User talk:XDanielx/Archives/September 2007

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/eComXpo. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

proper use of TeX

Please note this difference:

$\lim _{x\to 0}{\frac {sin(k*x)}{k*x}}$

$\lim _{x\to 0}{\frac {\sin(kx)}{kx}}$

The "sin" has a preceeding backslash: \sin. That not only prevents italicization but also results in proper spacing. The use of an asterisk for ordinary multiplication was introduced for situations where you're limited to just the characters on the keyboard; this is the extreme opposite situation. You can write

$kx\,$

or

$k\cdot x\,$

or

$k\times x.\,$

Michael Hardy 16:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:List of Akatsuki members

Haha! Sorry for confusing you. It seems as though SignBot didn't close its 'hide' tag, and oddness ensued. Anyways, thanks for bringing up the deletion review. I'll check it out later. You Can't Review Me!!! 00:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and no problem. :) — xDanielx ^T/_C 10:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Feeding the trolls

Please don't feed the trolls: [1]. The Evil Spartan 16:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we delete this list

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[2]--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Solicited advice

Hi again. I don't know if you've followed the renaming discussion(s) at Talk:AoIA. I'm currently working on two pieces. Substantively, with some helpful collaboration, this page: User:HG/workshop/Synthesis of AoIA arguments. However, after a series of polls/votes on alternative titles (which I considered premature), John Nagle put up a DNFT logo and asked for a halt in discussions of renaming. I tried to justify the need for discussion on his Talk. Now I've written the following: User:HG/workshop/Merits of further discussion of title. If you don't mind, can you take couple of minutes to read this defense of further discussion? Do you think I should post it on the AoIA Talk page? If so, when? Or, and this seems quite plausible, do you think Nagle is correct and I should drop the whole renaming exploration? Thanks for your consideration. Hope this finds you well. HG | Talk 17:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV

Hi,

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I have closed almost all (not previously speedy closed) DRVs, at relatively the same on their fifth day, for the past six months, and for the last six months of 2006 before that. Adequate notice has thus been given that this is standard practice at DRV, and prior to your request, I have received not one challenge. When closing, I also consider the possibility of allowing an extra day (or five), but I do so only where I believe more time will result in greater clarity. In this case, especially given the objections your mass notification caused, the closure was appropriate, and reopening would be very bad. With the history undeleted, all material is available for further streamlining.

If you wish to protest my response to you, the appropriate venue is RfC, but I expect my interpretation of WP:NOT a bureaucracy will be convincing, either to you, or to the community. Best wishes, Xoloz 07:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC has a section for abuse of administrative tools (or something), and there is also the general user conduct section. To be honest, I'm not sure under which of those you'd file this, as DRV closures don't strictly require admin tools, but either one would work. The only reason I'm so quick to suggest RfC is that this practice of mine is well-established, previously uncontested, and something I don't really intend to change on the basis of one complaint; I'd be happy to do so in the face of community consensus, however.

The reason I find your complaint regarding the Akatsuki DRV particularly uncompelling, as I said, is your controversial canvassing. Essentially, you're asking me, "Please reopen this debate, so that my controversial action has more time to affect the outcome." That's not good. I understand that your canvassing (notifying everybody, not just partisans) is less pernicious than it might have been, but the guideline is written as it is for a reason: any en masse notification is likely to cast confusion over a DRV, and it wasn't the right thing to do. Although you're a fine fellow whose comments I respect, you don't come to this particular request with the cleanest of hands.

Finally, you have reason to be happy with the Akatsuki DRV closure. Yes, the admin action wasn't what I'd call ideal, but the action had substantial support from editors and policy ("Hey! Look at the numbers!", which is the essence of the undeletion argument, is never very strong.) However, quick thinking editors merged and redirected most of the material, requiring a history undeletion by their work -- so the practical effect is to alter this closure to a Merge, a more reasonable reading even of the numbers at the AfD. Combine this with the departure of the admin in question, and I think the result reached is a great compromise: nothing in the world prevents you seeking a talk page consensus to restore the list to its prior form in the future, either. If ^demon were still here, there might be some value to trout-slapping him; but, at this point, it isn't worth the vitriol.

As for the Norwegian lists DRV -- about which you've tangentially complained -- the "equal numbers" in that discussion depended on Badgnani, whose commentary is open to being totally ignored as long as he presses his "block every admin!" campaign, and several other editors who, though not absolutely worthy of being ignored, made weak arguments in the nature of "See Neil's bias! He's a deletionist", which is argument that offers little substance. I thought long and hard about that closure (because personally, I prefer lists to categories), but a consensus to overturn wasn't there, and it wasn't going to arise in 11 hours either, as the arguments of the overturners were just not that good.

