Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A Nobody (talk | contribs) at 20:00, 5 August 2008 (added). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Cogs

Given the compelling arguments to at least redirect, could you please undelete the edit history and redirect? Plus, the nomination rationale was not policy based, but were arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT. Even others arguing to delete indicated that the material is covered elsewhere (i.e. valid redirect location) or in their subsquent comments said they agreed with a redirect. As the article was not a copy vio, hoax, or libelous, i.e. there is nothing dangerious in its edit history, we can undelete the edit history, but allow for a protected redirect as suggested even by those arguing to delete. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus on that page clearly was against a redirect, and "cogs" is far too generic a term to redirect to Toontown Online. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Near the end of the discussion, Prod suggested that "it should be a redirect to the Gears of War COGs" and I agreed. No one subsequently challenged that agreement. Moreover, if undeleted and redirected, the edit history remaining public does serve a useful purpose for anyone understanding the history of the redirect or should anyone who worked on the atricle run for adminship, non-admins participating in the RFA would be able to see their contributions. Thus, per that direction in which the discussion ended up, please undelete the edit history and redirect to List of Gears of War characters#Coalition of Ordered Governments .28C.O.G..29. I am not also opposed to some kind of relist with a section break that further considers the redirect suggestion by Prod. Also, the final post in the discussion prior to closing was this, I would have found it immensely helpful to have had at least some discussion as to how we might have possible used this information either in the article or elsewhere. Thus, even if the discussion had gone on for five days, the last couple of posts in it were starting to move in a constructive direction for some alternatives that could/should have been more thoroughly discussed, i.e. could we in fact use the kind of information suggested to in fact drastically revise the article to have this out of universe context or alternatively redirect to what Prod believed a more logical redirect location. Put simply, as deletion is a last resort, i.e. when all options for keeping in some manner have been exhausted only then do we redlink, in this case news ideas and alternatives were still be actively considered. Thus, at the end of the discussion when Prod suggested the redirect and I agreed or when he asked for sources and how they might be used and I indicated one and suggested a way of revising the article, no other editors had subsequently said at that point not to redirect or not to attempt a thorough revision of the article as suggested. I would accept an undeleted edit history and redirect, although I do think it would be helpful for the discussion to have continued to consider the new sources and redirect alternatives. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Female genital cutting

I'm curious as to why you chose to archive this discussion a full two minutes after my last comment? Am I to take this as a sign you are no longer willing to discuss the issue? Blackworm (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Nandesuka (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you being flippant, or are you genuinely confused? If the former, please advise me so I can stop good-faith attempts to communicate with you. Blackworm (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You should always try to communicate with others in good faith. I already indicated in our previous discussion that we could continue this conversation on the article's talk page. Instead of taking offense at my archiving my talk page when it gets too long, could you maybe try switching to decaf? I assure you your messages had nothing to do with my decision to archive. Nandesuka (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not quite what you said -- you said you would be willing to discuss a different issue than the one I raised on the article's Talk page. Once and for all, does that mean you have no response to the question of whether a consensus does or does not exist for the removal of the POV-title tag from Female genital cutting? Blackworm (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe a consensus exists for the removal of the POV-title tag from that article: that seems perfectly obvious to me, and I don't see how one can contest it. I am watching the article's talk page, so please direct further discussion to me there. Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)