User talk:XDanielx/Archives/August 2007

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Allegations of Chinese apartheid

Hi. I appreciate your clearly-stated comment. Here's a follow-up question I placed immediately after your comment. I would appreciate your replying under my question, if you don't mind. Otherwise, perhaps on my Talk page? HG | Talk 02:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks xDanielx for the helpful clarification. Nevertheless, can't a move be part of the closure decision? For example, may a move be an "additional action" recommended by an Admin or stipulated as a condition of consensus? From WP:GD: "An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The AFD decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merge" or "redirect". In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action." Your further advice would be appreciated. HG | Talk 01:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to revise my proposal on the AfD. Feedback welcome if you have a chance. But I also noticed your vote, which did not mention the Title. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to pose for you the questions I asked G-Dett. Do you think the Article Name is neutral? Do you think it is more neutral than the variants I or others have floated? Could you accept a (Keep conditioned on a) Move to a more neutral name, if that seemed to be the direction of a general consensus? Even if you are not prepared to answer at this juncture, please let me know on my Talk. HG | Talk 03:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the vote of confidence, so to speak. I've now tried to revise to make it clearer. Should I be revising this way? (That is, modifying the text of my AfD Note?) How likely is it that previous voters would signify their movement toward this proposal? Perhaps I need to trust others to deal with that aspect? Or do you think this exercise is futile? Thanks, reply to my talk if you are so inclined. HG | Talk 04:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the barnstar, I like that kind of appreciation. I've also replied to your latest suggestions. Ciao. HG | Talk 12:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

De-briefing request. Now that the AfD is closed, I bet you'd be a good person to explain to me: what should I take away from this experience? (Well, I do know I personally spent too much time and got too detailed.) It is true that the OR synthesis claim was strong, as I at least implied. BTW did you notice how the Cuba AfD turned out? Your advice had a ripple effect thre. If you've moved on to other things, that's fine too. Take care and thanks again. HG | Talk 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'll be posting more q's either w/cabal or the Israel allegations talk. Would appreciate your answers there or my talk. Re your last note, can you identify for me all the WP procedures that would result in an Article name change? RM, AfD, what else? tx, HG | Talk 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Computer science

Hi! Just noticed that you've signed on to WikiProject Computer science, and wanted to welcome you to the project. If you haven't done so already, please stop by the project talk page to see what's going on right now. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli Apartheid

Hi again. I would greatly appreciate your feedback on the framework, tone and content of my effort at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid#Exploring the grounds for a consensus. Please reply on there or on my Talk, as appropriate. Thanks! HG | Talk 12:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Perhaps you could advise me. I noticed that the Delete-Voters hadn't responded much. Do you have any sense of whether they will soon? Do I bear some responsibility to find out or to not move forward absent their comments? Thanks for your consideration. Pls reply to my Talk, if you have a chance. HG | Talk 09:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV comment appears misplaced

You have a DRV comment in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 7, the "Isabel Ice" section that appears more appropriate for the immediately following "Saige Thompson" section. Please review and move if it is misplaced. GRBerry 22:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on the YATE DRV is out-of-context. The deletion being challenged is a G4 speedy from 7 August, and not the 4 August AFD. Cheers. – Chacor 01:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with you on the G4 issue (I was aware of the G4 argument upon posting, though I didn't mention it), but I'll take a closer look at it. Thanks for at least letting me know. — xDanielx^Talk 02:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should've made myself clearer. The G4 occurred after the article was recreated following its AFD deletion. When I asked the DRV nominator at the DRV itself,

“

Is this DRV for the deletion debate AFD, or for today's speedy deletion as G4? – Chacor 13:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Today's speedy deletion, to which I can't see how G4 could be applicable. Mellentm 13:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

”

So the DRV is meant to review the speedy and not the AFD. – Chacor 08:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Google cache

As a non-admin, it can be hard to evaluate deletion reviews on deleted articles. For ones that had been around a few days, Google's cache (or one of the many mirrors, such as Answers.com) can be helpful. This is why we added the "cache" link to the template at the top; it can take you directly to a cached version of the article, at least for a while. GRBerry 18:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, GRB. I've been using Google from time to time for that purpose, but I didn't know about the "cach" link. — xDanielx^Talk 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just in case you don't end up seeing it on the DRV page.... I just wanted to stop by here and say thank you for reconsidering your words. I appreciate it and would not want you to think that it had gone unnoticed. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words :). Sorry for the aggressive language, it slipped out without me noticing. — xDanielx^Talk 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Scholarships

