Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wjhonson (talk | contribs) at 03:29, 22 July 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

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, and archive9.

Welcome back!

I'm also back from my extended wikibreak...hopefully...unless the proposal rears its ugly head again. Its nice timing too, since Jul 15 was my 1 year anniversary. :) Syrthiss 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, I'm back...thanks for your well-wishes! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 04:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:WikiRoo

There is currently an RFC against this user, for which his talk page was part of the evidence of his disruption. In light of this, the request to "vanish" and pop up under a new username seems like an attempt to evade the consequences of past behavior. Just wanted to pass this along, since a concern about this and your deletion was raised on my talk page. Postdlf 23:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Misplaced Pages processes, but I would think it's one thing to vanish -- which everyone should be entitled to do -- and another to start from a clean slate with your disruptive record expunged. If he's going to start editing under a different username, then the RfC shouldn't be moot, unless anyone can evade the consequences of their behavior merely by creating a new account. I agree with Postdlf's observations above. --Gary Will 00:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Following up on your comments ... to me, it makes no sense that anyone in the middle of an RfC or other administrative proceeding can make it all go away just by creating a new username. This view is supported by Misplaced Pages guidelines which say "Where there is no significant abuse and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page be deleted" and "as a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted." See Misplaced Pages:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? The only reference to right to vanish that I can find refers to users who have used their "real name, or a longstanding pen name," which isn't the case here. If you can start fresh at any time, then blanking your talk page should always be an acceptable edit, which it isn't. --Gary Will 00:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused by what you're saying, so I'll need you to help me understand. You say WikiRoo is banned permanently, but then you talk about him making a fresh start. It can only be one or the other. Is he banned or not? If he is, then I agree that this is the harshest penalty possible, and further discussion is pointless. But then why the discussion of "fresh starts," if he is, in fact, permanently banned? If he's now allowed to continue under a different username, then he isn't vanishing, he's just changing names ... again. But since you've said you have no problems restoring the talk page, if you could do that, then in one stroke that solves all my issues. Thanks! --Gary Will 03:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect I think you may have assumed too much good faith. I don't believe WikiRoo meant to "start fresh". See - looks like he just wanted to delete his talk page. --AbsolutDan 04:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your optimism is inspirational. As he seems quite upset about the matter, I'm going to leave him a message on his IP's account explaining what happened. I think it's best to convey the nature of disappearing - if he's upset enough he may just use one of his other accounts to vent some of that frustration. --AbsolutDan 12:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems now that he has no wish to take part of Misplaced Pages at all and has requested his IP to be "vanished": - how does that work when a user requests his own IP disabled? Do we honor that? --AbsolutDan 23:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I was thinking something along those lines was probably the case, and just wanted to check. I'll let him know. Cheers --AbsolutDan

The special DrV Love that only Xoloz can give!

Just when I was starting to get ready to dive in there. Of course, since I'd raised most of one day I couldn't close that one, could I? *wink wink* There is some discussion on WT:DRV about a slight tweak to the way these could be closed that it would be good to have your input on. Always nice to have you back.
brenneman 23:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Crikey, that was fast! ^_^ - brenneman 00:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mickey Spillane

Hi. Where's your source for him dying on 11 July? That was a Tuesday. He was reported as dying "on Monday", which would be either 17 July or 10 July. Recent deaths and his own article now both say 17 July. If you have an alternative citation, I'd love to see it. Cheers JackofOz 01:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

(he died monday; first reported today (first time))

ABC page move

Thanks for making this page move, Xoloz. I didn't want to be the one to update 3,000+ wikilinks! Happy editing! :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I will handle it...

Except I do not have time at the moment, as it might take me a little bit of explanation and time. If nothing has happened by tomorrow evening, I will close it (although perhaps beforehand if I get lucky and have a few minutes. Been awhile since I've been around DRV. Ahhh... good times. ;-) Thanks for the note, and for thinking of me. For reference, is there more to it than the DRV page and the RfDs? I thought I recalled seeing this on AN or similar. Am I mistaken? Thanks. See ya. --LV 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's what it was. I knew I remembered something of the sort. And I don't mind being "threatened". Seriously, who wants to mess with a dark lord??? ;-) If I get a chance, I'll do the deed mañana. Thanks again. --LV 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Blue Canoe Records and Decade 1996-2005

If I read this correctly this was a joint nomination and Decade should be deleted as well, since the AfD tag at Decade points at the closed Blue Canoe AfD page. ~ trialsanderrors 21:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Galician-Portuguese

