Jump to content

User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2009/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


oldominion

Hey there, trying to get the oldominion page back up... here's some recent pub that helps to show the significance of the group...

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2009-01-28/music/oldominion-s-too-awesome-to-sell-records/

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/there-are-so-many-of-us/Content?oid=1032165

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/my-philosophy/Content?oid=1032171&ms

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=oldominion

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.77.139 (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I'll look at these when I have a bit more time and get back to you. THe Seattle Weekly one looks promising, but I need to figure out if its too small for Wikipedia to use as a source. Give me a day or so. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, having looked at them, the Amazon link is no good for us to use, but the others at least give the article fighting chance. I'm willing to restore the article, but I would be inclined to run it through Articles for deletion again with a note explaining that it had been deleted once, but now has some sources. I'd then let them decide if the article passes. The other alternative I can offer you is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you post these links there, and the discussion agrees that the sources are reliable, I'd be happy to restore the article without a second trip through Afd. Just let me know what you want to do. Also, while you certainly don't have to, if you're going to post over there you might want to register an account. If you have a fixed account instead of an IP address that keeps changing, I also could restore a copy of the article to your user space pending a full decision. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Johnny Kitagawa

Hello! Your submission of Johnny Kitagawa at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Shubinator (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for looking at the article. What tool do you use to figure out the expansion size? I used the cut and paste link on the WP:DYK page - should I be looking at something else? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, I figured out my error. I'll get to expanding. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Johnny Kitagawa

Updated DYK query On February 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Johnny Kitagawa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Posted on behalf of the forgetful DYKadminBot. --PFHLai (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, Xymmax. Thank you for letting me know about the omission. The DYK bot has been shortchanging many people. A number of DYKsters have been monitoring its edits, and trying to finish off its unfinished businesses after each update. I guess we missed the omission on your talkpage. If you happen to come across another forgotten edit the DYK bot should have made, please feel free to report that at WT:DYK. Thanks in advance. --PFHLai (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Adem Ljajic Protection

I notice you have recently protected the article Adem Ljajic, howver the version you have protected is incorrect. If you check out the talk page you will see verification of the correct information. The user who requested the protection just refuses to accept that he is wrong. - Matty4123 (T•C•A) 16:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I know it's frustrating, but under our protection policy I simply protect on the current version. See WP:PREFER. It looks like there is some discussion on the talk page, and there's been a request for a third opinion, which is good. If you can reach consensus, I have no problem with any admin removing the protection so the page can be updated. Of course, if I'm around I'll be happy to do it. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
That is the problem, all the evidence points towards one thing which two users are choosing to try and ignore. They are trying to publish information on wikipedia which can not be sourced and is incorrect. The correct information has multiple sources each saying the same thing, which has also been confirmed by email from Manchester United themselves. These user's just can not accept that they are wrong. This is the second time that a Third opinion has had to be called in because it is going no where. - Matty4123 (T•C•A) 18:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Will reply on article talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jacqui Smith

Thanks for your advice Xymmax. I have tried to remove the opinionated part. How come others can keep on reverting my changes while I get a warning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch91310 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Xymmax, why am I the one being accused of edit warring while multiple people are reverting what I said with clearly different motivations that do not overlap? I try to rewrite it according to what somebody says, next thing somebody else jumps on top of it and undoes it again. Dutch91310 (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears as if the other editors still feel your contribution lacks sufficient neutrality. When it becomes clear that one's edit is controversial, the accepted way to proceed is to talk about the change on the article's discussion page before making changes to the article. If you gain consensus (and consensus is how we decide everything around here, see WP:CONSENSUS)then you can make the change without fear of edit warring. If things can't be settled that easily, you may need to go through the steps of dispute resolution. I hope this helps. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 640

Just a minor question, all the other routes in this "batch" were closed as "Redirect to London School Buses", can I ask why this one was closed as keep, despite having practically the same responses? (for reference the other articles were:)

