User talk:Xoloz/archive1

Welcome

Hello Xoloz/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on Talk page. Again, welcome! You 21:17, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary Classical

Do you have any thoughts or opinions about the merge of Contemporary classical into Contemporary classical music? If you are supportive, would you post such on the deletion page? Thank you. -Acjelen 21:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from A Fellow Liberal

Thanks For The Support!

Just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA from one Lefty to another. If you ever want to vent over those nutjobs, you've got somebody to come to, but just remember, being angry all the time at or because of "them" only plays right into their hands. Disagreements are always going to happen between humans every now and then, but the only way we can win is if "our" side can make humanity focus on the agreements and work from there in a constructive manner. Karmafist 15:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:SLA VfDs

Good morning. I'm not sure how many VfD listings there were on the various members of the SLA but I'm pretty sure that I only closed some of them. When I volunteer to close discussions, I tend to work chronologically rather than by topic. If another admin closed other discussions and reached a different decision, well, that's part of the beauty and the frustration of the Wikipedia. At any one point in time, we are not consistent. Over time, decisions tend to even out, though.

Camilla Hall is being specifically re-nominated on procedural grounds. Looking at the page history, this was nominated in a block decision but the page itself was never tagged with the VfD header. In theory, that means that it was not properly advertised. This is okay. Remember that "merge" is a kind of "keep" and any future reader/editor can convert the article to a redirect. Rossami (talk) 12:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Self-induced abortion VfD

Thank you for voting to keep the article on self-induced abortion. I promise to continue working to develop and improve this article. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:14, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/I1

Dragon's Flight pointed out a serious omission to this proposal: that the image description page of WikiCommons should include the content of the one on Wikipedia. I have reworded the proposal to include that. Because the wording changed, I have hidden your vote; please read the new version and see if you support it now, and reinstate your vote under the appropriate section depending on whether you do. Yours, R adiant _>|< July 5, 2005 08:17 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3

Regarding The Dell Vikings, I feel obliged to point out that the original content [1] didn't actually state anything about this band. This sounds to me like a prime example of a lacking article being created on a worthy subject. Please note that it is always possible to create an article (or stub) with actual content if an article with no content by the same name was speedily deleted. Yours, R adiant _>|< July 5, 2005 10:00 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with the requests above. Those two proposals were the only two that had an important omission and required a quick fix while there were still relatively few voters. I'm sure there'll be plenty more discussion, but no more significant changes. I've extended the voting period by one day to ensure they get their proper time. Thank you for your consideration. R adiant _>|< July 5, 2005 10:04 (UTC)

This account

I think anyone looking at your contributions will agree that this account's only purpose is to vote on VfD (and the CSD proposals), and so was created in bad faith. I think it's time you hang up this sock puppet and start voting under your "normal" account. If I see any more voting, I'll document this more formally. -- Netoholic @ 8 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)

Saved for the record, but struck by me as nonsense, and (I think) the weirdest attempt at intimidation I've ever heard of. Reply is available at questioner's talk page. Xoloz 8 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)

verses

Hiya,

you recently voted to keep or merge per Uncle G at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

Hasty pudding: a plea for clemency

Yes, the article you put up for VfD deserved it. But please reconsider it now. Hasty pudding is what built America! Okay, it's not, and that isn't such a selling point these days anyway, but I've been making the pitiful gruel into a real pudding, so please reconsider. --Mothperson 01:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you. I'm not done yet. --Mothperson 02:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion? Why, that's an accurate recipe.

You need to explain why.

The warning is accurate too; hasty pudding can be dangerous if someone just goes in and gorges himself on it.

I can modify its wording, but that don't change the facts; if that's the reason for deletion, fine, but don't forget to delete anything about common kitchen cleaners or paint.

WB2 06:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I have a BA from UCSD [four years in, four years out – and no make-up time either]. At the time Harvard was considered inferior to UCSD, so I chose not to attend, though I was begged by my friends to do so. WB2 06:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at questioner's talk page. Xoloz 07:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, eewwww. I'm taking the stupid recipe out. If you haven't done so already. So many nuts rolling around here, and I'm a nut, so I know whereof I speak. --Mothperson 14:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

a note

Unfortunately, when you start a paragraph with a space, rather than a letter, it tries to put it all in a frame and fit it all on one line. This makes it somewhat unreadable. ~~~~ 11:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was wondering why it did that.

