68.211.208.217 (talk) →test: new section |
Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) Revert to revision 307366128 dated 2009-08-11 14:27:11 by Damiens.rf using popups |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
Please, stop playing the admin. You're clearly not capable for that. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Babette_March&diff=307288357&oldid=307273562 In this afd closing], you wrongly claimed that the nomination was withdrawn, when it wasn't (I know because I am the nominator). Still when you reason "''Hullaballoo Wolfowitz makes a good argument for deletion but (...) he's the only one making a delete argument.''" you committed the number one mistake on closing deletion discussion, that is consider head-counts instead of arguments. I've reverted your damage. --[[User:Damiens.rf|Damiens<small>.rf</small>]] 14:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC) |
Please, stop playing the admin. You're clearly not capable for that. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Babette_March&diff=307288357&oldid=307273562 In this afd closing], you wrongly claimed that the nomination was withdrawn, when it wasn't (I know because I am the nominator). Still when you reason "''Hullaballoo Wolfowitz makes a good argument for deletion but (...) he's the only one making a delete argument.''" you committed the number one mistake on closing deletion discussion, that is consider head-counts instead of arguments. I've reverted your damage. --[[User:Damiens.rf|Damiens<small>.rf</small>]] 14:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
== test == |
|||
test. --[[Special:Contributions/68.211.208.217|68.211.208.217]] ([[User talk:68.211.208.217|talk]]) 02:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:30, 16 August 2009
Hi RR,
At the end of the day, Cricket was the winner. Put the article I started up for deletion as I thought it didn't meet notability, particularly WP:BLP1E. Jolly good show, old bean!
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ron, I'm not sure I understand your AFD closure here. Did you close the discussion with a keep result or did you relist it, as the bottom comments seem to indicate? You've shown the result as a keep on the article talk page, with an incorrect link to the AFD discussion (which I hope I've corrected) but no indication of a relisting. Perhaps I'm not familiar with the intricacies... Thanks! Franamax (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I use a script to close AFDs and it sometimes messes up the talk page tagging and points it to the wrong debate when an article has been nominated more then once. I relisted it first and then decided to close it to avoid a repeat of this incident where I relisted a debate started by a disruptive SPA and it led to a drama storm. If someone has a "good faith" delete argument I have no problem with it being reopened or another nomination filed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- General note for anybody else who wishes to question this close. See this sockpuppet report. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've relisted the debate to let it run its course - I think a few more opinions are needed to justify any close. I respect and understand your reasoning, but per WP:RELIST I think there's no harm in getting some more input. I took your comments here and elsewhere to suggest you wouldn't object to this, so feel free to ping me with any issues. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- General note for anybody else who wishes to question this close. See this sockpuppet report. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank You
...For reverting the vandalism on my Talk Page :-). - Jeffrey Mall | Talk2Me | BNosey - 01:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for King Mondo
An editor has asked for a deletion review of King Mondo. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Exxolon (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the "keep" decision on Tamara Ecclestone and for adding the COI tag. Thanks also for letting me know. Appreciate it!Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Happy Ron Ritzman's Day!
User:Ron Ritzman has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that I have merged the relevant content from this article into the Soulja Boy Tell 'Em article. I disagree with the result of redirect here - there was more consensus for keeping/merging than redirecting. I also don't think this was suitable for a non-admin closure, which by convention should only be carried out where there is a clear consensus for keeping the article. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- A "redirect" close doesn't preclude a merge and if the content is merged, which you have done, the result would include a redirect anyway. Therefore, I see this close as compatible with what most editors were arguing for in the debate. This is in line with what WP:NAC says on the issue. It was all but obvious that no "delete" buttons were going to be pushed and that is the primary issue in AFDs. ("delete" vs. "keep/do something else") --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Pay attention
Please, stop playing the admin. You're clearly not capable for that. In this afd closing, you wrongly claimed that the nomination was withdrawn, when it wasn't (I know because I am the nominator). Still when you reason "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz makes a good argument for deletion but (...) he's the only one making a delete argument." you committed the number one mistake on closing deletion discussion, that is consider head-counts instead of arguments. I've reverted your damage. --Damiens.rf 14:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)