User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2009/June
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you
|
The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar | |
| Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. |
13:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your decision on this article. I do not dispute it or desire to appeal your decision at this time, but I do humbley request that you move the article to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_radio#Notable_Christian_radio_programs until such a time that more acceptable reliable sources can be added for this article to stand on its own. Please consider a move as apposed to a total deletion. Thank you very much for your time.Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. I've answered below. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Forgive me for my lack of knowledge, I posted on the Deletion Review page, than read that it was better to discuss it with you first. I appoligize and have removed post from review page until you can consider moving the article to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_radio#Notable_Christian_radio_programs . Thank you and I truly hope that you will consider this option, since there is definately some merit to this article. Thank you, we eagerly await your decision. Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- See below. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Additonal Question Can you give me a copy on my user page? Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've put a copy in your user space as requested. It's at User:Ivanhoe610fa/sandbox/The Full Armor of God. I don't want to put it at Christian radio because I don't know whether this content would unbalance that article. However, there's no problem with any editor merging the content in, provided there is consensus to do so. Good luck. :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Question: In comparison to the other programs listed under the "Christian Radio", the FAoG article was much more heavily referenced in terms of notability. Add in the comments in the AfD discussion, and it just seems to me that the deletion was a bit of a jump of the gun. 5minutes (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree about the number of sources. Still when I looked at them, I didn't see any that met the definition of reliable sources. Basically, articles that lack reliable sources, when challenged, are eligible for merger, being redirected, or deletion. If there are other articles in this area that have not been challenged, it may be wise to take this as a warning shot that they should be properly sourced or merged before someone comes along a nominates them for deletion too. Also, as noted above, I have put a copy of the article at User:Ivanhoe610fa/sandbox/The Full Armor of God. Anyone is free to work on it. Take care. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment & Question In respect, I totally see why this article was originally tagged. There was WAY WAY too much stuff on it when Zeagler first tagged the article and it was written too much in a promotional way. I regret that the situation with Zeagler became more of a personality conflict than a discussion about wikipedia policy. I agree that this article really needed some discipline! But, in it's current state, I do not understand why the references given on this article are not considered reliable sources? This was said over and over and over again in the discussion by the opposition to the article. But at no time could anybody address which references were not reliable, why they were not relieable or more importantly what changes were needed for references to be considered reliable. Out of the 31 reference that are listed on this article, 15 are audio files. 13 which are online and 2 offline. I understand that 13 of them are hosted on the programs website, but please keep in mind that these links verify that notable artists listed as being guests on the show are ligitimate. It would be an elaborate "Hoax" indeed to suggest that this organization actually produced multiple hours of programming, immitated the voices of known individuals so they could sell T-Shirts seems a bit far fetched doesn't it?? Also keep in mind that the show's archieves are not availible on affiliate stations and rarley ever are in the case of syndicated radio shows. The 2 other audio file are also hosted by http://FullArmorRadio.com and verify the connection between two notable ministries and The Full Armor of God Broadcast, being Kirk Cameron & Teen Challenge. Also keep in mind that every one of these audio sources are of notable current subjects listed on Wikipedia in good standing. From what I have read and studied of reliable sources the overview would seem to apply here.
- However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet.
- The other 16 references are to low powered, college and internet radio stations that are listed on Wikipedia and verified through SHOUTcast. The argument that these are all small stations does not seem to me to be a very good arguement in that WP:N states that Notability does NOT = Fame or popularity. It was said in the discusion that SHOUTcast is not a reputable third-party, but I think that this opinion is very subjective in an area where the policy is rather vague on this point. But cross refferenced with WP:SOURCES Articles should verify that they are notable, or "worthy of notice". It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute. A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content. and taking into consideration t WP:WEB he Web Content displayed by The Full Armor of God Broadcast according to the policy which states Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, web hosts, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Also taking ito consideration the WP:WEB Criteria which states Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria: #3 The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" I think there is a more than valid point of order here for this article to be un-deleted.
