User talk:Xavexgoem

archive 1 (start-6/1/08), archive 2 (6/1/08-8/22/08), archive 3 (8/22/08-11/01/08)
archive 4(11/0/08-02/01/09), archive 5 (02/01/09-06/20/09), archive 6 (06/20/09-03/01/10)
archive 7 (03/01/10-02/11/12) PrefixIndex - ArticleSandbox

Deletion discussions

Hello, I'd like to understand better why the article Ancestry of John Seymour of Sawbridgeworth was deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a broad consensus to delete. If you think it can be salvaged – bearing in mind the worries that other editors expressed – I can move the article to a subpage so you can continue working on it. It won't be on WP proper, but maybe you can improve it to a point where it won't be deleted. Let me know. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Sal's Pizza (Dallas) was deleted without any discussion of the suitability of the gayot.com link, which is a non-local source. Pawsplay (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete was the general consensus. I can restore the content to a subpage for you to work on, if you'd like. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad RFC

Hi Xav, not sure if I showed you already or not, but you may possibly find the format in this RFC useful? Best of luck :-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sort of, but maybe it's too broad? I believe everyone in the dispute is aware of the policies and the general community consensus. I'm hoping it can be narrowed down more. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's really the structure that counts, what's being commented on can be different (doesn't have to be about policy). The key point is that it's different to a normal RFC, which in my opinion has little structure and is comprised on users making statements and others endorsing them. It can really be as narrow or as broad as you want it, you just need to change the section headers to what is being discussed. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

To be sure, the RfC will be very structured. In that respect, your RfC is perfect :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...well, I have the case watchlisted, so poke me if you need anything. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Co-mediating the Muhammad case

Would you mind getting some help on the case? PaoloNapolitano 18:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like someone with a bit more experience. In particular, I'm worried about "There is no Wiki but Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales is its Prophet" on your user page (which would be ok in almost any other dispute; here, it's a little too cheeky) and this diff. I'm worried that you think its important whether editors in the dispute are Muslim, and that that constitutes a significant COI. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that, and I respect your decision. The user page sentence is something I came up with myself, it is not in any way intended to be anti-Islamic. While I am a conservative, I am not anti-Islam in any way, and the question was, ironically, posed to find out if any of the users involved did have personal beliefs that could affect their editing. Any abuse as a result of outing oneself as a Muslim would be a blatant personal attack subject to a lengthy block. PaoloNapolitano 15:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Xavexgoem,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah--Yjune.sah (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Card and delays

The statement about Card's contribution leading to the anthology being late is taken from a posting by Marvin Kaye on the Publishers Weekly official blog. DS (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Inre Your John Kerry VVAW Controversy Delete Determination

Given the extensive editing I had accomplished in the provision of WP:V, WP:RS sourcing for this article content and the rescission of the prior merge determination at my behest to accommodate a more fully credible closure, your "delete" determination has, quite frankly, left me flabbergasted. I am going to allow some time for proper reflection before deciding on what course of action to pursue inre your closure but, in the interim, I would appreciate access to the existing article content as composed prior to your deletion which, if I understand correctly a discussion above, can be made available. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the provision of access to the deleted article. Having little prior experience in AfD matters, is the prior talk page content/archive (if any) also available? Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right. Sorry. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Campaign for "santorum" neologism RFC close request

Hi Xavexgoem. You volunteered to close Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#RfC - Should spreadingsantorum.com be hyperlinked within the article body and/or "External Links"? at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Campaign for "santorum" neologism RFC close request. I have started a new subsection at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Triumvirate for the closing admins to discuss the close. Thank you for volunteering for this difficult task. I wish you the best of luck. Cunard (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, I've developed my opinion of the consensus and I am ready to discuss when you are.--v/r - TP 13:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just give me about half a day (sleep) Xavexgoem (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up, we're both ready. Just let us know when you are.--v/r - TP 22:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Xavexgoem. You have new messages at Talk:Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism/Triumvirate.
Message added 04:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

v/r - TP 04:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum

Just want to make sure that you agree with [1]. T. Canens (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad

Hi Xavex. I don't know how closely you've been watching the mediation, but there has been some progress, with a subpage set up to compile the RfC. However, there doesn't seem to be a shared understanding of how that should work. My view is that this page should only be edited in line with consensus formed in the mediation. Perhaps you share that view or perhaps you don't, but it would be good to get some guidance. FormerIP (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As an alternate point of view, it's looking like FormerIP started a discussion, declared 48 hours of conversation as "consensus", is now declaring any alternate views as disruptive, and is immediately reverting any changes. So yes, I think having a mediator would be helpful at this point. --Elonka 23:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Since it's looking like I'm going to be shouted down, shall I just withdraw from the mediation? I really don't have time for a lengthy discussion, sorry. --Elonka 00:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping there's an easy compromise. I can't guarantee it won't be discussed at length. It's up to you. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stay in. However, life calls, and I'll be offline for as much as 24 hours. Good luck in the meantime! --Elonka 00:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to collapse anything, I won't object. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Please see the bottom of the mediation page. As this is a question concerning mediation policy, your input is needed. If you have to consult other mediators, that would be fine. If I have to appeal this somewhere let me know. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi X. If you could do this, it may help:User talk:Alanscottwalker#Civility. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping out with the RFC. I'm more interested in putting this behind us than I am finding any one 'exact' solution. So it's really good to see people working on this.

I was also very tempted to try a "philosophical" approach to this dispute, and long ago though the better of it. People consense best when they discuss a middleground between the lofty and the mundane. Good work . --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)