User talk:Xoloz
This is my talk page. Like most Wikipedians, I reserve the right to refactor it for archival reasons. Please do not mark any message addition as "minor"; if you do, I won't know that you've written. Please do write: I'm lonely. Xoloz
My talk archives are here: archive1, archive2, archive3, archive4, archive5, archive6, archive7, archive8, archive9, archive10, archive11, archive12, archive13, archive14, archive15, archive16, archive17, archive18, archive19, archive20, and archive21.
MFD on Cake Financial article
Article seems to be cleaned up with categories and sources as well as external link. How to get it unmarked for deletion? Any thing else to clean up? Thank you ! m2k —Preceding comment was added at 02:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultra20 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A pat on the back
Good close on the Seth Finkelstein DRV. Not that you need to be told, but you know, sometimes it's nice to get happy messages on your talk page. All the best. Hiding T 16:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto.--Docg 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- See, you know you get it right when people who expressed opposing views call it a good close. :) Hiding T 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto.--Docg 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to the both of you. Pleasant comments are always a good surprise, though I probably don't deserve them! :) Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Having found out a lot of info and prepared a suitably worded statement, with references no less! I pressed save page button to find you had changed the page and that it should not be posted to! The page in question being the AfD (version 2) on the restored Mig Greengard article. As it seems the original Afd you refer to is also closed then can you advise where I can put the statement? Preferably without a reply relating to a dark, sunless, void please. :-) Richard Harvey (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I have stored it here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Richard_Harvey/sandbox Richard Harvey (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you, that was most unexpected. As to the name change, it makes important people happier, and solved a couple of privacy concerns. All the best. Hiding T 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA, and your thoughtful comments. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 04:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Empty child image
"no, it is on the 7th... I just put it there, so I know. I assume good faith here. Page protection will ensue if there are any more odd, process-subverting, edits" - that's weird. First time I clicked the link it wasn't there , then I went to the main page and it was under the 6th. I see it on the 7th now, so sorry about that. StuartDD contributions 16:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know why it wasn't on the page when I looked. I discovered that the Jan 7th header wasn't there on the main page, which is why it appeared under the 6th on there, so I've fixed that. Again, sorry for the mistake. StuartDD contributions 16:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
MfD
Hello again, two points: 1) I was archiving a ton of closed discussions on MfD and noticed you forgot to sign one you just closed, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nik Wright2/Sandbox; and 2) I could not find anything on archiving these pages and wondered how long they should stay out there, i.e., did I archive any too soon? Regards.--12 Noon 2¢ 20:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Michelle Watt
Please unsalt this article so it can redirect to Club Cupid. Catchpole (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Xolox! Could you explain to me why the Lithgow Panther article was deleted? I'm only asking because I want to get rid of all the red links from List of cryptids which I've been working on and you speedied the article this past December and want to recreate the article because I think I can find enough sources to make a good article - was it because of notability issues, lack of references or was it just so poorly written is merited deletion? Anyway, sorry to bother. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "S"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "T"s through "Z"s (and beyond, apparently)! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I can not say that i was not surprised to see that this article was nominated for deletion, even more so when i found out that you have deleted the image (titled: Gina Annacleta DeVivo.JPG) on that article for no reason i can think of. Could you please explain your reasons for deleting the image and nominating the article for deletion as it complies with Wikipedia:Notability_(people)? Λua∫Wise (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Very well, thanks! Although referring to the time i have spent on WP (which is a bit more than three months on this account, and over a year on 2 other accounts that i no longer use because i forgot the password) and relating this to my experience and knowledge of Wikipedia's procedure is not the kindest thing.Λua∫Wise (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Note about second proposal related to restrictions of Gp75motorsports and Blow of Light
As someone who gave your input into my initial proposal, would I be able to respectfully request your input into a secondary proposal which addresses issues related to the restrictions placed on Blow of Light specifically? Your input into gathering consensus at this discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Give Me acsses to the Dejan Maric Page
Please may you give me acsess to the Dejan Maric page because i can proof that he is a real person + he is playing for Semi-Professional club and he has Trained with Torquay United and he is only 15. 5:25 14 january 2008 Ultra20
about that bush user box on your page
do you mind if i use it in my user box? Mrmattkatt (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
i think
if he didn't he would have been impeached by 2010 at the latest. Mrmattkatt (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (i think i need my v8 today as i keep forgetting to sign my comments) Also i think you actually make it to say: This user doesn't support the death penalty but in Bush's case he'll make an exception Mrmattkatt (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (today is not a good day for me)
And I support your impeachment off wikipedia
And I support your impeachment off wikipedia for that terrible userbox.Alex1996Ne (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's marvelous, but Wikipedia doesn't "impeach" anyone for having any political point of view. Your own userpage (including my name no less!) certainly gave me a chuckle. I'm very proud to be considered evil, given your definition of what is good. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
In Your Bright Ray: speedy deletion
Would you mind reinstating this page please? I created the infobox, marked it "start", added the image and was about to move on to the next stage -- adding text -- when you leaped it into delete it. I think deleting a page two minutes after its creation, when it is clearly a work in progress, is unreasonable.Grimhim (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Four minutes later, no action, no reply. You were so quick the first time. Grimhim (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- After further consideration, I've made some further points on your actions today, and your justification for it, on my talk page. You know, I'm still steamed at wasting time on content that's wiped with lightning speed by someone who, as an admin and claiming to practise "thoughtful deliberation before hasty action", ought to be taking a little more care. Grimhim (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"Independent Schools Barbarians"
I'd be very interested to know why you deleted the above? I was enjoying reading this well written article. I was about to try and improve it as I'd completely agree that it was not encyclopedic, but it was about a very significant development in English Rugby! I would ask you to reconsider. Paste (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
My Subpages
Thank you for closing it. I'm glad that people supported my subpages. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 18:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Save the Poles page
Hi there - I put up a page for the 'Save the Poles' project - but it was deleted by you. As I am currently working on it with the manager, Eric Larsen, I have permission to put up a page using the content from the website. How do I prove this? Is there a way of using website content on wikipedia? Do you have to create all new content for wikipedia? Nsweeting
Still Pending AFD
Hello,
You have been a help to me in the past with an article I have edited for the band Still Pending. The article has been nominated for deletion for the third time. You overturned a speedy delete of this article in the past. Would you mind visiting View log and entering your opinion? Thanks Stampsations (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I don't really understand why people seem to keep challenging the notability of this article. It would seem that once it has been deemed to pass the notability requirements, it should remain unless something significant changes. At any rate, I appreciate your feedback. Stampsations (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)