- Again, it is clearly obvious that some of The Full Armor of God Brosadcast contributors went OVERBOARD adding content early on. Also they may have gotten a little disrespectful with USER:Zeagler which certainly helped to escalate this matter to the Nth degree. However with the NEW streamlined version of this article in place and a more experienced user in 5minutes overseeing any and all future changes to this page. Please consider un-deletion. If not please let us know exactly what kind of reliable sources (specifically) this article needs to be un-delelted? Thank you, in all due respect to Wikipedia, Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, anyone who has closed this deletion discussions - and I've closed a fair few - has run into cases in which people less familiar with Wikipedia have passionately defended an article of interest. I've seen far worse than this; it didn't factor into my decision to delete. The lack of reliable sources did. You asked about undeletion. My criteria are pretty easy: if you have two reliable sources that are independant of the subject, and discuss it in a meaningful way (i.e. more than a one or two line mention)I'll be happy to restore the article. While I disagree that the sources that were in the article met these criteria, you aren't stuck with my opinion. There is a reliable sources noticeboard where you can post your top 3 or 4 sources (or as many as you want ;) ), and get outside opinions as to whether they are reliable sources in the context in which you want to use them. I would suggest that if you go this route, rather than simply listed the source, you link to the article in your user space so that editors can see how it's being used. If the consensus of the regulars over there is that you have a couple of reliable sources, back it comes. I will say it can be fairly low traffic over there, so you may have to wait a few days. I won't be on much this weekend anyway, since it's a holiday. Good luck. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Reply TY for your response. I appreciate the info and will do just that. Please note that I I was in no way trying to be arguementative in any way and if I am incorrect in my assesment of Wiki policy, forgive me I am a NEWBIE. TY!Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, anyone who has closed this deletion discussions - and I've closed a fair few - has run into cases in which people less familiar with Wikipedia have passionately defended an article of interest. I've seen far worse than this; it didn't factor into my decision to delete. The lack of reliable sources did. You asked about undeletion. My criteria are pretty easy: if you have two reliable sources that are independant of the subject, and discuss it in a meaningful way (i.e. more than a one or two line mention)I'll be happy to restore the article. While I disagree that the sources that were in the article met these criteria, you aren't stuck with my opinion. There is a reliable sources noticeboard where you can post your top 3 or 4 sources (or as many as you want ;) ), and get outside opinions as to whether they are reliable sources in the context in which you want to use them. I would suggest that if you go this route, rather than simply listed the source, you link to the article in your user space so that editors can see how it's being used. If the consensus of the regulars over there is that you have a couple of reliable sources, back it comes. I will say it can be fairly low traffic over there, so you may have to wait a few days. I won't be on much this weekend anyway, since it's a holiday. Good luck. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Again, it is clearly obvious that some of The Full Armor of God Brosadcast contributors went OVERBOARD adding content early on. Also they may have gotten a little disrespectful with USER:Zeagler which certainly helped to escalate this matter to the Nth degree. However with the NEW streamlined version of this article in place and a more experienced user in 5minutes overseeing any and all future changes to this page. Please consider un-deletion. If not please let us know exactly what kind of reliable sources (specifically) this article needs to be un-delelted? Thank you, in all due respect to Wikipedia, Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Additional Note FYI Dougweller has mounted a personal war against our references. This is an obvious retalliation. Does Wikipedia have any rules about harrassment??
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WTGO-LP#WTGO-LP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WLRY
This is getting ridiculous.. Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- My Apologies I sincerly appologize for the misunderstanding and for my harsh words. I should have given them more good faith. Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking for myself, no apologies are necessary. You're new here, and you're trying to learn. I think it's great. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think a no consensus close would have better reflected the AfD discussion. More troubling is that the closure rational seems to be based on the closer's opinions of the article's sources rather than a decision base on the discussion by those who participated in the AfD. I suggest an overturn to no consensus or a reopening of the AfD per this error in procedure. The closer is there to interpret the outcome of the discussion, not to decide what they think the outcome should have been. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there. I disagree about the no consensus close, but I do understand how you got there. The toughest part of closing a vigorous contested AfD is sifting the comments through the filter of policy. I agree that the closer should not impose his/her own opinion to determine consensus, but admins are expected to accord weight to the comments based on the extent to which they reflect our content principles. That's what I did here. Whether I did so properly is, of course, subject to debate... Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for the response Xy. Having had a chance to look at the article in userspace, I agree with your assessment and the deletion. It is a close call, as indicated by the discussion, because everything about the program seems to merit notability. There just don't seem to be any reliable sources to establish and verify the notability. From the closing comment I inferred that you made a determination on the article rather than weighing the arguments, but there's probably a grey area where good judgement applies, and you give every indication of having made a wise and well considered call. So I apologize. Bold closes and difficult closes undertaken with consideration should be respected, although the ones I disagree with are grotesquely out of line and obviously wrong. :) Mentioning the arguments in the close, in addition to the reasoning, might also have helped. