→About the concerns: new section |
Damiens.rf (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
::The image is not "''used''" in a user page. It's just listed on a page containing all the uploads from a certain user. --[[User:Damiens.rf|<span class="I_STALK_DAMIENS">damiens.rf</span>]] 04:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC) |
::The image is not "''used''" in a user page. It's just listed on a page containing all the uploads from a certain user. --[[User:Damiens.rf|<span class="I_STALK_DAMIENS">damiens.rf</span>]] 04:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::...and therefore it isn't orphaned. That you don't like how it is used is irrelevant. Such rationales have been shot down in other discussions as well. Once again [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] is not a valid reason for deletion; it isn't orphaned and what people do in their user space is (largely) their own business. Leave them alone. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 14:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC) |
:::...and therefore it isn't orphaned. That you don't like how it is used is irrelevant. Such rationales have been shot down in other discussions as well. Once again [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] is not a valid reason for deletion; it isn't orphaned and what people do in their user space is (largely) their own business. Leave them alone. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 14:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::Your general "''keep it of''", "''leave them alone''", etc. attitude is not compatible with a volunteer based collective project. It's no that I don't like what the user does with this image. If you were less inclined to try to guess my reasons and less driven to make a drama of every little thing, you would notice that all I am pointed out is that this image probably serves no more use in Wikimedia servers since it's not used in any article, is unlikely to be used, and is just sitting in a page where the uploader organizes his contributions. Once it gets deleted, it no longer needs to stays on that page. |
|||
:::But sometimes it's more important to win an argument that to improve the project. Wikipedia is full of these opportunities for ones like you to compensate for real life frustrations and shortcomings. Have it your way, fellow. You're a winner... here. --[[User:Damiens.rf|<span class="I_STALK_DAMIENS">damiens.rf</span>]] 19:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Hello == |
== Hello == |
Revision as of 19:13, 4 August 2011
You deleted a file voted KEEP! File:ShibeParkStamp2001.jpg
Hey, Fastily — you deleted File:ShibeParkStamp2001.jpg against the consensus! There were FOUR votes to KEEP and only THREE to delete. Please restore this image, which won the consensus Keep tally. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Hi. :) I'm not familiar with this particular debate, but I just wanted to make sure you're aware that consensus is not a headcount and deletion debates are not votes. Consensus is determined by the policy-based strength of underlying arguments. See Wikipedia:Consensus and especially WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for the clarification. :) The debate in question was really about what constitutes enhancement to the article; the Deleteers couldn't understand the value of the image, and the Keepers couldn't believe the Deleteers couldn't get it. If it's not a straight-up ballot, what makes a bot qualified to evaluate this more nuanced, abstract argument? Cordially — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I never count !votes when closing deletion debates. Rather, I weigh the effectiveness of the arguments presented by both sides against one another. I found that the reasons given to delete this file were more compelling than the reasons given to keep it. I have reviewed this discussion once again, and I stand by my closures. -FASTILY (TALK) 17:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for the clarification. :) The debate in question was really about what constitutes enhancement to the article; the Deleteers couldn't understand the value of the image, and the Keepers couldn't believe the Deleteers couldn't get it. If it's not a straight-up ballot, what makes a bot qualified to evaluate this more nuanced, abstract argument? Cordially — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
MRG/Fastily, I concur that it is not mere vote counting, but this is just another example in a long string of recent closures I find quite problematic; it's quickly becoming a trend item. Fastily is routinely going against discussion consensus or mislabeling the outcome of a discussion (as I've addressed before). In three recent cases on the same day of this deletion (File:ShandaSharer2.jpg ,File:RileySawyers.jpg, File:Robert sandifer.jpg), Fastily closed the discussions as "The result of the discussion was: No Consensus" when there was 100% opposition to the deletion. The clear result of these discussions is Keep. In other recent cases, there has been 2:1 or 3:1 support for keeping an image and Fastily has decided that the opinions of a sizable majority are meaningless and closed them as Delete. Reasonable people can disagree and Fastily should reflect that in his closures and the manner in which he annotates the results.