Electric Universe model

Aside from the question of whether Galileo was unjustly persecuted, what is your opinion on the Electric Universe Model vfd? DS 21:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at questioner's talk page. Xoloz 21:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical Jesus

You voted on the above. Your comments suggest that you may not have compared the article Historical Jesus to the article New Testament view on Jesus' life. The Historical Jesus article explicitely states in it's opening paragraph that it "presents a critical reconstruction of the Historical Jesus, as based on the four canonical gospels", and therefore I would suggest that it constitutes a POV fork of New Testament view on Jesus' life. Could you possibly review your vote? ~~~~ 17:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion votes -- Kinsella

You voted to delete Stephan Kinsella for vanity; please note the entry has been revised by others and is very neutral now. If you don't change your vote, then applying your standards consistently, wouldn't you also vote against Tom G. Palmer, which is even worse vanity (and mine is now completely objective, not vanity at all)? Stephan Kinsella 15:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response (and further dialogue) is available at questioner's talk page. Xoloz 04:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xoloz. I am souring on this whole Wikipedia thing. Wikinfo sounds more promising. What does Daddy X think? Stephan Kinsella 05:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you are flaming liberal, eh? Why? Curious, can you point me to any serious intellectual work that you admire or rely on to justify the institutionalized violence against the lives, bodies, and property of innocent people (as we libertarians see your liberal policies), that liberalism favors? I am not trying to argue with or flame you; just curious if you could point to one or three authors or writings who are reasonable, coherent, sensible, and who attempt sincerely to set forth a justification for the aggression that must underly liberal polcies. (simplest examples--taxes require forcible theft of property, to support welfare and other state programs; legal penalties for having dissenting views on affirmative action etc.) Stephan Kinsella 18:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I never replied to Mr. Kinsella, whose question was posted shortly after my grandmother died, for which I am sorry. Xoloz 15:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The other side of the story

Because User talk:Ombudsman is still on my watchlist, I happened to see that you had asked him about his veiled accusations on the "thought police" VfD. Since I'm the target of those accusations, I'd appreciate getting the chance to voice my side of the story, as well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ombudsman's made it a bit easier on me by making his accusations more explicit, here. A number of articles that he created, or in one case converted from an already-merged redirect, have been put up for VfD recently. His belief is that these are "undeserved" VfDs, which are being taken because of a conflict he and I have had over New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, where he insists that NFCMH must go in the "See Also" list of the mind control article because it is so clearly connected with mind control [2] and yet in the NFCMH article attempts to minimize mention of what he insisted was a clear connection.

My 'side of the story' is really just that there is no vendetta, no sneaky ulterior motive such as he is trying to claim. For every VfD he lists as part of this campaign (save the one for Holonomic brain theory), the reason I put it up for VfD is the reason that I stated at the beginning of the VfD: Moral compass is a POV fork; Thought police is a blatant POV fork; Elliott Valenstein is openly partisan and its subject gets just 138 Google hits. The reason I can't speak for the motivations behind the VfD of Holonomic brain theory is that I didn't start it and in fact haven't even voted in it; whether Ombudsman believes that Aaron Brenneman is also part of this alleged campaign against him and if so why, I'm not qualified to say. However, I just wanted to take the chance to rebut his accusations that any of these VfDs were conducted in bad faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1000000000000000000

Hi Xoloz. In Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000, I noticed you voted to delete the article 1000000000000000000. Could you please look into Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000 (number)? Thanks. --A D Monroe III 01:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, CC

Hi,

She is actually listed as Her Majesty The Queen Mother Queen Elizabeth on the official Order of Canada page. However, for my List of Companions of the Order of Canada, I generally put the name of the Wikipedia article (without re-directs). So that it why I have Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. If you feel it is inaccurate you are welcome to change it.

--YUL89YYZ 12:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Equipoise

The best thing to come out of the debate about Ashley Burns' death was that I learned a great new word, equipoise, thanks to you. That's what I assume you meant, although you actually wrote "equipose", which seems to be some sort of drug. Or perhaps .... naah! Cheers JackofOz 04:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rotblat

I've altered Rotblat's death date in his own article based on your change to Deaths in September/August. There really should be some mechanism for making any date changes automatically flow through to other relevant pages, without having to rely on frail human memory. We live in hope. Cheers JackofOz 03:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Line of Succession

No problem. And I'll try to continue my record of never making any mistakes myself (don't believe anyone who says otherwise). Mateo SA | talk 19:26, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hendrikje (Schipper) Van Andel

Like Zerbey some months ago you have moved her name from the format appropriate to the language in which the article is written to the format appropriate in her native land.I think a consistent nomenclature is more useful than reflecting local usages,and said as much then (did you look up the talk page?).--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 01:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Roberts

No problem. --MikeJ9919 06:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dames etc.

