Revision as of 18:58, 1 November 2011 editJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,501 edits →I responded: r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:37, 17 January 2025 edit undoJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,501 edits →Appealing against deletion?: r | ||
(998 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 15 | ||
|algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
|minthreadsleft = 1 | |||
|archive = User talk:Jclemens/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Jclemens/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{archivebox|auto=yes}} | {{archivebox|auto=yes}} | ||
I'm no longer an administrator, so if you're looking for someone to undelete something I deleted, you'd be better off asking at ] | |||
{{User:Jclemens/icons}} | |||
'''Welcome, correspondents''' | |||
'''If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please ]''' and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary. | |||
<br>'''N.B.''' I don't respond well to either fawning or abuse. Talk to me like a peer, assume good faith, and you'll find I reciprocate in my helpfulness. | |||
'''Functionary Assistance''' My ability to help as a checkuser, oversighter, or arbitrator in individual matters is currently limited by my positional and non-Misplaced Pages obligations. For non-trivial assistance, especially that which requires extensive consideration of private correspondence, you will likely get a faster response by asking another functionary. | |||
'''Position Essays''' may help you understand my point of view with regard to... | '''Position Essays''' may help you understand my point of view with regard to... | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
== Appealing against deletion? == | |||
'''Administrator Goals''' | |||
Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:<br> | |||
] | |||
== I don't understand your reasoning here... == | |||
In your vote on WMC's request , it would be helpful if you could clarify your reasoning. It ''looks'' like you're punishing WMC because you dislike the behaviour of other parties to the case (and other individuals who have commented on his request, or who are involved in the topic area); I hope that that wasn't your intent, but it is difficult to read your "group of people" and "public tug-of-war" comments any other way. | |||
You also wrote about "lifting sanctions" (actually, just a reduction) sending "a particularly bad message". Can you elaborate on what you mean by that? WMC was sanctioned by the ArbCom. After he has spent nearly a year without causing trouble, ''and continued to contribute extensively and positively to the project'', he has asked for another chance to edit in an area where he has personal expertise, with the awareness that his conduct will be closely monitored. This is not an instance where a troublemaker has been subject to multiple topic bans and returned to disrupt the project after the expiry of each. Is "the ArbCom admits that it is possible for editors to reform their behaviour" really such a terrible message? ](]) 04:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
''*ping*'' I'm not sure if you saw that I had left this message; I'm still hoping you'll take the time to clarify, elaborate on, or revise your comment. ](]) 04:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Though the motion has been resolved, I was still hoping you might elaborate on your reasoning...? ](]) 13:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
I found it a little troubling that you scolded RAP for his incivility, but let the comments by others pass, especially given that Moni3 at one point went so far as to say . I've been trying to keep the conversation on-point and the tone moderate, but frankly as far as I'm concerned at least three of the contributors there have behaved somewhat inappropriately; I don't think it's prudent to scold one while letting the others' comments pass. ] (]) 12:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Really? == | |||
I'm surprised you only put Rusted AutoParts on notice ]. Moni's behavior is terrible, why have you ignored it? I left her a warning.--v/r - ]] 13:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Indeed, it was. I considered making it mutual, but decided against it. One of the nice thing about putting someone "on notice" is that it also removes me from actually having to block anyone, though. ] (]) 04:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Notice == | |||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>|<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 21:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Wow, what a lot of text. I don't see any reason to pop in there, but if anyone has a question they'd like me to answer, I'm available. ] (]) 04:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::No idea (wasn't really following it, and not involved in it at all)... I just noticed people weren't notified, suggested it there, and SandyGeorgia and I went about notifying those who were not. Best, Rob <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>|<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 05:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::It's kind of amusing, actually, that an offhanded "shape up!" remark generated that much interest, and that no one prior to you had even bothered to notify me of the bonfire I'd inadvertently sparked. As anyone can see from my contribution history, I've not been very active on-wiki as of late, (been wordsmithing the accursed Abortion proposed decision more than actually doing anything fun...) and I don't regularly read ANI anyway, so I might have missed it entirely had you not seen fit to mention it to me. ] (]) 05:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
* We now have some procedural wrangling at ]. Please can you help advise on the best way forward. ] (]) 11:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
**Odds are that I will have some time to look into this in 14ish hours. For now, if everyone can be polite and source things like they should have been all along, and agree to a reasonable pace for doing so, there shouldn't need to be any more issues. ] (]) 13:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Is my draft attempt at reducing core policies to simple language by furnishing the ''reasons'' for them. Feel free to tear it apart. Cheers. ] (]) 16:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:The problem with those is that everyone sees things differently. On first blush, yours looks mostly OK, although I would have said some things in entirely different ways. I'll see if I can get you more detailed feedback, but I'm up to my alligators in eyeballs. ] (]) 01:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Will Beback made a lot of changes - I rewrote a bit to make it as clear as possible, but when your eyeballs clear <g> yor input would be invaluable. Also anyone else who is lurking and wishes to see Misplaced Pages be made comprehensible to non-lawyers. Cheers. ] (]) 13:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Appending: It was sort of nice to see my suggestion about the "double or nothing" rule being adopted <g>. Cheers. ] (]) 13:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Can I ask you for some advice? My was ]. (It was redirected, but in effect it was deleted.) You were the only person who voted to keep it. Is there anything I can do to appeal against the deletion? I don't think the process was very fair. Some of the votes were cast when the article was still a stub and before I had had a chance to expand it; other votes relied on arguments that are in my view questionable. It was also a non-admin closure (if that matters). ] (]) 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== I responded == | |||
:Hello again. I decided to request a deletion review: ]. ] (]) 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I just now responded to something you wrote on my talk page by asking you a question. Since the discussion is really long and it was many hours ago when you wrote, I wanted to leave you a note here to make sure you see it, because I'm very curious to learn your answer.--] (]) 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
::So, DRV isn't looking terribly positive, but I'd argue that a NAC DRV with no consensus should be overturned. If it's not, then feel free to find and add more content and unredirect. Unfortunately DRV is being rather stupid about not assessing the validity of arguments made lately--the notion that an RS has to mention a topic by name is improper, but no one is engaging with that critique. ] (]) 21:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks, will do! ] (]) 18:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 21:37, 17 January 2025
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
I'm no longer an administrator, so if you're looking for someone to undelete something I deleted, you'd be better off asking at WP:REFUND
Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...
Appealing against deletion?
Can I ask you for some advice? My article about Chokobsa was deleted today. (It was redirected, but in effect it was deleted.) You were the only person who voted to keep it. Is there anything I can do to appeal against the deletion? I don't think the process was very fair. Some of the votes were cast when the article was still a stub and before I had had a chance to expand it; other votes relied on arguments that are in my view questionable. It was also a non-admin closure (if that matters). Khiikiat (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello again. I decided to request a deletion review: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2025 January 16#Chakobsa (Dune). Khiikiat (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, DRV isn't looking terribly positive, but I'd argue that a NAC DRV with no consensus should be overturned. If it's not, then feel free to find and add more content and unredirect. Unfortunately DRV is being rather stupid about not assessing the validity of arguments made lately--the notion that an RS has to mention a topic by name is improper, but no one is engaging with that critique. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)