User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2010/March

Melissa Jiménez

 * What do I have to do to get the page Melissa Jiménez back. Chelo61 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to create a draft copy of the article in your userspace that has reliable sources that show why she's notable enough for an article. Because this article has been recreated and deleted repeatedly, I suspect that some really solid sources will be necessary. If you take a look at WP:MUSIC, it goes into considerable detail about the types of sources that are needed. If you find the sources, I then would list the article at deletion review, where the page can be restored. I have any questions, please let me know. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, why did you delete the MLIA Revolution page? I would like it returned. It was recently created and is under a lot of construction. It is an Event / Historical / Web Content. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.34.54 (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The page didn't meet our inclusion policies, and it was getting a lot of silly edits. Since there was no good version in its history for me to revert to, I deleted it. It isn't ready to be an article in its current form. However, you may work on it in your user space (you'll need to register an account name first) and if you or others get it up to speed, it can be an article. But first, take a look at WP:WEB - you're going to need newspaper articles or other reliable sources to show why this thing's important, otherwise it will just get deleted again. If you decide you want to register an account, come post back here after you do, and I'll undelete the article into that account's user space. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

MLIA Revolution
I saw that you recently deleted the MLIA Revolution page, however, I was in the process of cleaning it up, I just made it earlier today, and I realize things got out of hand. This is an event that is important to many of us, so if you could please put it back, that would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxMan15000 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See my reply above. Since you already have an account, I'll userfy it for you. You get more leeway to work on the article this way, although it really does need sources. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for this, basically what this will do, will be able to let me edit it until it is ready and then I can release it to the public? I apologize for having it get out of control, but as you can tell, the whole thing is a big party to the people on the "list of commenters" —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxMan15000 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. It's in your user space here. Please ask if you have any questions. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection of John Laws
Hi Xymmax, thanks for looking into my request earlier.

The conversation on the protecting admin's talk page has evolved in the meantime. However, unfortunately, as I expected, I have not seen a clear justification for what I still consider to be an indefinite protection that is in stark disagreement with our policy and with what is generally happening at WP:RFP.

I would like to know your opinion about this please. Thanks. 123.218.154.242 (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. Sorry, I've been off-line for a bit and just received your message. I think that your interpretation of WP:PROTECT is correct, and should be followed as a general rule. Looking at Casliber's page, I see that he is interested in maintaining the protection on the page. This looks to me to be a classic point of intersection between WP:PROTECT and WP:BLP, which as you may be aware has been the subject of lively debate around these parts. I actually favor a stricter enforcement of semi-notable BLPs, and while I personally don't see this one as falling into that category, I'm not really interested in arguing w/ him over this particular article since he seems to feel that there is an issue here, and has some support for his position. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  23:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Full Armor of God Broadcast
NEW third party sources may turn the tide on this popular underground Christian Metal radio show so that it may finally be able to satisfy WP:N and achieve a free standing article on wikipedia very soon. Please keep in mind that do to the fact that this program is not a mainstream corperate entity, it will never have refferences from a People or Rolling Stone Magazine. However since WP:N is not neccessarily based on things such as popularity or fame, these NEW sources should be enough for the radio program to have a modest mention on wikipedia. Being the closing admin, may I please submit this article through you once all the NEW sources are gathered? There are 3 publications that are featuring articles about the Full Armor of God Broadcast on upcoming "online editions". Indie Vision Music http://www.indievisionmusic.com/, Detonation Magazine (UK) http://www.detonationmagazine.co.uk/ and HM Magazine http://www.hmmag.com Also a very popular podcaster "View From The Bunker" on PID Radio http://www.pidradio.com/ will be doing a feature on the Full Armor of God Broadcast. I know that these are not the most well known sources, but will these NEW third party sources along with the other electronic media WP:SOURCES finally be enough for a stand alone article? Armorbearer777 (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there, nice to see you back. You certainly can bounce anything off of me. I took a quick look at the first couple of sites that you mentioned (I'm on an extremely slow connection at the moment) and my gut reaction is that I'm still not convinced by them. They are an improvement though, and I still do need to look at the the total package when you are ready. In addition, you always can go back through deletion review, so you should never feel that you're stuck with what I say. Just let me know when/if you're ready for me to take a look. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  23:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional justification for Foothills (talker)
With respect to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Foothills_(talker)

