 |
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
[edit] Thank you
The Barnstar | My RFA | Design by L'Aquatique
 |
|
The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar |
Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed,
all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced.
—Mizu onna sango15Hello!
|
[edit] Deletion of DCJamRecords
Hello, A while back I tried to set up a wikipedia page and it was blocked. I would very much like to have another chance to try again as I was not intentionally trying to advertise anything. I believe I can make it more generic this time around and thus keep it within your guidelines. Thank you so much for your consideration to this matter. Darron Hemann submissions@dcjamrecords.com
[edit] Schedule deleted
Why did you delete the construction scheduling page. I can assure you this a relevant topic to an encylapedia as well as the topic of many researchers in addition to professionals. I think your decision to delete was hasty, based on opinion, and did not consult anyone that had any knowledge of the topic. Please restore the page Granite07 (talk)
[edit] Help me
{{adminhelp}}
The following page was put up for speedy deletion: Anthony Weiner photo scandal. That page also had a Talk Page (Talk:Anthony Weiner photo scandal), on which editors could object to or support the speedy deletion. When I last read that Talk Page a few moments ago, there were about a dozen people who opposed the speedy deletion ... and perhaps only one person who did not oppose it. Then, an editor named User:Jonny-mt deleted the article. And now, that Talk Page -- and all of its discussion -- is nowhere to be found. Where can I find that Talk Page that was deleted? And, how can he (User:Jonny-mt) delete the page when the opponents to deletion outnumbered the supporters by 12 to 1? What would be the point of having the discussion then, if User:Jonny-mt can ignore and unilaterally override it? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC))
- (edit conflict)
- Hi there,
- The short answer is that I speedy deleted the page based on established, rigid criteria. While you are correct there were a number of voices opposing the move, the comments were not based on existing policy and guidelines. Most importantly, none of them addressed the most critical issue--specifically, the articles were virtually word-for-word copies of content that exists elsewhere.
- I hope this helps clarify why I deleted the pages. I only have time for a short response right now, but I'm happy to provide a more detailed response a bit later if you like. (Incidentally, I removed the template above; you got my attention just by writing on my talk page.) --jonny-mt 07:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Jonny, I don't think this was A10-able. To quote from policy "where the title is not a plausible redirect". As you yourself created redirects after deletion, it's hard to claim that these weren't plausible redirects. Might I suggest restoring the talk page and article, but leaving the article as a fully protected redirect until consensus develops? Rami R 07:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
-
- I don't know how plausible those terms are--I set up the redirects more so the current editors wouldn't find themselves staring at an empty page with a deletion log--but I think your suggestion is reasonable. I'll take care of that now. --jonny-mt 07:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
-
-
 Y Done --jonny-mt 08:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lowellian,
Thanks for your attention on the Anthony Weiner item. However, I strongly disagree with your position--PROD status does not impact whether something is speediable or not. I restored the history and temporarily protected the redirect per a discussion on my talk page, and I wish you had contacted me before undoing my admin actions. --jonny-mt 00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- The PROD template clearly states that "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." The implication of the template not being replaceable is also that, if the template is removed, the article is not readily deletable without first seeking consensus. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions, and the deletion of that article was unmistakably controversial, with statements of both support for deletion and opposition to deletion from multiple users. The PROD was disputed and the template removed by another user (User:Wikipedical), so at that point, with no clear consensus to delete, further action to delete the article should have been through AFD. Redirecting the article was an effective unilateral deletion without due process and enforcing that effective no-process deletion by protecting the redirect was an abuse of admin powers, one that you did not reverse even after protest from yet another user (User:Joseph A. Spadaro). The admin action was wrong, and as such, I reversed it and left notes on both Talk:Anthony Weiner and Talk:Anthony Weiner photo scandal. —Lowellian (reply) 01:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- The version of the article I deleted was this one. PROD was removed, but CSD was still there, and I determined that it fell under WP:CSD#A10 (compare this to the original article at the time). Removing a PROD does not impact whether something is speediable by either policy or implication. CSD relies solely on whether or not the admin evaluating the request thinks the article fulfills the criteria as outlined in the policy at that time. I determined that it did, so I deleted the article.
- Following the deletion, I received some additional feedback. I thought the proposed approach was sensible, so I did it. Then you undid part of it. I don't object to that, but I would have appreciated you contacting me first.
- That being said, I do object to your accusation that I "abused" the tools. When you protect a page you're editing, you abuse the tools. When you block someone you're in a conflict with, you abuse the tools. When you delete a page because you don't like it, you abuse the tools. When you decide to use the tools in a way that you think will help the project, you are fulfilling your role as an admin. Three admins came to three different conclusions on what to do with this article. I'm human and I make mistakes, but even my mistakes are made in good faith. --jonny-mt 14:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions. Quoting from WP:SPEEDY, "the criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media." The removal of the PROD and the comments on the talk pages showed no such broad consensus. Moreover, "speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." The article certainly does not "have no practical chance of surviving discussion", as shown by the AFD. The abuse lines in the fact that deletion and page protection are both admin-only powers, actions not reversible by non-admins, and thus using those powers in this situation was bypassing process and railroading through a deletion over the objections of ordinary (non-admin) editors. —Lowellian (reply) 16:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] please provide me with the images Image:Image-tism1985demotapesidea.jpg and Image:Image-tism1985demotapesideb.jpg
I would like to see the images and upload them to my own TISM wiki (tism.referata.com). FokkerTISM 22:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit
As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.
You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC).
|
