User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2008/November

RfA thanks

Hi Xymmax, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

oldominion

im done getting wat i need and thnk u very much man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.58.140 (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Granting rollback

Hi. I'm slightly concerned about an editor you granted rollback to. An editor who states in his user page "He doesn't give a f**k" and places speedy deletion tags on articles like Siswa Bazar which have 18,000 people living in them. Are you sure this guy is trustworthy and is responsible? Because all the evidence suggests otherwise by showing completely the wrong procedure. I'll trust your judgement, but I would keep a close eye on him to be on the safe side. I can see he does a lot of good work using huggle to revert real vandalism but perhaps he needs to be told about the deletion of existing articles which have content. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for the note. I'll keep an eye out as you've asked. The tag clearly was bad - not only was the article not speedy eligible, but it would probably be speedy kept if taken to AfD. I've got to say, though, I don't consider this a rollback matter. I'm not oblivious to the whole rollback=huggle=potential to cause massive disruption issue, but this is clearly a helpful editor. Let's see how he responds to your note. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully. It wasn't a misuse of rollback rather just a question if the editor is trustworthy as a whole. Most of his edits looks valid in reverting vandalism which is always much appreciated and in which rollback is very useful. However I have noticed the occassional speedy tag or AFD which typically results in being kept but I'd imagine it is a learning process for him. Thanks for your help. Best Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for your support in my RFA!! • If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy • ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

oldominion

I'm trying to figure out why the page entitled "oldominion" was deleted. Last I checked the information was valid and up to date. If it could be restored it would be greatly appreciated.... thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.13.174 (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I deleted the article because it was nominated for deletion, and in my opinion the consensus on the discussion there called for deletion. You can see the discussion for yourself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldominion. Looking at the discussion, it looks like the issue wasn't whether the information was valid or up to date. Instead, the article didn't show reliable sources that had covered the group. They also mentioned the music notability guidelines, proof of meeting this guideline is important because, as you've seen, failure to meet it may allow the article to be deleted. Anyway, I can't restore the article because it failed a valid AfD. I am happy to put a private copy of it in your user space, but it can't go back as a regular article without being fixed. In this case, that would be reliable sources that showed the article meets WP:MUSIC. You also can go to deletion review which more or less an appeal of the decision I made. They won't re-do the AfD, but they will look to make sure the guidelines were applied properly. I have absolutely no problem if you want to do either one, just let me know. Take care. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Hey Xymmax, thanks for taking care of the vandalism to my user page. -11:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Subst by accident?

See [1].--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I must quit doing this. It's like a mental block that's popped up in the last six weeks or so. You're the second person to drop me a note, and I've caught myself a half-dozen times. I guess I need to slow down. Thanks. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict at AfD Bethmanns and Rothschilds

Hi Xymmax, I don't know if you noticed but there was an edit conflict at the AfD for Bethmanns and Rothschilds and unhappily I hit "Save" a few milliseconds after you closed the review as "No consensus". I understand that you are naturally busy with other tasks but given that I spent two hours writing my recommendation, could you perhaps see your way to changing the close from "No consensus" to "Dismiss"? I am concerned that a "No consensus" close could be viewed by some as an open door to renominate very soon. Thank you for your time and consideration.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the note, I did not see the edit conflict as I hadn't returned to the page after closing the discussion. I'm not really comfortable with a "dismiss" rationale, as the closer is simply supposed to apply the arguments raised in the discussion through the filter of Wikipedia policy to determine whether consensus exists to take a particular action. I do feel there's value in using the terminology that the community has come to expect, as it assists the reader's understanding of the closer's rationale, and brings a certain uniformity to deletion discussions that, on balance, is desireable. Even without the benefit of your last comment, I thought you raised an effective defense to arguments for deletion with the statements you made in the discussion. However, I don't see that there was sufficient agreement for a keep decision. Typically, renominations in less than 30 days or so are considered disruptive, and I think that one is unlikely here if the article is being improved in the intermim. I will add a line to the closing to the effect that through collaboration I expect the article can be improved sufficiently to avoid a renomination. Take care, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of AbsolutePunk.net

I would like to discuss the deletion of the AbsolutePunk.net page. The proposed deletion was orchestrated by competitors of the website and done as an act of malice. The website and page was linked by hundreds of pages within Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Absolutepunk.net) and is the fourth result when searching within Google.

