User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2011/September

Ross Barkley
Hi, You deleted Ross Barkley's original article here. The article has now been recreated and he has made his first professional start. There were a few decent references in the original article that aren't included in the new version, I was wondering if there was a way to restore the old article (possibly to my userspace) so I could take anything worthwhile from it and put it in the new one. Thanks Franmars (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've restored the article to User:Franmars/Ross Barkley (footballer). I did remove the mainspace categories and the afd template. Please do not cut and paste from the old article to the new one; that creates problems with proper attribution. Instead if you see anything useful in the old article let me know, and I'll do a history merge. Take care, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for doing this.Franmars (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essential CBT Skills Series
Thanks for closing Articles for deletion/Essential CBT Skills Series. However, two articles were nominated, the one you deleted and The Skills Development Service Ltd (the second was perhaps not indicated clearly enough in the nom). Considering the number of "delete both" opini ons, I think the consensus is clear for both articles, but that is of course up to you (as the nom, I am not an objective judge of this). Could you please revisit the AfD and take the necessary action for this second article? Thanks, Fram (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I meant to go back and check to ensure that the deletion notice was on the article for the requisite period (hence the nonspecific rationale) and got distracted. Thanks for the reminder. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  10:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Bodyguard
Hello Xymmax. This article's been a terrible target of vandalism. Can you please semi-protect as soon as you could. Thanks in advance. Scieberking (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is being continuously targeted by vandals again. Though I tried to revert for about a week, the number of vandal edits is just too much and annoying. Can you please semi-protect again? Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect of Talib Nagar State
Hello Xymmax!! I noted that the deletion discussion of Talib Nagar State has been closed a re-direct. But I feel that this is not okay because Talib Nagar was never a State or Princely State of India. I would rather request you to please look into these fact and instead delete the Article page as Deletion Review. As Wikipaedia is an encyclopaedia, the page name Talib Nagar State gives a false notion of it being a State. Further, I feel consensus was also delete. RegardsJethwarp (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello to you as well. I'm afraid that I cannot honor your request to delete the Talib Nagar State article. While I agree that the consensus was to delete, occasionally we have to maintain an article to give proper attribution to the writer. You took some of the information from the old Talib Nagar State article, and added it to the Talib Nagar article. The edit history of Talib Nagar makes it appear that you wrote that content, but you did not. Please understand, I know that you only were trying to help, but the fact remains that we still need the edit history of Talib Nagar State to show that wrote parts of the article. This is the reason that I redirected the article instead of deleting it. I will protect the redirect, so that it cannot be turned into an article again without an administrator's assistance.  The proper way to deal with this situation would have been to use the "move" function to move the article from Talib Nagar State to Talib Nagar. This would have preserved the edit history, and you and other editors could have made any changes that you wished. I hope that explains things. Take care. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  00:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit summary at RFPP
Please could you explain your edit summary here? The edit appears to have removed my semi-pp request for Yadav, which was based on frequent IP removals of cited info etc. I am almost 100% sure that the article has been semi-pp'd until recently for the same reason but that pp expired. Since it is now a pre-emptive situation, I wonder if it was removed while you were editing other aspects of WP:RFPP? - Sitush (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This happens if a user - in this case you - adds a request while another user - in this case me - has a different request open for editing. I'll act on your request and fix the responses shortly. Sorry for the trouble. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the explanation. Somehow the edit conflict alert system doesn't apply in this situation. It is no trouble at all. I was just a bit baffled. I will know what to watch out for in future. - Sitush (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Protected for six months. Actually, what happened at RFPP is a variation on what I suggested - you posted, and then almost immediately afterwards  declined a different request, which overwrote yours. In any event, I suspect things should be a bit better at the article. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  03:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great, both the explanation and the lengthy semi-pp. I am grateful to you. - Sitush (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone has raised a point about the semi-pp at Talk:Yadav. I have the feeling the the recent need to revdel my own talk page because of a threat of violence may relate to the Yadav issue but wasn't around when it happened. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize the talk page was protected. Since the main article is now protected, I unprotected the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I missed that also. In my case probably because familiarity breeds contempt - I contribute a fair amount to that article & its talk page and the banner kind of got filtered out of my brain. I am grateful for your note there, especially regarding the monitoring. There have been quite a few admins involved but some have not edited for a while and others are now involved in the policy/guideline sense of the word. Let's see how things go. Thanks again. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Clifford Allan Sullivan
As requested at the AFd, and because he has two films due for release within weeks, I ask that this be usefied to me at MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Clifford Allan Sullivan. I'll be watching for sources and see if I might get this in shape for a return to mainspace. Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done as requested. Sorry I missed it at the AFD discussion. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfectly fine, and thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)