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there. I disagree about the no consensus close, but I do understand how you got there. The toughest part of closing a vigorous contested AfD is sifting the comments through the filter of policy. I agree that the closer should not impose his/her own opinion to determine consensus, but admins are expected to accord weight to the comments based on the extent to which they reflect our content principles. That's what I did here. Whether I did so properly is, of course, subject to debate... Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Many are audio files. There have been some written interviews, but ussually on University blogs and such that are no longer on file. I can look into finding them. But there are interviews with WLRY's Mornign show, Pass the Salt w/ Coach Dave Daubenmire, Anvil & the Hammer Radio, Weathered Steel (WITR), The Cross Stream Radio, WTGO, WJCU and Malone University. I do not think that they are archived on those perticular sites anymore, but there are copies of them that can be linked. I will get right on that! Will that help?? Am I right, according to WP:RS "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." this should apply to this situation, correct?? Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. The fact that the sources are not in printed form is not a problem, but we still need to be able to see/hear them in some manner to assess their utility. But you are quite correct that multimedia sources can qualify as reliable sources. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
WLRY, Pass the Salt (WLRY), Anvil & the Hammer Show and WJCU refernces audio added How does this look? Better?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ivanhoe610fa/sandbox/The_Full_Armor_of_God#Show_content Please keep in mind that refernces to radio station program schedules confirm that the stations air the show, not just that show exisits. Secondly, radio stations rarely ever archive episodes of syndicated radio programs, archived episodes of syndicated programs are generally stored on the show's own site. With that noted, WP:S "Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." I assert therefore that the audio sourses listed on this article display notability in that they confirm that notable guest have been on the show, even though they are hosted by the program's own server, the fact that WP:RS Clearly states "It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." make it kind of a mute arguement. Perhaps this is enough to tip the scales in favor for this article to be undeleted?? What say ye?? Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've just logged in for the first time in a couple days. I haven't looked at these references yet, but I will today. I'll give you my thoughts this afternoon/evening your time. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't been able to hear the Anvil and Hammer interview. My computer seems to being playing a file, but I hear no sound. I may just missing a codec or something; I'll try on another computer. I'm not convinced by Pass the Salt. This seems like a tough area to source with reliable sources, it may be easier to merge this in with another (notable) topic. I know you asked about Christian Radio, but I'm still concerned that you would have to trim a lot of the content here to make it fit into that article. I have not searched for sources for Kuba; is there any chance that there are reliable sources about him? If so, an article about him could be written, and you could merge the broadcast information there. I'll look around for other possible merge targets too. Otherwise, this might be best kept in user space until Full Armor of God gets coverage in a couple reliable sources. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've just logged in for the first time in a couple days. I haven't looked at these references yet, but I will today. I'll give you my thoughts this afternoon/evening your time. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Reply No. The host Kuba is only known for The Full Armor of God Bradcast. H maye have some other minor achievements, but they would only be known by a small number of pople within a scattered few Christian ministries. There have also been some other guest hosts including Christian Rock artists Rob Rock and Rex Scot of X-Sinner. So any WP:RS for Kuba would only be useful in covering The Full Armor of God Broadcast. FYI Pass the Salt is a reliable source of WLRY and can be found under "awards" on it's Wiki Article. Out of curiosity, you didn't comment on the other interview cited done by WLRY Morning show host Mike O'Riley, was this not considered WP:RS either? In all due respect you asked for 2 reliable sorces and I gave you 2 reliable sources?? They are not FOX News and CNN, but they do fall in line with policy. Why would you not follow through with your statment and undelete the article at this point? Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- WLRY and WJCU can't establish notability because, as two of the show's host stations, they are not independent of the subject. And The Hammer & the Anvil is not a reliable source because it's a self-published podcast. —Zeagler (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Reply Affiliate stations certainly ARE autonomous! This is not a very valid point according to Wikipedia policy (which has become my latest area af study. lol). Wikipedia:SPS does not seem to apply to "electrinic content" (audio) or the radio industry persay but rather it refers to the "author" of text sources, either in print or online. The submitted audio clips were produced and broadcast by WLRY according to WP:RS "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." and temporarily hosted by http://FullArmorRadio.com for convenience only. This would certainly have to be quite the elaborate hoax if these audio files were fabricated or counterfited. As for "The Anvil & The Hammer Podcast" not being not being a reliable source, that again seems more like a subjective opinion. According to WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content." Thus, according to WP:WEB which states "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, web hosts, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria: 3)The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;" Furthermore as stated in WP:N "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Articles should verify that they are notable, or "worthy of notice". It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute."Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- With that said, since reliable sources have been referenced and the article has been modified, shouldn't this article be un-deleted? Seriously, in all due respect. Is this just a loosing effort? I mean in all honesty if this whole process is more about inter-wiki user politics and chronnyism than it is about logical interpretation of Wikipedia policy than I will just quit wasting time with this effort. You guys may have the authority to blot out the mere mention of The Full Armor of God Broadcast from Wikipedia like the Pharoah Ramses, but for every drug addict that has gotten clean, for every porn addict that has gotten free and for every teenager who was on the verge of suicide, but still lives today because of The Full Armor of God Broadcast, these accomplishments will be measured by a much higher court than Wikipedia. And though they may be stricken from record here, they will ring for all eternity in a far greater realm. I really believe in this ministry. I really believe in what it has done and what it will continue to do. Perhaps one day it's efforts will be found worth of the scrutiny of this fine Website, but for now it seems that you have made up your minds and that no matter how much Wikipedia policy would support this article, "So let it be written, so let it be done!" is the bottom line.. Forgive me, but it kind of seems that there is a bit of a "Good Ol'Boy" network going on here.. So if I am fighting an impossible battle here, than why bother? I mean I think I have brought up some pretty goo points here that have not been addressed.. This is my last attempt.. If you guys want it off THAT BAD than so be it.. This is becoming too time consuming.. I will not appeal this decision any further. Take care and be blessed Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I still don't know if we've fully come to an understanding what constitutes reliable sources; or perhaps we should just agree to disagree. Unless I missed it, there was not support for these sources at the reliable sources noticeboard, so I don't feel like I'm too off base here. I'm going to leave the article in your userspace, and I hope that eventually you or someone else will be able to add an unambiguous reliabele source that shows notability. At that point I could probably see clear to use the WRLY interview as a confirming source. Also, if you found that these were archived somewhere unaffiliated w/ the FAOG broadcast I'd feel a lot better about them. If you can get these I have no objection restoring it, and no objection to any other admin doing either. All the best. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Reply Affiliate stations certainly ARE autonomous! This is not a very valid point according to Wikipedia policy (which has become my latest area af study. lol). Wikipedia:SPS does not seem to apply to "electrinic content" (audio) or the radio industry persay but rather it refers to the "author" of text sources, either in print or online. The submitted audio clips were produced and broadcast by WLRY according to WP:RS "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." and temporarily hosted by http://FullArmorRadio.com for convenience only. This would certainly have to be quite the elaborate hoax if these audio files were fabricated or counterfited. As for "The Anvil & The Hammer Podcast" not being not being a reliable source, that again seems more like a subjective opinion. According to WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content." Thus, according to WP:WEB which states "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, web hosts, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria: 3)The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;" Furthermore as stated in WP:N "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Articles should verify that they are notable, or "worthy of notice". It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute."Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- WLRY and WJCU can't establish notability because, as two of the show's host stations, they are not independent of the subject. And The Hammer & the Anvil is not a reliable source because it's a self-published podcast. —Zeagler (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Reply No. The host Kuba is only known for The Full Armor of God Bradcast. H maye have some other minor achievements, but they would only be known by a small number of pople within a scattered few Christian ministries. There have also been some other guest hosts including Christian Rock artists Rob Rock and Rex Scot of X-Sinner. So any WP:RS for Kuba would only be useful in covering The Full Armor of God Broadcast. FYI Pass the Salt is a reliable source of WLRY and can be found under "awards" on it's Wiki Article. Out of curiosity, you didn't comment on the other interview cited done by WLRY Morning show host Mike O'Riley, was this not considered WP:RS either? In all due respect you asked for 2 reliable sorces and I gave you 2 reliable sources?? They are not FOX News and CNN, but they do fall in line with policy. Why would you not follow through with your statment and undelete the article at this point? Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Bring in a new opinion
I came into this after deleting the orphaned nonfree logo for this program, which was only being used on Ivanhoe's user subpage. Please understand that I fully support you in your closing decision — it's clear to me that the policy-based arguments, while few in number compared to the ILIKEIT arguments, were strongly on the side of deletion. I tend to shrink from controversy (thus my deletions are primarily simple things such as orphaned non-free images), so I don't know if I could have made the decision you made; thanks for making the hard decision! Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. As you know, sometimes you feel like no matter what you do you're going to get flak. Why did we volunteer for this again? Oh yeah, the pay :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Latvian Airplay Top
I may not have ever AFD tagged the subpages, but you can still delete them per G8 (subpages of nonexistant parent). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, but I didn't want to close the AfD and speedy delete the pages untagged myself. Thanks for getting them tagged, and it looks like Dank got them. Take care. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
WayneSmith(cybersquatter)
Why did you delete my page? That was my first article at wikipedia and I didn't even save a copy. It took me days to write. I had to read tons of instructions and rules. I will never use wikipedia again. I hope somebody deletes it. In fact I hope somebody deletes you. - DervisherDude.
