Michael Hardy (talk | contribs) |
m →More on this: comment |
||
Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
::Oleg, Sr13's deletion of this article was not a good-faith edit; it was vandalism. To delete speedily when some users are arguing in favor of keeping the article is clearly forbidden. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
::Oleg, Sr13's deletion of this article was not a good-faith edit; it was vandalism. To delete speedily when some users are arguing in favor of keeping the article is clearly forbidden. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::I want to point out Michael's edit summary for the article: ''I've restored this after it was deleted improperly before discussion. No notice appeared at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and the "speedy" deletion was absurd.)'' Listing it at a project talk page isn't a requirement of the AFD process. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] 03:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:31, 6 August 2007
Welcome!
Hello, Singularity, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Michaelas10 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Copied from User:Sr13
Hello. Please, please e-mail me regarding a Wikipedia article. My e-mail address is healy971[at]hotmail[dot]com. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.71.94 (talk • contribs)
Aikido Shinju-kai
Hi, I noticed you delete the article on Aikido Shinju-kai earlier this month. The reason given by 3 members of the community was that it was not a notable Aikido club. In fact, Aikido Shinju-kai is the largest Aikido organisation in Singapore with over 5000 members and 60 dojo in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and China. The reason that there was very little information being updated was because I was trying to rally more aikidoka from the regions to assist. If I had started it of wrongly, I would really appreciate your assistance in helping make the page more informative to both local, regional and international students to understand about Aikido and us.
Deletion closings
I feel most of the early closes I made were entirely justified as snowballs, even if I didn't say so all the time (past the third day or so, I think that logic no longer applies, and I had been following that day's log closely since the 23rd and could see where some discussions had just lost steam and consensus was pretty well established. I left some where early consensus could have been called, like Amateur radio in popular culture open despite a strong early consensus because there were a few keep votes that might have picked up; I see it was closed as delete (as I would have) today. In my experience as a newpage patroller, debates were often closed without explicit mention of WP:SNOW after two or three days if a consensus had been reached and no one was contributing to the discussion anymore.
Any ones in particular you think I closed a little hastily? Daniel Case 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I already got one from him ... and that was after one I let sit for a full six days watching how consensus was developing. He's a great editor, writing from an older perspective which is not found as much here, but I wonder if he sends these grouchy comments to any admin who closes on an article he wants to keep. There's borderline incivility there, and if he keeps it up it could lead to an RfC someday. Granted, you have a point about how an early close in a not-entirely-snowball case could lead to an overturn in DRV.
I did this partly because when I started closing AfDs a week or so after getting made :-) at the beginning of the month, there was a backlog of almost a week's worth over and above the current week. Within some of the AfDs reaching their five-day limit were some that should have been closed as obvious speedys and snowballs, ones where no one was improving the article (if there's a chance of WP:HEY, I let it stay open). So I started working on a single day's worth, moving to the newest day when those were done (a lot of July 17 closes were mine; so I started with the 23rd when that rolled up and it looks like I can start with the 28th soon). It seems we're a bit more caught up now.
I think just looking at all the five-day old ones and making snap decisions can be injurious to the process, too: it seems to me that some lengthy, involved debates are quickly closed as "no consensus" after five days because that's easier than really trying to determine what it was, which isn't fair to the participants; also, some debates which should be relisted are instead closed (often as deletes) because that's easier ... well, two delete votes for a non-speedy deletion are not enough for me to consider consensus in an encylopedia with thousands of editors. Also, by not watching a discussion shake out, it would be easier for someone to get a bunhc of last-minute sock or meat votes in, as some of a discussion's initial participants aren't always around to watch.
Just my thoughts on how to approach AfDs. Daniel Case 04:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
speedy delete of page
Thanks for speedily deleting the project page that I messed up. Appreciate it. Pandacomics 08:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
question on userfication
Is there a quicker way to userfy an article that's been speedied? I restore the article, move to user's space, then delete the resultant redirect. Seems like there must be a faster way, just asking. Had it come up twice this weekend. Carlossuarez46 02:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - can you explain your reasons for concluding this debate as redirect, rather than delete? I realise AfD isn't a vote, but five calls to delete against just two to redirect would seem to be to be consensus. I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand more about the AfD process. – Tivedshambo (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
News from Citizendium article (formatting)
Hi Sr13,
Thanks for taking a look at the footnote formatting for my Signpost article. I actually may leave them 'big' since a lot of content ended up there and I don't want to strain any eyeballs. :)
Best, --Johnsonmx 07:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete empty dab.
