User talk:Xymmax

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,

• 3rd Feb I revert [1]
• 2nd Feb they remove my trick of hiding what they have written, [2]
• 1st Feb I try and use hidden text comment [3]
• 1st Feb they add back text [4]
• 1st Feb another editor removes the text [5]
• 31st January ip adds his bit back, [6]
• 29th January another editor removes [7]
• 29th January ip adds it back [8]
• 26th January another editor adds it back [9]
• 25th January the IP adds the text back [10]
• 25th January another editor reverts [11]
• 25th January IP adds text [12]
• 24th January another editor reverts [13]
• 24th January IP adds text [14]
• 23rd January another editor reverts [15]

...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)

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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia: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)

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 [16] and referenced on the faqs.org site [17], the same site that indexes internet RFCs. The author of this FAQ, Scott Yanoff [18], is an independent, thirty party researcher.

Additionally, the Internet Tourbus site, has an entire article on Foothills [19], authored in 1996. This site, in operation since 1995 [20] is an independent thirty-party researcher of popular and interesting internet destinations.

Additionally, Foothills is also referenced off of a Dr Dobbs article [21] entitled "MUD Games on the Internet".

Foothills is also referenced in a University Case Study: "Implications of Distributed Information Technology for South Pacific Development" [22] which itself is cited by two papers off of Google Scholar [23].

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 [24].

Also, "A Framework for Supporting Anonymity in Text-based Online Conversations", section 2.2.6 [25], 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)