| Revision as of 02:55, 13 December 2007 editThe undertow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,802 edits →Talk Page: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:01, 13 December 2007 edit undoRMHED (talk | contribs)15,716 edits →Talk PageNext edit → | ||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
| Is there a particular conversation you need from my talk page? I'm curious as to why you are so interested in the restoration. Were we in the middle of an important discussion? ] ] 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | Is there a particular conversation you need from my talk page? I'm curious as to why you are so interested in the restoration. Were we in the middle of an important discussion? ] ] 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *Nope I've never posted on your talk page, I just think policies regarding deletion of User Talk pages should be followed. If a non-admin wanted their talk page deleted there would have to be a very good reason for allowing it, so it would be nice to see policy applied evenly to all. Nothing personal against you, just in the spirit of equality for the masses. ] (]) 03:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:01, 13 December 2007
|
|
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Postal Dude (Postal)
Per the deletion process, ambiguous closes should be left to an administrator. This was one of those cases; as such I have reversed your closing. I (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- In what way was it ambiguous? An Admin does not have any greater insight than other editors.WP:DPR#NAC is a guideline and not an official policy and guidelines are malleable. My regards to you. RMHED 01:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was ambiguous in that it wasn't clearly obvious to anyone. While an admin does not neccesarily have any greater insight, their insight has been deemed trustworthy through RfA. In ambiguous cases, the closer's opinion and ability needs to be vetted, an admins have that. Non admins don't always. Also, just because it's a guideline and policy does not mean it can just be disregarded; it still represents consensus. I (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good answer, but remember that an admin is "vetted" primarily because of the powers of deletion and blocking they are entrusted with. Ambiguity by its very nature is ambiguous, where some might see ambiguity others might see a clear result. If you weren't a participant in the AfD how would you have closed it? RMHED 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- They've been vetted by passing an RfA. How I would have closed it is neither here nor there, but I probably would have relisted it to see what other people thought of the sources that were there. I (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good answer, but remember that an admin is "vetted" primarily because of the powers of deletion and blocking they are entrusted with. Ambiguity by its very nature is ambiguous, where some might see ambiguity others might see a clear result. If you weren't a participant in the AfD how would you have closed it? RMHED 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer, nicely thought out. RMHED 13:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was ambiguous in that it wasn't clearly obvious to anyone. While an admin does not neccesarily have any greater insight, their insight has been deemed trustworthy through RfA. In ambiguous cases, the closer's opinion and ability needs to be vetted, an admins have that. Non admins don't always. Also, just because it's a guideline and policy does not mean it can just be disregarded; it still represents consensus. I (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review on Raccoon Police Department
An AfD in which you commented has been brought to Deletion Review, You may wish to comment there. DGG (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know,
I doubt I'll make a comment though.RMHED 13:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)- I couldn't resist. RMHED 21:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Gerald Gustafson
Done. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Tom (talk - email) 04:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Talk Page
Is there a particular conversation you need from my talk page? I'm curious as to why you are so interested in the restoration. Were we in the middle of an important discussion? the_undertow 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nope I've never posted on your talk page, I just think policies regarding deletion of User Talk pages should be followed. If a non-admin wanted their talk page deleted there would have to be a very good reason for allowing it, so it would be nice to see policy applied evenly to all. Nothing personal against you, just in the spirit of equality for the masses. RMHED (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)