Please, delete Systemic Anomaly per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemic Anomaly (Error). Thanks! --Abu badali (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Hi, Sr13, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy UCP 04:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Stroller history Error
I challenge the decision to "delete all", particularly since only one of the persons in the discussion voted to delete all three articles. Not only is it clear that those persons who were voting to delete were talking about the poorly written article "Stroller safety", there is no suggestion that anyone commented on the other two articles, and even comments made that the. I think one needs to be more careful when you get a nominator who likes to "piggyback" several articles onto one nomination. How do I get a deletion review? The decision on this one does NOT reflect the discussion at all. I realize that you administrators have hundreds of these debates to run through, but this is erroneous. Thank you. Mandsford 12:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Mandsford 00:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Jim Behrle and others
Hi Sr13 -- you were the nearest admin I could find. Ill advisedly, an article was created about this guy Jim Behrle, and he's very mad and upset and kind of flipping out. I am putting db-attack on the pages, but it's all sort of a mess (he started doing page moves.) Can you help? Sdedeo (tips) 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Frenzy LiveCD article
I am developer of this LiveCD :) Why this article was deleted? Yes, it is temporarily not developed, but is quite useful, especially in Russia and Ukraine. You may see this article in Russian wikipedia: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenzy . If Russian article fits Wikipedia rules, may I translate it to English and put instead old article?
Lists of fictional things
Hi, I would like to hear your reasoning behind the closure of this discussion as "delete". Kappa 03:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I am also concerned about this closure. I was actually in the process of composing an argument to keep earlier today when I noticed that the page link became red when after I hit the "show preview" button. DGG, Mister.Manticore actually based their arguments on the content of the article (which was an index to various lists on Wikipedia), while the delete arguments, even after ignoring the many variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, were largely based on the flawed idea that the list was designed to be an all-inclusive list of every fictional thing that has ever been conceived of. I'm also concerned about what appears to be an ongoing lack of respect in AfD for the WP:CONSENSUS of the hundreds of editors who built this article and others like it over for the last few years in good faith, and who continually underrepresented in current AfD discussions. DHowell 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Taking the article to deletion review seems best here, if you believe the closure was incorrect. Sr13 08:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Complaint:
WHY HAS MY PAGE BEEN TAKEN DOWN AFTER AN HOUR? I DIDNT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO TRY TO MAKE IT SOMEHOW FALL UNDER YOUR DEFINITION OF RELEVANCE, THERE ARE TONS OF PAGES ABOUT INSIGNIFICANT MUSICAL ACTS THAT WILL STAY UP FOREVER BUT MY PAGE GETS DELETED IN AN HOUR????— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmoviestinks (talk • contribs)
- Hi, I have moved this comment from the top of the page to it's own section. --HAL2008talk 17:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Class for This Year
And bingo was his name oh 08:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC) What team are you in? I'm in 7Z in Higgings hall.
GlobalBeauties World Rankings - ooops!
Can you please tell me why when you closed this AFD you didn't go ahead and delete the image? Anyway, I've just tagged it for speedy deletion.... just thought I'd let you know. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 09:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- My bad. Sr13 is almost Singularity 18:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- And I called the article an image :P PageantUpdater talk • contribs 23:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
improper deletion
Excerpt from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents:
Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture
Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture was improperly deleted and I have restored it. A regular AFD nomination was begun at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture and someone deleted the article in the early stage of discussion. User:Kurykh and User:Sr13 appear very very hostile to Wikipedia's conventional norms and procedures. The latter's edit summary when he deleted it was dishonest, stating that it was done "after discussion". Michael Hardy 02:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
end of excerpt
"Because I don't understand it and I don't like it" is not grounds for speedy deletion. Saying that something has been deleted "after discussion" when the discussion is only three days old and the communities that may be interested in the article have not been notified is dishonest. Michael Hardy 03:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Just a note. I would suggest that you let discussions stay for full five days before closing them. Both at 1000000000000 (number) and at Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture apparently people got upset that the discussion was closed prematurely. Even if the outcome is clear, following process is a good idea I think. Thanks. You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oleg, Sr13's deletion of this article was not a good-faith edit; it was vandalism. To delete speedily when some users are arguing in favor of keeping the article is clearly forbidden. Michael Hardy 03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I want to point out Michael's edit summary for the article: I've restored this after it was deleted improperly before discussion. No notice appeared at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and the "speedy" deletion was absurd.) Listing it at a project talk page isn't a requirement of the AFD process. RobJ1981 03:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oleg, Sr13's deletion of this article was not a good-faith edit; it was vandalism. To delete speedily when some users are arguing in favor of keeping the article is clearly forbidden. Michael Hardy 03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)