User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2009/October

Unblock
This does not bode well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I'm watching. Very closely. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, good. I have the articles of general target on my watchlist (some I would never follow otherwise) and will let you know if I see problems. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First edit upon returning, second edit, another edit. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And blocked for a year by NuclearWarfare. Obviously you were righ, sorry for the hassle. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine. I completely understand trying to give someone a chance. I think in this case, it's just someone who is too young to appreciate that distinction. Cheers! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration of decision to delete article: Latvian Airplay Top
Greetings. I have not actually read the article in question but I was surprised to discover that it had been deleted and consequently this music chart is no longer considered an appropriate source for Wikipedia articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Latvian_Airplay_Top

There was minimal discussion and the reasons are not entirely clear to me, especially without access to the original article and its subpages. "Unsourced since 2007", yet one of the subpages also deleted was Latvian Airplay Top number-one hits of 2008. Was this page also unsourced? If the 2008 page was sourced, surely the same source could have been cited on the main article instead of deleting it?

"dubious chart, no hits unrelated to Wikipedia. "Latvijas rokziņu aģentūra" turns up 7 hits, Wikipedia and mirrors." Apparently "Latvijas rokziņu aģentūra" is "Latvian rock-news agency" which now yields 220 Google hits, and much more to the point, the phrase "Latvian Airplay Top" produces about 131 000 Google hits. I had a cursory look at the first few pages of results, and it appears that most are not directly related to Wikipedia (especially when you get past the first page or two).

This chart is listed at "Charts All Over the World" http://www.lanet.lv/misc/charts/ and I don't think the limited information on the organisation behind it (which may be due to some sort of translation error for all I know) is sufficient reason to discredit this very widely cited music chart. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. I did close the AfD. There was no AfD notice at the top of each of the subpages, so I only deleted the main page. After I closed the AfD, TenPoundHammer, the nominator, added speedy deletion tags to all the subpages, and Dank deleted those including the 2008 page you mentioned. Looking at that chart, it does have the link to www.lanet.lv, and no such link was on the main page. I also see that http://www.lanet.lv has made it onto the WP:BADCHARTS list, presumably as a result of the AfD. Since the AfD I closed never considered that link, I agree that it isn't appropriate to exclude lanet.lv based on that discussion. I don't normally edit in that area, so I don't know whether there was some other AfD where it was decided to exclude the link or not. What I suggest is that you try to get consensus over at WT:Record charts, which is the talk page for BADCHARTS, to remove lanet.lv from the BADCHARTS list. If they agree that the source is legitimate, I'll restore all the pages. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  14:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll raise it on the the Record Chart talk page. Is it OK if I quote this whole conversation? It might be difficult for me to present an unbiased summary. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By all means, go ahead. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Protection level for MJ Template
I THANK YOU. This had been a ongoing going problem for the past few weeks now, and since I'm not an administrator, I applaud you for actually doing something about this. Thank you once again. MaJic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 21:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to do it. If you ever encounter such a problem again, you can grab me if I'm online. You also can post a request at Requests for page protection. We can't protect a page for a single act of vandalism, but repeated problems from a number of users certainly justifies it. Take care, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  23:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Rod Pacheco
Hi Xymmax. After you removed the block of text from the Rod Pacheco article, the person that inserted it, put it back again. I removed it and replaced it with a summary. I might have summarized it too much. If you have an opinion on the matter, I would be interested. Thank you. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I replied over on the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  20:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Felicity Barr
You closed the above discussion as keep. While I disagree with your decision, that was probably the only option as there were no delete !votes (even though the keep !votes didn't have any policy-based arguments). I am surprised, though, that you didn't take any action in the BLP itself. I would consider it your responsibility (if you're going to keep the article) to make sure the article is reliably sourced (if it is notable, then sources won't be hard to find). Currently, out of 5 sources two are Youtube videos, one is a CV, one's an article written by Felicity Barr herself, and the last one is this. ( <- you should read it, and tell me if that source justifies notability) As I see it, either no reliable sources can be found, and the subject of the article isn't notable, and the AfD should have been relisted (at least), or the subject is notable and the article can be sourced. I would like to hear your views on this. ƒ(Δ)² 16:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. Sorry for the delay in responding; I actually managed to take a small wikibreak :). To your points, I think my responsibility for BLPs I close is exactly the same as any other editor who cares about the problem. I do add any BLP I close to my watchlist, and I do my best to ensure that there is no negative unsourced information. Beyond that, if I am aware of sources I add them. Otherwise, I largely will leave a BLP I close alone. The reason is simple - the closer's role, as I see it, is to determine consensus in the discussion in light of our policies and guidelines. If I feel strongly that a BLP needs to be gutted, I'm probably not the person to close the discussion. The AfD all ready had been relisted once, so there was no reason to relist a second time given the unanimity of "keep" comments apart from your nomination. Relisting should be used to determine consensus when it is unclear, not fish for a preferred outcome. In this case, as you noted consensus was clear. The policy/guideline arguments by the letter were fairly weak, mainly insisting that despite the lack of quality sources that she still is notable. Still, I thought that as whole they rose above WP:ILIKEIT in that they made a claim that the subject, who appears regularly on television, nevertheless was notable. This was the first time that the subject had been nominated for deletion, so I erred on the side of deferring to the discussion. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your answer was well thought out, and makes sense. I'll drop this discussion here. (I might go ahead and clean up the unsourced statements though) Astronominov  16:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