There was talk of a lack of sources; however, the number of sources was very consistent with other website pages around the internet. After the deletion I compiled a list of 25 more sources to be able to substantiate the article as well as the website's place in this archive. These include magazine articles, articles in Forbes, articles in BusinessWeek, articles in Blender, articles from MTV, and articles from Yahoo.com.

Please let me know what we can do to get this back up.

Kissable&Quiet (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That the deletion was "orchestrated by competitors...as an act of malice" is an interesting claim; are you suggesting that everyone that participated in the deletion debate is somehow personally involved with a competitor of this website? GlassCobra 10:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the suggestion is that a forum on a competitor's website orchestrated the nomination and a variety of the comments within the deletion debate. Not making any implication that it was "everyone," nor that they were "personally" involved. This discussion was discovered recently - and the forum deleted the posts once found out. That's a little beside the point now though - that sort of thing happens - we'd rather improve the article and get it back up. Kissable&Quiet (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the personal affiliations of the participants, the article seems to have been deleted because of a lack of proper third party reliable sources. You mentioned that you found some suitable ones, would you post a couple here for review? GlassCobra 10:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS98218+06-May-2008+PRN20080506, http://fashionindie.com/tag/absolute-punk/, http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/arts/music/13arts-ELVISCOSTELL_BRF.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26partnerQ3DrssnytQ26emcQ3Drss&OP=24b1eaaQ2ForxQ20onU%28Z%21UUbQ5BoQ5BwwQ2BouwouWoQ5C%21bZoQ3CQ51ZN%28ouWQ5C%21bZQ3EsQ7E8.67C6asQ7EQ7EQ60t53Q5DYbQ3CQ26, http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080801/ENT/808010304/1031/ENT, http://www.forbes.com/businesswire/feeds/businesswire/2008/06/16/businesswire20080616005625r1.html, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJE5Fiw8Voo (documentary), http://www.tastemakersmag.com/?p=71, http://www.pollstar.com/news/viewnews.pl?NewsID=9553, http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/entertainment/myspace-makes-music/2008/02/22/1203467375819.html, AOL Music (http://i15.tinypic.com/6cpion5.gif and http://i24.tinypic.com/16huv87.gif), The Long Tail; page 103 (http://www.amazon.com/Long-Tail-Future-Business-Selling/dp/1401302378/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8809991-4303822?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186709353&sr=8-1)

, Blender Magazine (http://i11.tinypic.com/4zedr2c.jpg), Everybody Hurts: An Essential Guide to Emo Culture (http://www.amazon.com/Everybody-Hurts-Essential-Guide-Culture/dp/0061195391/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227524045&sr=8-2), My So-Called Punk (http://www.amazon.com/So-Called-Punk-Distillers-Religion-How-Stage-Dived/dp/0312337817/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227524045&sr=8-3), The Indie Bible (http://www.amazon.com/Indie-Bible-Fifth/dp/0968621430/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227524045&sr=8-4). Kissable&Quiet (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I typed up this response earlier, but I was in a rush and I must have exited without posting it. Lucky you, now you get the concise version. The long and short is that I have userfied the article at User:Kissable&Quiet/AbsolutePunk.net. I invite Kissable&Quiet and anyone else who wishes to work on it to add these sources and improve the article. When you're done, if it looks like the concern about realiable sources has been met, I'll move the article back into main space, and immediately relist it at AfD to see if the community agrees to bring it back. You also may take the issue directly to deletion review, but I suspect they will tell you to do the same thing. Feel free to hit me with questions, etc. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I will get to work on it in the next day or so. I really appreciate it! Concise works! Kissable&Quiet (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for jumping in, Xymmax, I hope you didn't mind. GlassCobra 14:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Why in the world are you apologizing? :) All help is appreciated here. And truthfully, when I looked at the history I did see that the page had been protected right before the Afd for vandalism. Obviously, it looked at mostly regulars in the discussion, but I can see how it would look to an outsider. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The 5 Pillars....