Foothills also has a listing within the well-respected "Updated Internet Services List" FAQ, published in 1997, which is referenced on both the EFF's (Electronic Frontier Foundation) "Net Culture" website section and referenced on the faqs.org site, the same site that indexes internet RFCs. The author of this FAQ, Scott Yanoff, is an independent, thirty party researcher.

Additionally, the Internet Tourbus site, has an entire article on Foothills, authored in 1996. This site, in operation since 1995 is an independent thirty-party researcher of popular and interesting internet destinations.

Additionally, Foothills is also referenced off of a Dr Dobbs article entitled "MUD Games on the Internet".

Foothills is also referenced in a University Case Study: "Implications of Distributed Information Technology for South Pacific Development" which itself is cited by two papers off of Google Scholar.

Also, please visit my most recent comment on the deletion discussion of Resort (talker), i.e., my comment on the BBC reference, and my rationale for why it should be considered more reliable that it has been: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resort_(talker)

Another book reference.

Also, "A Framework for Supporting Anonymity in Text-based Online Conversations", section 2.2.6, on Foothills.

All of this combines with the existing reference in Wired, in addition to the existing multiple book references.

Thank you for your time and reconsideration. Fox (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was pretty excited when I saw all the sources you listed, but after investigating them they still look to me to be too minor to support a separate article. As a whole, I guess that they probably do give us enough to minimally meet WP:V, but we're still a ways from notability IMHO. It seems to me that the best way to proceed is probably an incubated article that covers all the talkers, then see if there's enough to bring it back to main space. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  00:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

New Article
I saw that you deleted the Oxford Parallels (Shakespeare Authorship) article, but saw no problem with the creation of a new article that addressed the NPOV issues that were raised. I would like to have a go and wondered if the new article should have a different name? Since it was a split from and linked to two parent articles, it should not be too much work to incorporate the NPOV material from the two parent articles - which were lacking in the deleted article. Smatprt (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * replied at duplicate entry below Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hot stain
Thanks for your decision. How long before I can expect the next AfD on the article? I was told the policy on repeat AfD never happened.

I corrected the link in the talk page to the correct (3rd) discussion. Please check if that is what you had intended.

It seems like it's going to take a while before people figure out that there are places on earth that there is no drinkable water and that it will most likely not return in a long while. kgrr talk 21:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there. There is no policy against repeat AfD nominations, although numerous nominations within a few months certainly is frowned upon, and often is of itself sufficient reason for editors to support keeping the article. Not to be too trite, but the best defense to future nominations really would be a couple of strong references. A well-referenced and neutral article will almost never be nominated. The longer this article sits in a lightly referenced state the more likely it is to be nominated in future. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New Article
I saw that you deleted the Oxford Parallels (Shakespeare Authorship) article, but saw no problem with the creation of a new article that addressed the NPOV issues that were raised. I would like to have a go and wondered if the new article should have a different name? Since it was a split from (and linked to) two parent articles, it should not be too much work to incorporate the NPOV material from the two parent articles - which were, I admit, lacking in the deleted article. This was an oversight when the article was created and can be easily fixed. Smatprt (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't really have any strong feelings about the most appropriate name for a future article, and in any event that would be best raised on the talk page of the existing Oxford article. You are likely to have the same group of editors involved, and unless you have some measure of consensus from that group the new article would just end up being nominated for deletion anyway. You may have success by creating a draft of the article you'd like to write in your user space, so that the other editors can see that it is in fact neutral in tone; this often smooths the way forward. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I'll go in that direction and when I post a draft, I'll let you know. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)