User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2012/January

Boris Berezovsky page
Will you please kindly explain why you reverted my edit on Boris Berezovsky page. Where user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Collect was actually engaged in edit war, and violated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy by removing well sourced material. Will you please revert back your changes and restore sourced material. Thank you80.4.251.95 (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. I actually did not revert you. I did semi protect the page based the discussion at the biographies of living person noticeboard.  Please consider addressing the concerns expressed there, and if you gain consensus there should be no problem. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  01:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a follow up to discussion on the BLP noticeboard. Please will you reply as well. There's a grave infringement of Deletion policy and edit warring by user Collect. The version of the page that you semi-protected is whitewashed170.148.198.157 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll reply over there, but you really need to discuss inclusion of your material on the talk page, becuase what I've seen so far suggests that consensus is against including it. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  00:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Another comment made on discussion page. The phrase in Berezovsky article did not say that he didn't have enough evidence to fight the book in court, it just said that he didn't do it. It's a fact that has right to be represented in Berezovsky article. Removing just that plain fact is violation of Deleting policy, and whitewashing 170.148.215.157 (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

request for semi
IP "contributions" on the Talk:Boris Brezovsky (businessman) seem non-utile indeed. I think that it might be wise to examine the edits of thise IPs who seem to think they "know" what "Wuikipedia deletion policy" is . Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It actually looks like the opposite, it's you who does not know the Wiki Deletion policy. As you removed well-sourced material without any justification to do so170.148.215.157 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of you seem to be dealing with this in a number of venues. I still think the articl talk page is the proper place. This is pure content dispute - it's not deletion policy, and not BLP, although there may be ramifications from WP:UNDUE. I see no reason to protect the talk page while the article is protected. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  06:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

ARS template deletion comment
I will say I agree with you on the deletion policy being problematic and would support changing the way we go about putting articles up for deletion so that articles on notable subjects that conform to policy in underserved topic areas don't get scrubbed from the project, but that is a separate discussion as it concerns the Article Rescue Squadron.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)