Misplaced Pages

Talk:ASIO File: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:49, 6 July 2009 editFrei Hans (talk | contribs)743 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 17:00, 6 July 2009 edit undoMangoe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users34,919 edits sometimes you lose, and you need to get on with your lifeNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{oldafdfull| date = 26 June 2009 (UTC) | result = '''redirect to ]''' | page = ASIO File }} {{oldafdfull| date = 26 June 2009 (UTC) | result = '''redirect to ]''' | page = ASIO File }}
==Deletion discussion==
The result of the discussion was not to re-direct the page. A user took it on himself to redirect the page. Other users supported the page and wanted to keep it. ] (]) 12:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC) The result of the discussion was not to re-direct the page. A user took it on himself to redirect the page. Other users supported the page and wanted to keep it. ] (]) 12:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
:On the contrary, if you look at ], near the top of the page, you will see that the closing administrator's comments include the words "The result was ''redirect to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation''". <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 13:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC) :On the contrary, if you look at ], near the top of the page, you will see that the closing administrator's comments include the words "The result was ''redirect to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation''". <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">].</sub> 13:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
::If you go to the discussion, you will also see that other editors saw no problem with the article and thought it should be kept. An editor with administrative tools over rode their comments. There was clearly no consensus to delete the article and none to redirect it either. I am concerned because recently another decision to delete an article was made by a user, with administrative tools, who was later found to be operating sock puppets to disrupt other editors. That editor was restricted from discussion involving the article rescue squadron. The incidences (that deletion and the redirection of this article) happened within weeks of one another and show similar patterns. ] (]) 15:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC) ::If you go to the discussion, you will also see that other editors saw no problem with the article and thought it should be kept. An editor with administrative tools over rode their comments. There was clearly no consensus to delete the article and none to redirect it either. I am concerned because recently another decision to delete an article was made by a user, with administrative tools, who was later found to be operating sock puppets to disrupt other editors. That editor was restricted from discussion involving the article rescue squadron. The incidences (that deletion and the redirection of this article) happened within weeks of one another and show similar patterns. ] (]) 15:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Well, I just spent a lot of time on ], unsuccessfully. And I think the outcome of that was wrong, but sometimes you just have to accept that the rest of the world doesn't agree with you and move on. ] (]) 17:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:00, 6 July 2009

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 26 June 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

Deletion discussion

The result of the discussion was not to re-direct the page. A user took it on himself to redirect the page. Other users supported the page and wanted to keep it. Frei Hans (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ASIO File, near the top of the page, you will see that the closing administrator's comments include the words "The result was redirect to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation".  pablohablo. 13:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If you go to the discussion, you will also see that other editors saw no problem with the article and thought it should be kept. An editor with administrative tools over rode their comments. There was clearly no consensus to delete the article and none to redirect it either. I am concerned because recently another decision to delete an article was made by a user, with administrative tools, who was later found to be operating sock puppets to disrupt other editors. That editor was restricted from discussion involving the article rescue squadron. The incidences (that deletion and the redirection of this article) happened within weeks of one another and show similar patterns. Frei Hans (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I just spent a lot of time on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Socionics, unsuccessfully. And I think the outcome of that was wrong, but sometimes you just have to accept that the rest of the world doesn't agree with you and move on. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:ASIO File: Difference between revisions Add topic