Hello, Xoloz. I write to you for being both an administrator and an expert in History. I would apreciate your help moving the article Portuguese-Galician to Galician-Portuguese, as this medieval language is widely known. I have bibliography and references for the change in Talk:Portuguese-Galician. I have asked another administrator before but he seems to be inactive. Thank you for advance! --Garcilaso 11:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of User:1652186

Hello. I have clarified my position on my talk page. Once again, if you see no harm in it, please remove my UserPage. 1652186 13:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Portest re-direct

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Here is my reply:

Great but the criteria mentioned implausible errors:Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects that were created recently: Redirects as a result of an implausible typo that were recently created. and portest seemed implausible and was created recently. Anyway if you want to keep it, no problem. Dr.K. 01:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question

Can other people close out AfD noms, or is this left up to admins? You can reply on my talk page if you prefer. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

James Goldman (actor)

James Goldman (actor) is a patently false article implying that a journalist is an actor and not a journalist. It is a pure fiction and should be a speedy delete. Kramden4700 03:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Actually the man is not an actor, and the James Goldman (actor) article immplys that he is an actor who is playing the role of a newscaster. The whole thing is vandalism and should be a speedy delete. Kramden4700 03:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

1652186 vs. LucVerhelst

Hello,

On User talk:1652186, you wrote : "There has been incivility on each side of this dispute, so I would advise Mr. Verhelst to look after himself before admonishing others."

Could you please point to my incivilities ? I feel that I will going to need to change my style of contributing and debating, so I would be pleased if you could help me, showing me my contributions that were incivil. Thank you. --LucVerhelst 12:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice on my talk page. It's just that in my experience, letting bullies go ahead isn't the best strategy.

Thanks. --LucVerhelst 19:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

why you delete myg0t talk?

why you delete the myg0t talk page? G8 doesn't qualify

1. Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere or notes that would help in creating an article. User_talk pages are exempt from this. Subpages (including archive pages) are only deletable under this rule if the corresponding top-level page does not exist.

it did contain deletion discussion and notes that would help in creating an article

now restore it. 12:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronoun choice

"Ze" or any other gender-neutral pronoun is equally good for referring to me, as far as I'm concerned. I don't really care which gender-neutral pronoun people use for referring me, but since it seemed easier for me to pick one than to explain that, I went with "they" since at least it's already an English word, and using it to refer to specific people who don't identify as male or female, when it's already used to refer to a person whose gender is unknown, seems less of a leap than introducing new words into the language. Thanks for the words of support. Catamorphism 15:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Gnostic Movement Incorporated

Hi, I think there may be more to the The Gnostic Movement Incorporated debate than you were led to believe when you deleted it.

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Gnostic Movement Incorporated. 999 pushed through a speedy delete inappropriately. See my comments on the AfD page. 999's AfD and editing behaviors are beginning to appear as POV-pushing, especially when you look at his other AfDs. While "The Gnostic Movement Incorporated" was problematic (I recommended deletion in the normal AfD timeframe), 999's bypass of AfD's deliberative consensus processes is troubling.

999, the nominator, pointedly avoided giving the author notice of the AfD, in spite of specific comments about this in two earlier AfDs he started:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sexual transmutation
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gnostic Movement

Per WP:CV, CSD for copyright only applies in narrowly defined situations inapplicable to this article. 999's response to my concerns this were disingenuous. The website allegedly plagiarized was not making money selling content on the web. They do sell some books, not web content, as a sideline.

This all happened so fast I hadn't even finish typing my response to them before the article was gone. I never even had a chance to compare infringing text.

I'm not complaining about your actions. The guidance given admins and Jimbo Wales' note instruct admins to process CSDs quickly, relying on others' good faith and neutrality. Admins must rely on the the nominators to be neutral in tagging CSDs, using them only in open and shut cases in careful compliance with the rules.

I'm concerned more about abuse by 999 and preventing its repetition than resurrecting the dead. Misplaced Pages is about consensus, not one-man juries. This editor is building a high edit count and may soon become admin himself; if my growing concerns about his modus operandi are correct, that would cause headaches for his fellow admins and real problems for rank and file editors such as myself. (Caveat: I'm very cautious about new admins, as my RfA votes probably show.)

I decided to experiment with checking a few Afds at random as a "good citizen" the other night. Call it self-inflicted jury duty -- I've wasted hours on gnosticism-related deletions since and have no more time to devote. I'd appreciate your reviewing this matter and taking those next steps you deem best for Misplaced Pages and the Misplaced Pages community. Thanks, --A. B. 20:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

PS this is not a rush request. Give it a look when you have time.