If this image was so close, no consensus should have been the result. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- We've already been over this. I'm more than happy to go back and annotate my closures. However, I am busy in RL, so I will be unable to do that anytime soon. If that's not going to cut it for you, then have a fun time at DRV. -FASTILY (TALK) 17:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, you talked about two other images, not these four...and since that conversation, there have been no changes in your behavior. I understand we all may be busy IRL, but you've still managed to make other contributions (so, it seems to me that you do have enough time to make a few annotation changes...nearly 50 edits in the past 24 hrs). Furthermore, this isn't merely about improper annotation any more. This is about consensus and you acting in a contradictory manner to consensus (even when you ar outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1!). Buffs (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- To aid in this discussion, here's the link to the deletion debate. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
So your response is ignoring us/our requests? You've managed 100+ contributions in the past 2 days, but not a single response to either of us, so "I am busy in RL, so I will be unable to do that anytime soon" just doesn't hold water. Buffs (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion discussions are not votes; the strength of the commenters' arguments is more important than the number of people who !vote (which means "NOT vote" by the way) in the discussion. Personally, I feel that Fastily did an adequete job of weighing the arguments. You also said earlier that the discussion was about what "constitutes enhancement to the article". It was actually about what "constitutes enhancement to the article sufficient enough to use a non-free image in a free encyclopedia" Full disclosure: I did participate in that discussion. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of deletion discussions. Simply counting !votes isn't the entire story, but when a 2 or 3 to 1 majority supports keeping an image as they believe it meets all NFCC criteria (while the others don't), it comes down to whether an opinion (which is all this is) has support. In this case, reasonable people can disagree, but when reasonable people in a minority are elevated above that of the reasonable opinions of a majority, it smacks of elitism. If it were closer and other opinions could be discounted (i.e. "I think the image is great! Keep it!" or "That's just a stupid image, delete it."), it's at that point that the majority opinion should take precedence over what the closer personally likes. Recently, Fastily has closed several clearly Keep majorities as "the result of the discussion was no consensus/delete when, in fact the discussion said nothing of the kind. He is welcome to his opinions, but if he is going to discount all those who disagree with him personally and act the way he wants, then why bother having a discussion at all? Buffs (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, yes, can you userify that copy for me, so I can continue working on it. Thank you very much, and also I would thank your help on it. Regards, Pravdaverita (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Done at User:Pravdaverita/Sonorama -FASTILY (TALK) 00:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Fastly, I have already improved it and done some changes, what else should I do? Regards, Pravdaverita (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Review
Please, go back and delete it. Pay more attention to the deletion discussions you close. Alternatively, give us some arrogant post-confabulation about how perfect your action was. --damiens.rf 14:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I was asked by Fastily to comment on this image, but I see little reason to do so. The image was not orphaned as damiens claimed and the quality of the image on a user page is pretty much irrelevant. I saw no valid reason for deletion. The tone of the above message smacks of elitism, but I concede that this may simply be poorly worded sarcasm/a misinterpretation on my part. In any case, the nomination was intentionally flawed (damiens has offered no mea culpa or "whoops!" message) and 2 people felt that the nomination did not have merit versus his 3-word nomination. Consensus of those who participated in the discussion was pretty cleraly keep and it should remain so.
- If this is merely a pointed editorial comment in response to my other contributions, knock it off; last warning. The snide remarks are not civil/helpful and you know it. Buffs (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- The image is not "used" in a user page. It's just listed on a page containing all the uploads from a certain user. --damiens.rf 04:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- ...and therefore it isn't orphaned. That you don't like how it is used is irrelevant. Such rationales have been shot down in other discussions as well. Once again WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion; it isn't orphaned and what people do in their user space is (largely) their own business. Leave them alone. Buffs (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Your general "keep it of", "leave them alone", etc. attitude is not compatible with a volunteer based collective project. It's no that I don't like what the user does with this image. If you were less inclined to try to guess my reasons and less driven to make a drama of every little thing, you would notice that all I am pointed out is that this image probably serves no more use in Wikimedia servers since it's not used in any article, is unlikely to be used, and is just sitting in a page where the uploader organizes his contributions. Once it gets deleted, it no longer needs to stays on that page.
- But sometimes it's more important to win an argument that to improve the project. Wikipedia is full of these opportunities for ones like you to compensate for real life frustrations and shortcomings. Have it your way, fellow. You're a winner... here. --damiens.rf 19:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- The image is not "used" in a user page. It's just listed on a page containing all the uploads from a certain user. --damiens.rf 04:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Fastily,
I'm retiring from Wikipedia, and I request all of my subpages, except for my own userpage and talk page, to be deleted. Anything in my userpace but those two.
I have known you as a reliable administrator; can you do the favor for me?
Thanks. Bryce Wilson | talk 16:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Done. I left a few pages (you can see them at Special:PrefixIndex/User:B.wilson), which are for css/js settings and a couple other things. If you also want them deleted, feel free to ask. If you ever want to return, let someone know if you want your user subpages restored. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
About the concerns
Dear Fastly
Did you have a good idea about the concerns, or do you need more data? Thanks --Yamsahh (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)