Contents

User talk:Xoloz: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:50, 12 October 2006

Hi, you have deleted the page for NIL, an implementation of Lisp. The page for deletion was Nil (programming langauge) which was a joke programming language. Could you please re-instate the page for NIL? Nilboy 20:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text for Nil (programming lanaguge) described a joke language. This was deleted last week. The text for NIL was my edit to the following (taken from Google's cache)

/nil/ 1. New Implementation of Lisp. A language intended to be the successor of MacLisp. A large Lisp, implemented mostly in VAX assembly language. A forerunner of Common LISP.

["NIL: A Perspective", Jon L. White, MACSYMA Users' Conf Proc, 1979].

History of Lisp: New Implementation of Lisp (NIL), S-1 Lisp

This article was originally based on material from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, which is licensed under the GFDL.

When Nil (programming language) was deleted I used this to do a redirect to the real language NIL which was not the subject of the AFD request. Could you please re-instate the page for NIL? Nilboy 11:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before the AFD for "Nil (programming language)" there were two pages - "Nil (programming language)" describing the joke programming language "Nil", and one, "NIL", describing the real programming language "NIL". The AFD request was for "Nil (programming language)" and it was determined that this should be deleted, which it was. I have then made changes to the page "NIL" and *linked* "Nil (programming language)" to it. You have then deleted both the link and the NIL page. This does not make any sense, it is as if someone has made a joke page called "FORTRAN (programming language)" which was then deleted, along with the real page "FORTRAN". Could you please re-instate the page for NIL? Nilboy 22:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 52/6/1 (~90%). It was an interesting process which gave me a chance to learn a bit about myself and about the community. My intention now is to slowly ease into using those additional buttons on my page. No use being over eager and mucking up the works. The support of all those who went over my record and/or rallied to my defense after the big oppose vote was instumental to the success of this review. Again, thank you! --StuffOfInterest 11:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what I did wrong, but the proper log isn't coming up, even though I think I did it right. Sorry, I know you know how to do it... --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did this ever get settled? I was messing with it earlier today because the October 10 pages weren't looking right. I got them to look right, but I don't know if I made the underlying log code better or worse in the process. --Aaron 22:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the page I deleted here. It is obviously vandalism and an attack/threat page. My question is what is the appropriate sanction considering the nature of the threat and the fact that some information that might be able to used to identify the target was revealed? Thanks for your feedback, Irongargoyle 15:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Irongargoyle 15:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Xoloz, can you unprotect and delete this? I have used {{Db-userreq}} to request deletion of all my user pages and all my user talk pages, including the David.Mestel negotation since this is obviously moot. Thanks for all your help with various such matters in the past. ---CH 16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you leaving? :( Xoloz 16:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Can you delete User talk:Hillman too?

Er... why am I leaving? That's what I have been trying to explain for about a year! Short history:

1. arrived, got intrigued, wrote or rewrote many articles,
2. found myself spending more and more time trying to revert bad edits utterly destroying my previous hard work, plus dealing with increasing levels of harassment,
3. gave up on content creation and focused on reforming policymaking and streamlining policy enforcement, which led to more harassment,
4. acknowledged no hope of reforming policymaking, hence no hope of creating new policies which would support knowledgeable science editors, hence no hope of returning to content creation (the only activity I ever wanted to pursue here), so decided to try to write exit statements answering your question in detail, which led to even more harassment,
5. finally cut my losses and walked away from everything I had ever tried to do here.

Sadly, this seems to be the consistent pattern followed by many of the editors with special knowledge or expertise whose long-term presence should surely be most valued for purposes of constructing a credible encyclopedia. The sad thing is, all I ever wanted to do here was write about math and physics, focusing on technical aspects which many would no doubt expect to be relatively uncontroversial!

Thanks for deleting User talk:Hillman/Archive13. I guess User:Hillman/Archive could be my wikitombeau, although I don't much care if that is deleted too. I'd like to remove User talk:Hillman since leaving it seems tantamount to inviting more harassment :-( and the same is probably true for User:Hillman/Archive.

If CH doesn't object - I'd like to see the User:Hillman/Archive article not deleted since it is a useful reference - I'll add it to my watchlist for vandalism. --Trödel 18:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all your help, Xoloz. I've encountered some very nice individuals here. I hope I remember them long after I've forgotten the not so nice ones! :-)

I sincerely hope that despite my pessimism the remaining community can somehow pull off a miracle and save (the encyclopedic function of) Wikipedia from self-destructing. Good luck and best wishes to all editors of good faith!---CH 17:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Xoloz: I have been reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines, etc., but I have not located any information on how Wikipedia would treat an article that has been repeatedly deleted but keeps "coming back." If there's something in the materials on speedy delete, for example, I missed it. Can you point me to a rule somewhere? Yours, Famspear 22:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Xoloz: OK, now I see there is a category called "Recreation of deleted material":

Asubstantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another Xfd process, unless it was undeleted per the or undeletion policy or was recreated in the user space. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject. This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions, although in this case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply.[1] [bolding added]

Does this mean that if an article is deleted, a user who essentially wrote the original article and voted against the deletion can simply re-create the article a few days after the deletion simply by assuring that the wording of the new article is not "substantially identical" to the deleted article? Yours, Famspear 23:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cher Xoloz: Je vous remercie. Je crois que je parle un peu francais aussi. Quand j’ai fait un voyage en France dans les 1990s, les gens qui demeuraient dans le pays ont cru que j’ai pu parler français – jusqu’à la pointe où j’ai ouvert ma bouche!