--A. B. 21:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Kitty May Ellis/Kittie May Ellis

There was no consensus to delete. In fact from the date of the relisting for further review (on the 15th) there was no further discussion. The original AfD was KEEP. The review was conducted and completed in the middle of (my) night, giving me no opportunity to respond. The attackers have no response to my statements. They just keep repeating the same lies with which they started. This article is based on previously published, reliable, secondary sources. And this person is notable in our local history. The article should not have been deleted. Wjhonson 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically one or two editors lied through their teeth, knowing that she was indeed verifiable. They don't like her because she is *hard* to verify, not because it's not possible. The sources which verify her, are of local scope and not wide distribution and she has not yet received wide-scale (nationwide) interest. She gets very few google hits. However there is no, and the editors knew there was no, claim on verifiability grounds. They just lied and others reading the log believed them, because they concluded it while I was sleeping and unable to respond to the attack. The further opening and review found *zero* further attempts to vote against the article. The discussion was moribund because they knew they were wrong. Modern tests should not be used on persons of historical interest. Thanks for your time. Wjhonson 02:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the original Afd in chronologic order you will see that I stated my sources, I even stated where they might be found, which exceeds any wiki standard. The offending editors did not bother to find out, they did not check anything. They simply kept repeating that the sources were only in my possession, which they knew was not true, because I had stated the publishers and names, etc. I also stated several times after multiple "I dont see any claim of notability" exactly what the notability was. And again in the review, they repeat "non-notable" without any attempt to state what my claim had been. Basically they tried to re-factor the case, and hustle it through when there would be no one to defend it. The original Afd on the *same arguments* found KEEP. These arguments were not new, they were the same. They pestered that closer, until he reopened and then rushed the review. Thats just not acceptable practice. Wjhonson 03:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how to request the review, and I'm afraid the same antagonists would once again descend to attack. So if you could tell me how to relist the article for review I would appreciate that. Wjhonson 05:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Guess what's back? --Calton | Talk 07:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Now what's wrong with my redirect? It's prefectly acceptable. Wjhonson 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Every source in my article is secondary. Every single one. These are all previously, published, secondary sources. Can you point out which one is not? Thanks. Wjhonson 15:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm using editions of the primary sources. Not the primary sources themselves. The editions themselves are secondary sources, discussing the primary sources. The newspaper items are extracts published by a local historian. The census are in book form published by a genealogical company. So they are secondary sources. Wjhonson 16:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If the mere act of questioning a source is sufficient to deny its wikiclusion, then what would stop a malicious editor from questioning every source they themselves have not seen? Surely you have to agree that the mere opinion of another editor "questioning" cannot be the basis for the deletion of an article.Wjhonson 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You admit you "don't know how to distinguish" between the two situations. And yet you use your inability to distinguish as a positive club to beat people like me senseless. And you support this by WP:RS where actually the discussion of obscure sources does not seem to support your position. WP:AGF seems to dictate that editors should not be called "liars" simply because they use obscure sources, wouldn't you agree? And yet I've been called a liar multiple times in these AfD's, simply because I specialize in obscure sources. If you read my User page you will see that. My expertise is in the use of obscure and yet reliable sources. Will you now agree to unprotect and allow further discussion of this very notable person? I have about 20 emails on her to answer from various historical groups who are clamoring for more information. Wjhonson 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We are discussing your statement that the census cannot be used as a source here in case you want to join the discussion. Wjhonson 18:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not use the census citations alone. I used them to back up other statement made in previously published secondary sources. Again I cited many secondary sources in my article, the primary citations were used to back up those statements, not alone. Wjhonson 20:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And as I have stated, every claim *can* be verified by reliable sources. An editors opinion about whether a source is reliable, when that editor has no knowledge whatsoever about the source, is WP:OR and should not be used as evidence in a review. Wjhonson 20:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So the Snohomish Tribune newspaper is not a WP:RS ? Wjhonson 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal Note

Greetings,

I note a revision in your userpage indicating your college choices. Consider this a gentle prod from a like-minded admirer that you might wish to add Harvard among them. I'm quite certain, given both your intellect and your unusual background, that you would be a formidable candidate, and a benefit to the University as well. I would gladly pay your application fee myself. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; that's quite a compliment (and quite an offer). The only downside about Harvard is that it does not offer a degree in civil engineering, my intended major. And before you say MIT, I have to say I'm looking for an all-around, instead of specialized, school (if only they combined MIT and Harvard...). Perhaps I'll apply to one of two schools anyway (although I couldn't possibly accept your offer). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In admiration

Thank you very much, Xoloz! It was very unexpected, and an absolute pleasure for the recognition. It especially means a lot to get a Tireless Contributor Barnstar from someone I consider to be the very epitome of a Tireless Contributor. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)