Just letting you know that the location is WP:UNI, sorry for giving the wrong link earlier. FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem -- thanks for letting me know. — xDanielx^Talk 20:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Vistas High School

The article has been renamed correctly as Vistas High School Program. There is a discussion on a possible merge to its parent article at Klein ISD Merge. Your input is welcome. – Dreadstar † 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grieg's music in popular culture

Thank you for your input and comments on this matter. Bearian 01:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for working on it - you did a very nice job. — xDanielx^Talk 09:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help! Congrats on the successful RfA. — xDanielx^Talk 07:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: previous account

I am a Wikipedia drifter, for lack of a better term. I've been here around 3 years and in that time have had 3 major editing accounts and a few smaller ones. If you've interested in knowing who I was before this point, I will be more than happy to tell you, although I would prefer to keep it quiet. I'll use the Email function to tell you who I am; if you require confirmation, let me know. --ParakeetSong 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. He was a nice little fella... He was really sick, though. Poor guy's probably better off now. --ParakeetSong 09:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The noob

Thank you for a) your inclusionist nature and b) supporting the removal of the WP:SD for the noob. Timmccloud 23:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem -- glad to see the article survived (at least for now)! — xDanielx^Talk 23:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Affiliate Marketing

Hi Daniel, I did not want to put it on the eComXpo talk page. I already have second thought on what I already posted to the article about Affiliate marketing, because I fear that this editor over there will use his negative energy to disrupt the progress that has been made with this very difficult article over the past 19 or so months. He does not seem to be an very active editor in regards to adding content that is missing, but should be in Wikipedia.

Anyway, thanks for your unfortunately also fruitless attempts to help with progress on the mentioned article and thanks for considering to check out the article to affiliate marketing. It is good that you are not involved in that industry for the things that need to be done in order to get the article up to the status of becoming a good article, but it certainly helps to have a general idea about the concept.

I am an outspoken advocate of the issues in that industry and can not be 100% neutral for this reason. I did on purpose avoid any dependencies within the industry that would prevent me to bring things into the open that others cannot. Let's put it this way, a number of people in the industy hate me for this as well as a number of people love me for it as well. The latter ones do it less in public and tend to tell me that only in person when I meet them at conventions.

There are a large number of Wikipedians who do not like marketers. Some have absolute valid reasons for that, because the negative side of the industry made its impact on Wikipedia before other marketers like me arrived here. Talking about spammers and other bad examples. Those who had to deal with that for a long period of time, I can't blame. I hope that the positive examples will convince most of them that there are others out there and that there is no conflict between being a marketer and good Wikipedian. I also believe that fair articles about those things will help both sides and isolate the negative forces even more. Legit marketers don't have an interest to be conceived as something negative what they are not and they can help with some issues caused by the bad ones that are doing things to make a quick and dirty buck and then run with it.

A fair article can not be written by marketers only. I can't change who I am and what I believe. That in itself creates bias, no matter how good my intentions are. That's why doing this here. I know that outside help is needed to provide a balanced picture of the industry. I also know that it will be a good thing for everybody in the long term. You will come across my attempts to spark the creation of an organization for the industry and failed miserably as everybody before me who attempted it. There is nothing that comes close to a neutral explanation about what the industry is, what it does and what it not is and not does, where you can send somebody, to learn about it.

As you can see, I am very passionate about this subject. If I get a bit too excited about it, let me know :). I made full disclosures about what I do and who I am on my user page. You can find everything there is to know about me with references for further details. If you have any questions, let me know too. Thanks again for your kindness, your time and your help. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 03:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/eComXpo, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Cerejota 05:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Prophecy talk page

Could you please explain the purpose of this edit, besides the WikiProject miscellany? Removing recent talk page discussions is unusual and the norm is to reserve such actions for pressing issues such as libel, serious copyright vios, etc. This leaves me confused seeing as you're not a new editor and, as far as I can see, don't have a history of questionable actions. Thanks — xDanielx T/C 02:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't intended to remove those discussions. I must have been editing an earlier version of the page for some reason. Thanks for catching my mistake. --Eliyak T·C 14:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Paperboy (film)

Both of the links provided for this film are, in fact, for a 1994 film of the same name. There still are no references to the film in question.SkierRMH 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Paperboy (film)

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Paperboy (film), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Paperboy (film). Thank you. SkierRMH 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)