Er, see Deaths in January 2005, Deaths in February 2005, Deaths in April 2005, Deaths in June 2005 and Deaths in July 2005 for examples of 'sirs'. There are also a number of instances of Rev, Dr and various ranks in RD for 2005. But the titles of Sir or Dame are not an optional extra like these - it is to all intents and purposes an integral part of the name. To miss it off is illogical and incorrect. She is no longer ever again Ms Charles, as leaving it off would imply, but Dame Eugenia. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 14:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of inconsistency about making the title a part of the link or not. The same throughout Wikipedia. But it is correct to use them. Having said that, the British press is none too careful either. I've seen plenty of references on the BBC website to, for instance, Mr Holm, when in fact he should only ever be Sir Ian (but never, ever Sir Holm, which Americans seem to be particularly fond of - although he would be Lord Holm, and never Lord Ian, if he were made a peer - confusing eh!). In answer to your question, "Knight Commander of the British Empire" and "Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire" are both commonly used. I'd probably use the former, although purists may use the latter, or even go the whole hog and write "Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire". Even I'm not that anal ;). Cheers. -- Necrothesp 15:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roflcopter (again). — Phil Welch 22:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Truscott

Looks like you are correct. With all the poker player and bridge player that are popping up, maybe there should be a {{cards-bio-stub}} or somesuch. siafu 11:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of songs

I am writing because you contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs. I have made a policy proposal at User:Wahoofive/Lists of songs and would welcome your comments. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck the South 2

Sir, it sounds as though the reason you believe this article (Fuck the South) should be kept is because: 1) the site is notable due to how illustrative it is of the depth of the divide between red & blue states (per Unfocused); 2) you endorse the site; 3) the site prevented your suicide; 4) the article is not an attack page, as the South is akin to Nazi Germany; and 5) this is not just a hate site, because it pertains to your forefathers. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I would like to say, with the deepest empathy to your and your ancestors' pasts, that all but the first are specious arguments in regards to the importance of this article within Wikipedia, and the first is itself under debate. The second does not have any bearing on the article's actual importance; many people vote to keep non-notable bands that they like in Wikipedia, even though they fail WP:MUSIC. The articles are always deleted, and should be. The third, although it must be important to you in a great way, does not relate to a standard that will allow this article's existence. Personal feelings, important as they are in all aspects of real life, do not have a place in an encyclopedia (imagine a version of the Encyclopedia Brittanica that said things like, "John Doe is such and such, and he is a great man, perhaps the greatest in the world"). The fourth is thoroughly your opinion, is thus your point of view, and I would say entirely inaccurate: that is a judgement of an entire region as filled with Nazis, and is horrible in the same way that a Southern racist's discrimination of all black people is horrible. Also remember that an article saying, "Nazism is bad," however true that may be, is not quantifiable, is an opinion, and is thus not neutral or worthy of being in an encyclopedia. (Note: I think that reading Godwin's law might be a good idea in terms of using such inflammatory comparisons in the future). The fifth is logically false, and even if it were true, does not prove this article notable enough to warrant an entry.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please consider your personal feelings and how they relate to building a good, accurate, encyclopedia. I advise you to read WP:5P and WP:NOT thoroughly. I can understand how much anger you feel against the South, but it is not a good reason to have Wikipedia abandon its sensibilities and keep an article because one hates something.

I hope you understand that I write this with the best intentions. Good luck, and my regards. Sincerely, --Blackcap | talk 06:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite lengthy reply, which I hope resolves what I feel is a misunderstanding, is at Blackcap's talk page. Xoloz 08:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- 'Lo mate, I've replied over here. --Blackcap | talk 16:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Xoloz.

I can't keep quiet about your comments. I would like to point out that if you say you hate the south, does that include the liberals that live in the south? Almost half the population, if the 2004 election means anything.

See the red/blue map when drawn by county . (In my state, check out how blue the Atlanta metro area is.) Compare this to the west and midwest.

I think my point is that I believe that we cannot judge everyone in a region based on how the region as a whole voted (ignoring the closeness of the election) anymore than we can judge all members of an ethnic group based on actions of some members of that group. To take up your Nazi metaphor, this is like judging all Germans based on actions of Nazis.

Sure, we have racists. So does every state in the US. Sure, we have Bible thumpers, and politicians catering to them by putting the ten commandments in public buildings (Our own city is guilty of this one and has been challenged once and will be again.) But there are good people in and from the South. Liberals, pagans, intellectuals. Sometimes they/we are not vocal enough which can tend to give the impression that the South is full of flyers of the Confederate Battle Flag who think Bush can walk on water.