Above all else, remember that consensus is not just numbers: when an admin like ^demon makes an outlying close (and I'm willing to call his close very unusual), he knows that he is taking a risk, and he usually thinks about his reasons well. If such an action is opposed by the community, it will fall; if, as here, it virtually splits the community, a compromise, like the one editors worked for, is the best solution. If a flood of commenters had visited in those last 11 hours as a result of your canvassing, I might have needed to discount them anyway (when canvassing comes into play, I much more strongly ignore numbers, and focus on arguments only) and the arguments had already been made. Given everything, the result was reached was good, wasn't going to get any clearer, and is one which -- on reflection -- ought to please you, at least a little. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

eComXpo article updates

Hi Daniel, the COI allegations were dismissed by the COIN and I started making the edits as elaborated in detail on the article's talk page. It would be great, if you could look at the article too and check if everything looks alright (formating, grammar, references etc.). Thanks --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi,

The simple answer to your question is "no." As I said last time, no one except yourself has ever objected to what you call "slightly early" closures. (I call them closures implemented always on the fifth day of the debate, at a uniform time, without respect of the debate's status, so long as the outcome is clear and the minimal three comments are available.) You also view my closes as "off-center" -- they are actually (in the long-view of things) quite liberal in favor of undeletion, and I think you would find yourself regretting the mistake if I were to end my practice. If you haven't realized it yet, your own views are a little radical, though respectable, and there are few admins I know who would satisfy your wishes most of the time, and those who might realize they are outliers, and stay clear of the debates' closings. Sadly, there are many admins who would discount what you say as "process-wonking", and pay you little heed at all. I'm depressed to say that, but it is true. Since you haven't been here all that long, you may not realize the larger trends at work in deletion policy discussions.

Of course, I have no special authority; any admin may close DRVs as I do. There is some tradition, though, of having a standard closer, as the debates are contentious, and the negative feedback frequent. A relatively cool temperament, and a moderate take on policy, with a taste for compromise, are good qualities to have. Splash and Aaron Brenneman preceded me in regular DRV closes, and Trialsanderrors and GRBerry have regularly taken over for months at a time. If it helps make you feel better, I'll probably wear out soon -- I've been fairly consistent for three months now, and it starts to take a toll.

Again, if you truly wish to pursue this course, I recommend an RfC. I'm sure quite a few detractors of mine, you'll find, are on the deletionist side of things -- I may also be visited by folks upset with my conservative RfA views. I'll abide by community consensus, as I always try to do; but, I have no intention of changing well-established practices based on one complaint from an admittedly slightly-disgruntled newer user. This is no offense to you, as I recognize that your view is good-faith, relatively dispassionate, and considered. My past experience simply suggests to me that a well-established consensus supports my general practices, and your word isn't enough to convince me otherwise, no matter how nice you are! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 06:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not eager to push this point unnecessarily, but, to be clear... I do dispute the idea the closures are clearly "early." It's true that the DRVs don't last 120 hours; but, they are always closed on the fifth day -- I'm very careful about that. I actually think it is more fair to attempt to close them all relatively simultaneously, at a somewhat regular (although never absolutely pre-specified) time. Different admins picking and choosing what to close when is a functional system that works for AfD, but - for the sometimes charged policy-intense debates that can happen at DRV (and which are much fewer in number) - that practice could lead to charges of favoritism. At the least, a uniform actual closing time insulates us from that problem.

I appreciate your kindness; but, if my actions continue to annoy you, I wouldn't take an RfC personally in the least. There's always a chance the thing might spin out-of-control; but, I would find the community's opinion interesting. I'm not urging you, or anything -- just don't be afraid that I'll take the matter personally if it comes to that. Your opinion is a legitimate one. Although I disagree with it, I absolutely respect your prerogative to pursue means of dispute resolution. Best wishes, Xoloz 07:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

W. J. Baird Public School

Please be careful about adding material to archived pages after the discussion is closed. You'll notice the header of the article asks that you avoid that. Thanks. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 14:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't about the AfD, which we were all in agreement with -- it was just a small off-topic comment that I felt didn't merit any wider attention. I realize archives aren't meant to be edited, but unless there's some purpose I'm not aware of, I would think it's just to prevent unnecessary prolonged discussion on an AfD that has been decided. If it matters, I'll avoid doing this in the future. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Stars etc.

		The Porn Star
		For your comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 23#Order of the Phoenix (organisation), the best laugh of the day, I give you the porn star, the second funniest thing of the day. User:Krator (t c) 00:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Grateful for your comment

I appreciate you taking the time to evaluate the case I made on behalf of the MediaZone article. In no way was I attempting to bypass or ignore Wikipedia standards. I have great appreciation for the site, its editors and administrators. I will accept whatever decision is rendered with respect and professionalism. JohnRobertCrowley 00:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)