While the outcome has been essentially the same, (the article is redirected), would it not be a good idea to close the AfD using the same reason? Just in case it is referred to in the future? Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I closed this as keep because the redirect all ready was in place - in other words, I'm keeping the status quo. Which is the reason for my (admittedly a bit vague) "fait accompli" comment. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope my comments weren't taken the wrong way, they were ment in the nicest possible way! I just feel that for "consistency" having the same reason for the same outcome may have been a good idea. I just have concerns that a user may come along and revert back to the article, seemingly in good faith, going on the fact the AfD closed as keep. I hope that made sense! It made sense in my head! Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
No need to walk on eggshells :) Your position is perfectly reasonable, in fact, if you want to add a comment about that, or point to this discussion, its fine with me. After I finish with the current set of closures I'll try to remember to fix it :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for taking your time to look at such a trivial and seemingly silly request! I may have an OCD problem when it comes to consistency! Hence I work on batches of articles at the same time, to ensure they are all consistent! Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Brenda Gilmore

Hi, Xymmax! Today you closed the AfD for Brenda Gilmore (here) with a "Keep". There were only two people who !voted in the barely five days it was listed, and no one addressed the main argument that she is a local politician with no sources or information outside her local area. Would you mind either re-opening the discussion, or perhaps re-listing? Because at *most* it's a "No-consensus", but three opinions is hardly enough to tell. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm gonna guess from the "TN" in your handle you're probably in a good position to judge this particular case ;) I do think there was a rough consensus to keep here - the other two editors disagreed, and even the comment tended to go against your position. I'm not inclined to relist it (doesn't meet WP:RELIST), although I guess I can see clear to change it to something like "NC, leaning towards keep." Hope that helps. Take care, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Zoom Player

I only voted a "weak keep", but I think that is the correct answer. In any case, the "votes" that there were were 2 keep/2 del, hardly a consensus for deletion. This nomination was the result of a very zealous deletionist editor (User:Miami33139) who nominated essentially every article on audio software he could find. That editor wrote quite verbosely on the AfD, but it only amounted to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as far as I can see... or more precisely, he took quality problem with the article(s) as reason for deletion rather than improvement. I only noticed this pattern today, but the Zoom Player article is a clear example.

Given the paucity of votes (never mind the equal number of "keep" comments), I believe this should either have been closed as "no consensus", or at least the AfD should have been extended to try to solicit additional opinion. The latter seems fine, actually. I'd rather avoid the trouble of deletion review, and would appreciate it if you would just restore the article and extend the AfD for, say, another week. I'd probably even make an effort to improve the article in the next days; I do not believe notability is hard to establish by slight enhancement of the content. LotLE×talk 03:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Yeah, this is a reasonable one to call me on. I thought that the nom did get around to discussing the problem with the sources, so it was a good nomination. I'm afraid that I didn't give much weight to the other keep !vote because it basically laid out a reason to delete, then gave an argument to avoid (Other stuff exists) as a keep reason. I think the deletion was appropriate, but I actually used this product back in the day, so I know there were articles about it. I couldn't find any reliable sources though. I've restored it to your user space at User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Afd sandbox/Zoom Player for you or anyone else to improve. I just ask that you let me have a quick look at it when you're ready to move it back into article space. Take care, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the article slightly in user space. I made the language a bit cleaner to remove any possible WP:ADVERT concern, and added links to a couple external reviews. It's not a great article with these minor changes, but I think the general notability is clearly indicated by the external sources (I more-or-less just randomly selected a couple I found in a quick web search). This software is not anything I will ever use myself, nor that I care about particularly, but it is something that I believe obviously reaches WP notability standards in being reasonably widely used and discussed. Unless you object, I'll move it back to article space. LotLE×talk 23:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
All ready done, and thanks. I think those sources answer the bell sufficiently. I was pleasantly surprised by the TopTenReviews one, which I'm pretty sure I saw, but rejected out of hand as non-reliable. However, it looks like they have regular editors, a managing board, etc. Again, nice work. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Xymmax, if these review sites are reliable sources to establish notability than every hot dog vendor in Central Park is notable. All the papers and weeklies review the hot dog carts, it is like a game. These review sites do not make software notable anymore than multiple reviews make individual hot dog carts notable. The toptenreview.com site dedicated three paragraphs to this software. This is exactly the type of brief mention the Notability guideline dismisses. Miami33139 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I don't agree. When notability guidelines speak of trivial mentions, I think that refers to passing mentions, not actual review of features. The real issue to me is whether the site is reliable, and on that score it has named reviewers, an editorial board, etc. You could bounce it past the reliable sources noticeboard to see how other feel, or of course relist the article. Under the circumstances of me deleting and restoring I would not consider the speedy relisting disruptive. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