If you looked at the first AfD page, you saw my initial negative rant regarding the page, and you saw my eventual non-delete vote. (Some of this is here.) I gave it a lot of thought. I like to think I'm fair minded and I try to be.

No agenda on my part - I'm not politicking one way or another. Just wanted to let you have my viewpoint. WCFrancis 02:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy response is at WCFrancis' talk page. Xoloz 07:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. It is a delight to meet you, in spite of the subject of our conversation. I think that we feel similarly regards my adopted home and your birthhome, within the limitations imposed by other accidents of bith. We expressed our feelings differently a the AfD page but this conversation has helped me understand. Thanks again.WCFrancis 13:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Color AfD's

Hi. The mass of colors you had voted to undelete has been undeleted and relisted as individual AfD's. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 01:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A reply

Why do you hate the South? I stopped hating them after Katrina, although I still dislike thier racism and fundamentalism. Are you black?--HistoricalPisces 18:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at questioner's talk page. Xoloz 15:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benedictine Monasteries

What do you mean changing it again? The FEMALE Benedictine abbey at Ferdinand, Indiana has it beat by over 100 years. (posted by an anon. IP)

Turns out the questioner was correct, as this disputed tidbit was resolved by others at Recent Death's talk page. Still, the anon. could use some lessons in politeness, and sourcing. :) Xoloz 15:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat/Wiki-politics

Thanks for your comment there. That is an ugly situation, and I don't know how else to fix that problem. I'll bite from your user page -- why do you hate the South? The redneck rascists I could understand hating, and probably NASCAR, but the rest of it seems fairly neutral to me. Then again, i've only been to Florida and Viginia, and then in both of those at about a total of a month or so.Karmafist 04:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just came from User talk:WCFrancis

Just to let you know, what you were talking about doesn't have regional boundaries among Liberals, John Kerry is probably the personification of what you described, and he's as far from Southern as you can get.
Take for example my town of Merrimack, New Hampshire. The town chair of the Democratic Party is afraid to call herself a Liberal and has done nothing at all during the past year. I average 4-8 political events a week and have changed my entire career in order to make a good run for State Rep in 2006 and hopefully counteract the cowards and maniacs at the Federal level with my voice in 20-40 years.
Tommorrow is the town Democratic Meeting, and if large steps aren't taken, I might just give up that dream I just spoke of. There are alot of personal problems I have right now, but i'm also disgusted at the way things are around me and my seeming inability to change them with my efforts. Karmafist

Reply at questioner's talk page. Xoloz 15:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Xoloz-- Thank you for your comments concerning my RfA. However, your vote was posted past the ending date, and may not be counted. Fortunately for you, I do not think I had enough support anyways. No worries. I'll try to prove to you over the next few months that I would make a valued admin. Cheers my friend. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at questioner's talk page. Xoloz 15:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbullying

I have added to the article and outlined a plan for further expansion on the talk page. I would be a grateful if you could have a look. Capitalistroadster 11:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for thoughtful debate, as morbid as it may have seemed. Its a testament to this that two people can disagree strongly yet still have a reasonably intelligent conversation. Take care now :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded (I presume we're talking about schools) :) --inks ^T 04:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Lazlo Episode Original Plots

I just wanted to point out that the Camp Lazlo article that you voted on isn't an episode, in case it would affect your decision. Thanks, -- Kjkolb 12:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2/3 is generally accepted as a "rough consensus". Such a ratio was (at one time at least) even stated as such an example. Whenever twice as many people are inclined in one direction than in another, I usually smell consensus. Sometimes closer to 60% has been accepted, while some admins have a much higher standard (around 80% or higher). I'd recommend not going to VfU, just because I feel it would be a waste of time. People usually don't second guess closing admins in close cases, and are quite willing to accept 2/3. If you feel strongly about it (which it seems you don't), feel free to go ahead at VfU, I won't be offended, but I will vote to keep deleted. -R. fiend 22:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last Poems and copyright duration

Thanks for the message. After reading over 17 USC 304 and some collateral sources, my head still hurts! I had the idea that there were works from pre-1923 that had 95-year protection from this article, but on re-reading the statute, I think you're right. Thankfully, I did not go and "correct" the US Copyright Law article; I figured if it got by that many editors, it was probably not as "shockingly wrong" as I thought. (I do practice some IP law, but it's all tech stuff so we don't have to deal with copyright duration very often...) Cheers, MCB 22:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]