User talk:Coredesat: Difference between revisions
→Stokke: ? |
→Stokke: reply |
||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
:::::Well, it comes down to two things - one side argued in policy, the other not so much. Did the article meet every relevant policy? Yes, this isn't in question, and those saying otherwise should have been weighted properly. Once you take those into effect, what's left? "We shouldn't have this article." "WP:DIGNITY" (a contentious ''essay''). "Delete please...". I mean, I'd like to see one policy-guided comment that made any sense toward deletion that wasn't addressed at some point. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 02:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC) |
:::::Well, it comes down to two things - one side argued in policy, the other not so much. Did the article meet every relevant policy? Yes, this isn't in question, and those saying otherwise should have been weighted properly. Once you take those into effect, what's left? "We shouldn't have this article." "WP:DIGNITY" (a contentious ''essay''). "Delete please...". I mean, I'd like to see one policy-guided comment that made any sense toward deletion that wasn't addressed at some point. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 02:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::::Is it safe to assume I won't be getting a response to this, Coredesat? No wrong answer here, but it'll definitely help me consider whether DRV is the route to go here. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 03:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC) |
::::::Is it safe to assume I won't be getting a response to this, Coredesat? No wrong answer here, but it'll definitely help me consider whether DRV is the route to go here. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 03:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::::I added clarification to the AFD close statement, but I didn't change the close. DRV away if you want. --[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<font color="#006449">desat</font>]] 03:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Stokke AFD closure == |
== Stokke AFD closure == |
||
Revision as of 03:41, 9 June 2007
On BJAODN
I don't understand why you believe that BJAODN pages necessarily violate the GFDL. If Jeffrey O Gustafson's intentions were pure, he would have done the work to make the pages compliant with *his interpretation* of the GFDL by merging edit histories, or selectively deleted content that could not be properly sourced. Instead he unilaterally deleted the pages and wheel-warred to protect his action. --The Cunctator 22:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 23 | 4 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
ah life
Does this[1] mean I don't have to search for the correct vandal warning template?[2] KP Botany 00:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- You know, this will be bad for my ego in the long run that you could block him faster than I could warn him. KP Botany 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Good one
Nicely done. You did the right thing, so now you get to prepare for several hundred people complaining at you about it. :) Friday (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Stokke
May I ask how you came to the conclusion that inclusion of reliably sourced material could ever be defamatory? I can understand saying this is the sort of material that we don't want in Wikipedia but it is inaccurate and unhelpful to call the material in question defamatory. JoshuaZ 02:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm much happier with your clarified close if I understand it correctly. JoshuaZ 02:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not to mention that you apparently ignored a whole bunch of arguments to reach the decision, not to mention misrepresented discussion at the talk page of the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- DRV is thataway. I stand behind my decision, I looked at both sides and tried to see which side was stronger. I expected this would happen no matter what decision I made. --Coredesat 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Will probably be heading there by someone, if not me. I'm just not sure how you could possibly consider the delete side stronger - every argument they made was throughly debunked. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Coredesat stepped up and made a difficult decision on this article. As he suggests, had he gone the other way people surely would have posted here saying "I'm just not sure how you could possibly consider the keep side stronger." The fact is there were reasonable arguments both for keep and for delete. These arguments were only "thoroughly debunked" if you were of the opposing position. I hope editors don't give Coredesat too much slack for closing out this highly contentious AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it comes down to two things - one side argued in policy, the other not so much. Did the article meet every relevant policy? Yes, this isn't in question, and those saying otherwise should have been weighted properly. Once you take those into effect, what's left? "We shouldn't have this article." "WP:DIGNITY" (a contentious essay). "Delete please...". I mean, I'd like to see one policy-guided comment that made any sense toward deletion that wasn't addressed at some point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Is it safe to assume I won't be getting a response to this, Coredesat? No wrong answer here, but it'll definitely help me consider whether DRV is the route to go here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I added clarification to the AFD close statement, but I didn't change the close. DRV away if you want. --Coredesat 03:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Is it safe to assume I won't be getting a response to this, Coredesat? No wrong answer here, but it'll definitely help me consider whether DRV is the route to go here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it comes down to two things - one side argued in policy, the other not so much. Did the article meet every relevant policy? Yes, this isn't in question, and those saying otherwise should have been weighted properly. Once you take those into effect, what's left? "We shouldn't have this article." "WP:DIGNITY" (a contentious essay). "Delete please...". I mean, I'd like to see one policy-guided comment that made any sense toward deletion that wasn't addressed at some point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Coredesat stepped up and made a difficult decision on this article. As he suggests, had he gone the other way people surely would have posted here saying "I'm just not sure how you could possibly consider the keep side stronger." The fact is there were reasonable arguments both for keep and for delete. These arguments were only "thoroughly debunked" if you were of the opposing position. I hope editors don't give Coredesat too much slack for closing out this highly contentious AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Will probably be heading there by someone, if not me. I'm just not sure how you could possibly consider the delete side stronger - every argument they made was throughly debunked. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- DRV is thataway. I stand behind my decision, I looked at both sides and tried to see which side was stronger. I expected this would happen no matter what decision I made. --Coredesat 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Stokke AFD closure
Well done on stepping forward to close an AFD that will soon enough result in drama. Enjoy this set of balls — and remember, only a few people are willing to subject themselves to such scrutiny. (messedrocker • talk) 02:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 02:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)