User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2010/February

Userfying
FWIW, re https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User:KrebMarkt/sandbox/Amanchu!&curid=26005404&diff=340917940&oldid=340917781, I have always preferred to simply comment out items like categories - easier to restore, harder to omit later, and easier to work on while in userspace. --Gwern (contribs) 16:37 30 January 2010 (GMT)
 * Yeah, point taken. Not sure why I didn't think about it, just distracted I guess. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As per your comments made in the deletion of the page "Paul Andersen", I am hereby requesting that you userfy this page so it can continue to be worked upon. I would also appreciate if you could give me an indication as to how close this decision was so I can gauge the amount of work required and whether or not I want to pursue that work myself. Needless to say this experience, which was my first at Wikipedia, has been less than pleasant to put it mildly. Thank-you for your time. ISPman (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. As requested, I've placed your article at User:ISPman/sandbox/Paul Andersen. I'm sorry that your first attempt at an article ended up in acrimony. You have the misfortunate of starting a biography at the exact moment that the status of the these articles is being heavily debated, and I think that you were caught up in a bit of the overflow. The main thing that the article needs to return to main space is sourcing from reliable sources independent of the subject. The way reliable sources are defined around here excludes many, but not all, blogs, so that may be a bit of a challenge. Normally, two or three sources that clearly and meaningfully talk about the subject are enough. By meaningful, I mean that it would help if they do more than just mention his name; instead they should discuss his work/life/position etc. in some detail. Once some adequate sourcing is in place, the article will have shown that it meets the notability guideline, which is what you need to have a separate article on a subject on Wikipedia. I hope this helps, and please, feel free to ask any questions. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  15:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider denial of semi-prot on List_of_former_Muslims
Please advise what we should do then. Here is the recent edit activity of this editor. They are one lone person who edits from IP in New Zealand who adds the stuff as a slow reverts. They post from the Auckland university library and dialup IPs and they add the same data. They add the stuff when they are off campus or in the library. Here is their edit history going back in time, ...and so on and so on. So what are the next options ?. They don't use talk pages *but* I'm pretty confident they read the talk pages because they removed the link to their own web site when I started discussing using spam blacklisting with the other editor. They are not a 'bot - I tested that by using the to hide the text and they removed the first tag. It's a human who is the subject of what they are adding. As their only overlap with Wikipedia is via a bunch of IP then we semi-protect the article from IPs. What else can be done ?. 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3rd Feb I revert
 * 2nd Feb they remove my trick of hiding what they have written,
 * 1st Feb I try and use hidden text comment
 * 1st Feb they add back text
 * 1st Feb another editor removes the text
 * 31st January ip adds his bit back,
 * 29th January another editor removes
 * 29th January ip adds it back
 * 26th January another editor adds it back
 * 25th January the IP adds the text back
 * 25th January another editor reverts
 * 25th January IP adds text
 * 24th January another editor reverts
 * 24th January IP adds text
 * 23rd January another editor reverts
 * I wrote out a long entry in which I again declined, then reversed myself. I've semi-protected for a day since the article never before has required protection. If problems continue, please let me know. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  14:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)