you consider the arguments of any of those that said redirect, valid? Please look over and tell me your opinion. When you close an article as no consensus, should it be instantly replaced with a redirect anyway? Or should there be another discussion about that?  D r e a m Focus  16:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was not deleted, DreamFocus. It was just redirected. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 16:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And the difference is what? Article still gone, but the history is preserved.  The administrator could've closed it as a redirect if they felt that valid.  Just curious how the closing administrator felt on the matter.   D r e a m Focus  16:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference is that it was not deleted, and you said it was.
 * I couldn't have closed it as a redirect. I was the nominator. The nominator isn't allowed to close it. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 16:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, DreamGuy edited their original comment now. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 17:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, not DreamGuy. Totally different and opposite editors.   D r e a m Focus  17:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know if you're opposites, but you definitely have distinct philosophies. No worries, I knew whom TT meant. :) Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just about to ask you to have a peep at the talkpage too. [[Media:Contraception-afd.jpg|This graphic summary]] is what I used to work my argument out. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 16:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is an awesome graphic. I'll reply over on the talk page; let's try to keep the discussion together there. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Always a pleasure ;) And sorry, DreamFocus! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 17:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the perils of ignoring consensus. When I get my 3RR block and end up fulminating at WR, you get a barnstar. Anyway, I think we should go to DR to stop this kind of nonsense. Eusebeus (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, you're not so silly as to get blocked mindlessly reverting. And while it looks as if things were a bit spirited for a time, there's now a nice discussion occurring at the talk page. If that comes at the cost of my looking like an ass sterling reputation, so be it :). Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  21:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
12:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)