1MTX article

Hi Xymmax,

thanks for your input. But it would be more satisfying to get to know how to improve the article? (is something missing, is something wrong set etc.) It was my first article about a company people can benefit from. (just like wikipedia and google) Or how come that other articles about basically the same are published? Thanks again for your time and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alizo (talk • contribs) 12:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alizo. I'm not the person who placed the tag on your article asking for deletion, that was WWGB. I am, however, the admin who deleted the article. I did so because it my estimation the article met our criteria for speedy deletion. In order for an article to exist on English Wikipedia, it must be notable. Here you may review the standards for notability of a business. If reliable sources (typically a newspaper or magazine article, or similar independent mention) exist, then link them in the article and it will exist on Wikipedia. Otherwise, the article is subject to being deleted again. I would be happy to undelete the article, and put in your user space while you work on it if you think that the company might be notable enough. Articles being prepared in user space are generally left alone until they are complete articles, and ready to be moved to the main encyclopedia. Please let me know if you would like me to do this. Take care, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Block IP?

Hi, you declined Semi-Protection for Rock of Love Bus with Bret Michaels, indicating you (or another admin) would block the IPs and users responsible for the vandalism. The last four vandals are: User_talk:24.128.202.207, User_talk:98.109.105.126, User_talk:190.36.48.211, and User_talk:Lilcoolman1635. Probably only the first and fourth are eligible for block, as I am not always on top of warning on every offence. I could add more if you want, but I would have to wade through the history as this has been ongoing for the past several months. I thought it might be easier to just Semi-protect since there are so many, but if you and the other admins want to help patrol the page, that would be great. Thanks for your help! Plastikspork (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Another one: User talk:67.149.127.137. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I went ahead and blocked 24.129.202.207, and another admin all ready had blocked 67.149.127.137. Too much time had passed for Lilcoolman635 by the time I logged back on, his/her last edit was on Feb 22. The other two, as you noted, hadn't been sufficiently warned yet. Don't hesitate to give me a shout if I'm around. Also, it wouldn't hurt to put a discussion on the article talk page about the spoilers. That way, you can point the new users to it when they try to edit against consensus. Take care, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, the spoilers in question are not an issue with consensus. It's purely fabricated information, forbidden by WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. In the best scenario, it's based on a frame-by-frame watching the preview for the next weeks episode to try to see who is or is not displayed, to determine who has been eliminated. In the worst (and most frequent) scenario, it's based on gut instincts, feelings, or what they wish will happen (or did happen). Thanks again, and I will let you know. Best Regards. Plastikspork (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, what is the policy for this: User:Trasf12? This seems wrong for a few reasons: (1) It's not what I would consider the proper use of a user page, (2) Look at the edit history in terms of who is contributing, (3) this has often included the speculation alluded to above, although at the moment it has "stale" information. Plastikspork (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the speedy deletion

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/For_Those_Who_Don't_Believe. I sent it to AfD because my PROD was removed after a few days. It's usually difficult to get songs or albums deleted under CSD guidelines. Enigmamsg 20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's nice to have people agree with you once in a while. I actually decline a fair number of speedys, and I'm not sure if everyone has a good feel for A9 yet. Still, given the outcome of the other AfD you cited, there was no reason to hold off on this one. Take care. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD closure

Hi. I have a query about your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss migration to the United Kingdom. As far as I can see, none of the editors opposing the deletion provided resasons for keeping the article which referenced Wikipedia policies. The rationale for deletion was that the article made no claim to notability, and most of the keep opinions simply stated that the topic was notable, without giving a reason why. While I'm fully prepared to accept that the article has not been deleted, I wondered if the content of the contributions to the debate as opposed to sheer numbers of votes has been taken into account? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. I did not arrive at the no consensus decision by vote counting, because you're right, many of the keep !votes used fallacious reasoning. However, while as between the deletes and keeps the deletes had the better of it, there was a strong comment re: merging the article that was not rebutted. While it was insufficient for me to close the discussion as a merge, I felt the combination of the keep !votes that claimed notability and the merge !votes were enough that I could not conclude that there was a consensus to delete. I hope that makes sense. Take care, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Block User:89.231.29.80

It's a 3RR, looking at the simiilarity to the previous vandalism to Lake Manitou. I'm not gonna risk getting caught up in my own 3RR for a revert. MMetro (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the ip hasn't edited since my warning. If there are further problems, I'll block. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xymmax/Archives/2009/February&oldid=1142679552"