Thank you Xymmax. While is impossible to express or describe the catastrophic effect this case has had- on EVERYBODY- your re-write of the BLP, for David Passaro, was at least an ode to journalism with integrity.

my response to another posting, while a direct response to the writer, only further argues the point in my original objections. I have included it here.

My thanks and respect to you, Xymmax, for the re-write of the BLP, and for holding true to the tenents of the 5 pillars.

TO the "Hyder Akbar" posting-

My heart aches for the disoluteness of this machination, to which both Passaro, Hyder Akbar, as well as Abdul Wali were all mere pawns. These three men, pieces of a diabolical and perverse scheme, of which has been used to CONTINUE to fuel a fire, which rages out of control, devouring both man and plot.

Ask, you might, (then again, you might not because the truth is hot to handle), then again, it is always easier to point a finger at a fall guy, and satisfy your conscience that justice has been done, when in fact, you seethe and ooze contempt for the real villians in this story- and you know their faces, and their names.... but how much profit has been made... how much profit have YOU made, by being able to believe the lie you know to be just that, and not reckon or demand justice from the real faces of the rascality at which we all- every citizen of this world, not only passaro, or akbar, or wali.... but this entire earth, and even outer space is suffering from same hands....

Breathe your vehemence at the pawn, and deny verity.... suffer and remain in your bliss-less ignorance, and be damned for your preference for the perversion of justice, and skulk yourself into forever subterfuge.

Want to HONOR HYDER AKBAR??? OR ABDUL WALI ??? May I suggest putting the full repudiation where it belongs- on the Government of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- the Presidency, and the CIA, whom ALL had everything to do with this, that and ALL THE OTHER THINGS.

Passaro was one man, one incident, of a carefully orchestrated symphony of lascivious, and abhorrent reign. Check your facts. Check your figures. 911, the wars, Saddam Hussain's atrocities against his own people, terrorism, instability and warring factions in the Middle East, mobilized troops, American and Middle Eastern casualties, corrupt leaders, shady deals with presidents and Bin Ladens- all these things existed before passaro. What was passaro in the grandiose contrivance of this roman-fleuve. Passaro was a pawn- granted, he was trained, groomed, and puffed-up, for the part- incidentally, like most of the "facts" surrounding the case, and the witnesses against Passaro, oh how contradictable, this pseudo justice was a mere cloak to expose a weapon, or a farse- the Patriot act- the illegitimate child of a crack whore, but when the child suddenly becomes of some use, the "dead-beat dad" steps up to the claim- and impose it's self appointed guardianship upon the world, and it's counties....

(coincidentally, all such soldiers found guilty of mistreatment, were under orders and given freedom, by HIGH ranking military and government officials, all whom knew exactly what was happening. Conveniently, however, under false statements, which they will all be held accountable for, since not by this government, but by the Almighty GOD, on judgement day- and not the deity they call god, that lets them do the atrocities they do, and sleep at night, but YAHWEH, EL, the GREAT I AM, and their plastic smiles, and seared consciences will melt in the awesomeness of HIS presence. (ON THAT DAY, there will be no where to hide- no one to take the fall for you- YOU will fall, and you will fall far). Their every deed will scream out against them, all the blood they shed, and drank, for filthy lucres' sake, and an eternity of anguish and regret wont subside, and as they drown in the curse of their greed, and their true reward, the pain they caused multiplied a million fold for all the souls they slaughtered.....You will count it that day, and you will be short).

So, my friend, I ASK you- why the rant? WHY the crusade? GO write a book, like Hyder Akbar. Better yet, get a hold a solution to tyrannical and corrupt US Government, and leave the pawns out of it! Sadly, like the ol'time favorite show, the Muppett show, only imagine a nafarious version,- our government, and presidents are merely puppetts- all the same, run by the same money, and the same conductors. We the people, are not democratic, but a republic, controlled by those in power, and we are collateral, ancillary.

"Jujmintday (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)"

Deletion of "We R One"

Hi Xymmax

I notice that you recently deleted the article "We R One". I don't disagree with that decision, but in the discussion Peterwill raised a question about the purpose of the {{future single}} tag, which puzzled me too. I have raised this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (music) under the heading "Notability and {{future single}} tag". If you can help clarify this point then your input there would be useful. 86.152.243.219 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC).

Replied over at the talk page :) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 86.133.48.189 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)