deleted page content?
hi! could you provide me with the content of the deleted International Vegan Edge Day page?

thank you very much.

Veganedge (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I've userfied this page here. The article was deleted because there was insufficient information to show that the subject of the article was notable, so please try to find reliable sources that will prove it. If have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection advice please?
Hi. Sorry to pop up out of the blue like this but I've been looking at page protection issues and I see you doing this kind of work recently. I was thinking of requesting semi-protection for Remembrance Day till maybe 13th November. I think it gets hit in the runup to 11th November when everyone looks at it for their school project and Year 9 decide it would be funnier if they changed it a bit ... I have not analysed every recent edit (though I could if it would help!) but it looks like it's running at close to 50% vandalism at times, with little positive contribution from anons and logged-in users having to do quite a lot of reversion to keep the article stable. :certainly it is currently a lot worse than usual. I'm just asking you for an informal view, to help a newbie to this area, as to whether on a glance it looks to you like a case for semi-protection that would merit serious consideration. Please note that I am not asking you to take any action nor to commit to any course of action; just really trying to avoid my making a fool of myself with a request which those experienced in the field would view as hopeless/frivolous/whatever. So if you think it's an obvious non-runner then I will leave it; if you think it has any chance of succeeding then I will have a try. But your view would of course be without prejudice and I would not be quoting it at people like I thought it was gospel! Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. It's no big deal to request protection at RFPP, but there's certainly no requirement that you do so. I've gone ahead and semi-protected the page until November 14th. The process you described is pretty much what I do when determining whether to protect. I try to figure out the ratio of contructive to non constructive anonymous edits, and look at whether the problem comes from just one ip, or several. This article was a good candidate for protection, and when I looked at the protection log it was clear that this is an annual problem. Good call, and thanks for alerting me. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh that's great, many thanks! I didn't realize (not knowing where to find the log) that this was a regular protection event, though I suppose it's obvious when I think about it. Thank you so much for going the extra mile or 1.6km and actually sorting it out - it is much appreciated, and it'll be a relief to have less trouble as the date approaches. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Kyung Lah article
Xymmax, I've responded to the BLP Noticeboard about the Kyung Lah article. I had no idea that such a thing existed until somebody brought it up at the article's talk page. I'm sure my comments will attest to the source's reliability. As I've stated before, I will agree to side-stream the article, since it does seem to include too many unnecessary details. Section blanking, however, seems too radical of a solution because it can be interpreted by many people, including myself, as white-washing the article. I would like to hear your comments about this at the noticeboard. --123.224.179.215 (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I'll reply over at the noticeboard too. I have no problem with a brief mention if - and this is a big if - the source can be confirmed as reliable. The standard for BLP sourcing is quite high, and few blogs will qualify. I did see your point about the writer being a newspaper reporter, which certainly gives it a credible claim to reliability. More details over at the noticeboard. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  22:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)