Whew! I saw on your talk page that you speak French, so I thought I would give it a try. It’s been awhile since I tried to write in that language. Actually, it looks like you and I have a few things in common. From the South, speak some French, INTP, law degrees, both with an apparent interest in history. I did not go to Georgetown or Harvard, but I have walked through parts of Georgetown, and once got semi-lost trying to drive in Cambridge -- so, hey, we’re practically cousins.

I was not thinking about creating an article myself. Actuellement, je pensais de Roni Lynn Deutch qui est né encore (mais je ne sais pas qui a écrit l'article originale). Yours, Famspear 01:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I see that the Deutch article has been deleted a third time, with an admonition to the user who had re-created it. I did think it a bit odd that someone who participated in two AfD processes [correction: an AfD and a deletion review] and argued strenuously -- but unsuccessfully -- each time for the article's retention should then, shortly after the article's deletion review, simply re-create the material. It seemed to make a mockery of the whole idea of Wikipedia consensus.

I've been editing here since late 2005 (never created an article myself, though). I am impressed with how, despite its inherent shortcomings, Wikipedia does (in my view) seem to work reasonably well. Yours, Famspear 11:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I see that the user has reinstated the Roni Lynn Deutch article again. Wow. Famspear 14:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you undelete User:Moe Epsilon/Users for me? — Moe 04:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :) Binguyen is fast! :) Xoloz 04:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that was fast, thanks for the thought anyways (and to Blnguyen, where ever he may be) :P — Moe 04:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You deleted CALUMO but rather summarily, in my opinion. I was wondering if you had at least considered replying to my argument for keeping the article on the article's talk page? Or if you were going to delete regardless, to do me the courtesy of saying why on my Talk page? Also, my reading of WP policy seems to imply that the addition of the {{hangon}} tag meant I would have some time to put my case and answer any criticisms of it. What say you? Paul Beardsell 06:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you've recently edited {{cent}}. That's good. You also logged your changes -- very good. But what was the outcome of the poll? You might like to clarify that you moved the poll to the Old section, too. Most importantly, if the poll has closed, we need to extract its outcome into the log. Eventually, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions will need to be updated. Thank you. John Reid 11:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :) Well... as you know, the state highways poll was one of the most involved in the history of Wikipedia. The result was a list of standards for every state's highways, I suppose. The last time I updated "cent" we didn't have that handy conclusions list. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to log, the last time you edited it was 2006 Oct 9. Perhaps you mean the time before last? Anyway, glad to have your help. My understanding is that somebody got a barnstar out of the road names solution but I didn't follow it closely. Anyway, what's wanted is some sort of two-word distillation of the outcome. You're welcome to take it a step further and summarize the whole thing on /Conclusions but I generally leave that until the log is archived. All the log needs is some sort of flag that indicates the general status or outcome of the poll at the time it closed or was removed from Cent. Thank you. John Reid 14:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For putting in the massive effort of resubmitting all those esoteric programmic languages at AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 02:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check your email? Thanks, Byrgenwulf 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. If you change your mind, I can always restore your userpage. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Byrgenwulf 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xoloz. I was recently forced to post the following update in the RfC which Byrgenwulf recently initiated against me:

UPDATE: A couple of days ago, User Hillman - the same Chris Hillman whose name once appeared frequently with John Baez on physics newgroups - suddenly withdrew from Wikipedia. Hillman (CH) was instrumental in Byrgenwulf's (and Anville's) misbegotten attack on the CTMU article. Fortunately, this lays to rest a certain dispute involving the unauthorized disclosure of personal information in contravention of WP. It seems that just this morning, Byrgenwulf decided to follow suit, making good on his repeated threats to leave Wikipedia. Very soon after Byrgenwulf submitted his request, User Xoloz obligingly blanked all of his user pages. Unfortunately, since Xoloz also invited him back, he returned shortly thereafter to post another vicious personal attack on his newly rewritten User Page (to which this document links). This personal attack - the targets of which are painfully obvious - should be removed, and this user should be banned from Wikipedia. Would any nearby adminstrator, Xoloz for example, care to assist me in removing the attack and initiating the necessary proceedings? Asmodeus 18:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to be of help to me here? Asmodeus 18:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xoloz: do whatever you see fit. I do not believe what I have written is a personal attack, since it mentions no specifics whatsoever, and does not link to any documents. I think I should be entitled to describe honestly, in my own words, why I have chosen to leave. But I don't really care. If you want to delete my page again, that's fine. Byrgenwulf 18:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]