- "Your" page was nominated for deletion. If you click on the link you can read the discussion. Nominations are closed after seven days, and the consensus of the editors commenting in that discussion was to delete the article. If you think that my decision was incorrect you may contest the decision by filing at deletion review. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S Banning me for no reason was a contemptible act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.173.114 (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're referring to having the article deleted, or being blocked. If you've been blocked, I did not do it. If you are under an unexpired block, it's considered block evasion to log in under another address. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Add info to Hawking page
Dear Xymmax, I applaud y'all for protecting the Stephen Hawking page, since he's such a famous person. May I propose to add the following, right above the Research section, and right after the discussion of his interests in space travel:
"At the 50th Anniversary of NASA, Hawking gave a keynote speech on the final frontier exhorting and inspiring the space technology community on why we (the human race) explore space."--Joan kingston (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Joan_k
- PS on one more idea. Perhaps all that info plus previous discussions on his interests in space trvl can be put in a new section entitled Final Frontier, because in these 2 yrs we expect more news of him involved in space exploration.--Joan kingston (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Joan_k
- Hi there. Although I certainly could do it, why don't you make the edits? A semi-protected page doesn't stop an established editor like you from making changes, and based on my quick look it seems as if your suggested edits make sense. I'd much rather see you get involved in the editing process. Please, give it a try, it's fun :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification. I didn't realize that even little ole me am allowed to touch the great Hawking page. --Joan kingston (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Joan
deletion of List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions (reverse chronological order)
I'm going to need the view the coding for the page you deleted today with the title List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions (reverse chronological order). That page was a big compromise in a debate on which order the main page should be in. I warned at the time that someone might delete it and I just noticed today that it happened. The main page is now unacceptable unless some sort of date sorting is clickable. I will be gone for a week on vacation starting sunday so unless it gets put up today you can take your time and I'll get back to you next week. Thanks Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry that I missed you. The page was deleted after the AfD was unanimous for deletion. I'll userfy the page at User:Fyunck/sandbox/List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
semi-protection
it has to be recent i didnt know that, ill try if they start getting vandalized in the future because they were a lot in the past AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. Just re-file if its a problem. You also can drop me a note here, and if I'm online I'll take a look. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Gummy Bear Protection
Seems the semiprotection you made didn't work - at least there are still IPs vandalizing it. Averell (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh. I forgot to protect it. Put the lock template on, left a message at RFPP, but didn't protect the page. I just did it for 2 weeks, thanks for the reminder. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Inre this diff
Thank you for the userfication. I think there may be hope for Barry but was unable to work on due to a few real-world film projects. It may be a few days yet, but I will definitely check back with you after giving it some dedicated investmenture of time and if/when I think it has a better chance of being kept. With best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, take as long as you like. I'll be happy to take a look whenever you are ready. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Left an SOS on your talk page . . .
concerning the latest wrinkles in the struggles over the R.L. Hymers entry.Scooge (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought you might want to know that some more issues have erupted WRT to the NPOV-ness of the article on R.L. Hymers.
1) Around half of the sources quoted are works written by Hymers himself, and therefore a) they may not be truly objective, and b) they may not be accurate.
2) There is still a huge issue WRT undue weight.
3) The nature of the controversies surrounding this man's ministry are veiled by the article's "burying the lede" with respect to all of the allegations surrounding Dr. Hymers.
4) Hymers' views are a) given unfiltered, as he has written about them rather than as others have written about them, and b) portrayed as more "conservative" and "mainstream" than they are.
5) Hymers appears to have been editing/writing this entry himself, and has even used the account used for Wikipedia to legal threats.
I'm wondering whether someone who is objective, well-versed in how Wikipedia treats articles that concern belief, and reasonably cautious and rigorous might be able to pitch in with this. So far we've had your help on occasion, and Shell Kinney's more often. I've done a lot of work on it, but I'm not an objective source--nor am I patient enough on this matter to achieve the desired result. Plus, I've been warned off on editing the article. Thoughts?Scooge (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Scooge. I have to say, the version I looked at today looks pretty fair to me. It could be improved in spots, but in my humble opinion it is superior to both of the versions from which Shell was reverting. I will put it back on my watchlist in case it gets pushed too far one way or the other. All the best, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'm going to take a few weeks off from that article, and then I'll see about addressing the areas of concern I still see, with guidance from you and Shell--maybe drafting out my suggestions on the talk page or some such.Scooge (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Xy. I'm here to take you up on your offer to move The Marquee Room to my userspace. Thank you sir! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done. It's at User:ChildofMidnight/Sandbox/The Marquee Room. Thanks for taking on the task. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)