| Revision as of 19:50, 18 March 2007 editAjuk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,782 edits Re: bad licence← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:20, 2 December 2008 edit undoCoredesat (talk | contribs)22,795 editsm redirect | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{administrator-tan}} | |||
| {{User:Bill_Du/usertalkheader}} | |||
| {{User:Coredesat/ArchiveBox}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Just a request to add a rationale to your close. Thanks, ] 17:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure there's any need for a rationale. Closing it as delete or no consensus would have led to protests given the overwhelming number of keep arguments there (despite the fact that most of them are arguments listed in ]). --''']]''' 19:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::(--copied from my talk page) | |||
| ::So the rationale for your close was that you didn't want there to be "protests"? If that's true, would you mind reverting yourself and letting another admin close it? ] 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, it's an obvious keep. It simply can't be closed any other way, and most other admins would also have closed it as a keep. If you want to move it to Wiktionary or merge it somewhere, that's an editorial decision that can be made outside an AFD since deletion isn't involved. --''']]''' 19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::(--copied from my talk page) | |||
| ::::"it's an obvious keep" -- clearly you thought the result was "keep," I can see that. However it was not clear to me ''why''. That's why I asked you for a rationale. Even though it's obvious to you, would you mind providing one? (BTW, a result of "transwiki and delete" ''would'' require admin action.) ] 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry for interrupting but it was a clear consensus to keep. That's how it works. ] 19:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Let me explain why I asked Coredesat for his explanation. What I see when I read the AfD is an argument to delete rooted in policy, and a voteflood of keeps. I'm not asking for a reversal of the close, I'm just asking for an explanation of how the closer arrived at his conclusion. Some of the participants made thoughtful arguments, and a no-explanation close seems inappropriate. Why is my request for an explanation unreasonable? BTW, Rambling Man, feel free to provide a reason why ''you'' think the result of the AfD was a "clear" keep. ] 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Forgive me, I hate jumping in on other folk's discussions, but in this case there were 27+ supports for keeping while 6 editors opted for delete and a few sat in the mid-ground. To be honest, while Coredesat isn't providing an explanation for the keep, it's pretty clear that the WP consensus was to keep the article. At best you could optimistically have hoped for a '''no consensus''' but I think 27/6/5 typically results in a support, and why should an admin go against a clear and well-formed consensus? ] 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Consensus is not determined by a votecount. If it were, I would have "voted" myself. I didn't "vote," because the argument to delete had already been made: ]. Not only was the argument made, but every argument to keep because this wasn't "really" a dictionary article was refuted. Of course, that's just my view of it. The point I'm trying to make here is that whatever your view, this was a complicated AfD with thoughtful arguments, and the closer owes a minimal explanation to the participants. ] 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::In part, I agree, '''this is not a vote''' &tc. However, with only six opposes, including: | |||
| ::#''this article is already covered at Wiktionary'' | |||
| ::#'' - Per Nomination'' | |||
| ::#''It is written like a dictionary article.'' | |||
| ::#''This is an interesting and encyclopedically-written article'' | |||
| ::none of which really provide more than a 'per nom'. Where was the oppositional thought? What more needs to be said? ] 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::C'mon, the AfD went into a lot more than that. Read it again. Don't just look at the comments that come after the bolded votes. See the comments of, for example, Uncle G, Tikiwont, Emeraude, Sjakkalele (who recommended keep, by the way), and Sarcasticidealist, and the back-and-forth. ] 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I understand, but ultimately it's subjective and if the arguments of the six '''delete'''ists didn't outweigh the 26 '''keep'''ists then it won't be deleted. Seriously, as I've said on your talk page (apologies once again to Coredesat for squatting on his talk page for this) if you have a major problem with this, take it to ]. ] 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| All right, that's enough - Pan Dan, if you have a problem with the close, go to DRV. I'm not adding a rationale, and it's an obvious keep. AFD is not a cleanup tag. --''']]''' 22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == My apologies == | |||
| ..for butting in. Hope your talk page hasn't been unduly overwhelmed! All the best ] 22:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy Holiday Coredesat! == | |||
| {{User:UBX/St Patricks Day}} ] 23:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC). | |||
| == Misplaced Pages Weekly Notification! == | |||
| This is just a friendly reminder that ] has been released with a new episode..... 15! | |||
| The link to all versions of Misplaced Pages Weekly 14 is at | |||
| The ] version is | |||
| The ] version (non free file format but it works on an ]) is | |||
| In this edition | |||
| This episode sees Liam, more commonly known as Witty Lama, catching up with Rama’s Arrow and Ragib to talk about contributing to Misplaced Pages from and Indian and Bangladeshi perspective. Topics include their growing collection of Featured Articles, the success of the Indian WikiProject, and the problem of Internet access on the Subcontinent. | |||
| As always you can download old episodes and more at ! | |||
| Please spread the word about Misplaced Pages Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in! | |||
| For ] and the rest of the ] crew -- ] 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You are receiving this message because you are listed on ] - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list. | |||
| == Question about denying the speedy on ] == | |||
| Hello, may I please ask the reason why you denied the request for speedy deletion of ]? That disambiguation is unecessary because a disambiguation for ] already exists as ]. If you compare the already extant disambiguation ] and the recently created ] you will see that the latter only links to one unique article ]. The other article it links to is already provided in the original ] disambiguation page. Thanks so much. - ] 08:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for making it a redirect other than an unecessary double. When I tagged it I had it in mind that Admins will automatically check ] and see the already existing ] disambiguation. You are a very responsible Admin, so fast to act and deserves more awards. - ] 08:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This editor has a personal vendetta against me and has been repeatedly indefinitely blocked for disruptive behavior, yet continues to evade the blocks with sockpuppets. Please see ], ], ] --] 06:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Rickey Smith == | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ] 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Retarded Animal Babies == | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --] <small>(])</small> 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR == | |||
| Perhaps you could advise me how you would have handled the matter differently. I am not sure how I would have handled the matter differently, as I was preserving the article from POV edits.] 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, maybe you could take a look at the Talk page, and weigh in your opinion. We could always use an admin's pov (the good kind, lol). As I see it, there are two or three groups: | |||
| *the group angered by the film, and want to lessen the impact of the article; | |||
| *the group trying to get the article to FA status; | |||
| *the occasional editors who make a change here and there. | |||
| Your thoughts?] 00:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: bad licence == | |||
| The guy who took that picture, told me I could use it! | |||
Latest revision as of 08:20, 2 December 2008
Redirect to: