User talk:Timotheus Canens: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Curb Chain (talk | contribs) |
Curb Chain (talk | contribs) →"list of important publications in ..." AfDs: fixing break |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
:I'm unwilling to stretch the meaning of the word "consensus" far enough to reach a delete conclusion. In any event, the primary argument that "important" is inherently OR has been substantially challenged by those on the keep side. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens#top|talk]]) 17:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
:I'm unwilling to stretch the meaning of the word "consensus" far enough to reach a delete conclusion. In any event, the primary argument that "important" is inherently OR has been substantially challenged by those on the keep side. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens#top|talk]]) 17:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
::Well the articles have been relisted except for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security]]. I'm not asking your to stretch consensus to make discussion result in deletion. I'm asking you to provide a rationale for deletion, because on deletion discussion, we assess the merits of arguments, not (by) counting disagreement within the debate. |
::Well the articles have been relisted except for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security]]. I'm not asking your to stretch consensus to make discussion result in deletion. I'm asking you to provide a rationale for deletion, because on deletion discussion, we assess the merits of arguments, not (by) counting disagreement within the debate. |
||
::You may have merit in stating "In any event, the primary argument that "important" is inherently OR has been substantially challenged by those on the keep side.", but in list articles which the inclusion criteria that is there on the lists, such topics must have sources that show that such a topic has been mentioned resulting in notability. You haven't provided such an argument for closing |
::You may have merit in stating "In any event, the primary argument that "important" is inherently OR has been substantially challenged by those on the keep side.", but in list articles which the inclusion criteria that is there on the lists, such topics must have sources that show that such a topic has been mentioned resulting in notability. You haven't provided such an argument for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security.[[User:Curb Chain|Curb Chain]] ([[User talk:Curb Chain|talk]]) 18:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security.[[User:Curb Chain|Curb Chain]] ([[User talk:Curb Chain|talk]]) 18:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== About [[Equestria Daily]] == |
== About [[Equestria Daily]] == |
||
Revision as of 18:14, 8 October 2011
 | This administrator has volunteered for an administrator review. You may comment on his or her administrative actions at Wikipedia:Administrator review/Timotheus Canens. |
 | If you are interested in trying Kissle, edit the dedicated "requests" section below. Please leave bug reports and feature requests on this page. Thanks. |
| My off-wiki communications policy: I prefer, to the extent possible, that all communications regarding a Wikimedia matter be done on-wiki for the sake of transparency. If there is a compelling reason why it should be done off-wiki, you may email me or talk to me on IRC, but:
|
Please click here to leave me a new message.
|
Archives
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
| AfC submissions Random submission |
| 3+ months |
| to update |
Notes
| Notes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| PGP key |
|---|
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) mQENBFDdJN0BCADjDFGKV41olt0YbRaxABn319KM8idSEt5KGMI5S7R1te5zlf24 QpHbMKJm46M1ZlvRsOtD7PRUOVXFSYE4jm7THfGJcqXjkdu7k6nbZxuKe3LDJdQv 9bc0zbUFO+gusmBR6xZMM2l0e23mRXKroB6KfawGq6o4OBPhqjx8u9TkxpwlIhCs aMe97XGQOoPf7h20K+vlekItzyx87/U7oIsKGBwSF4tHak/EjVu3hFbRcny9nUej nx1cBXm5X6yzWSybraujrglwISIog21evh1Jrw+i/xtYa6ZYqDKHPMp1+dHjPlNV AudIcjq97iiq6kYPtHcgzKMORB4T+R5gQXNhABEBAAG0MFRpbW90aGV1cyBDYW5l bnMgPHRpbW90aGV1cy5jYW5lbnMud3BAZ21haWwuY29tPokBOQQTAQIAIwUCUN0k 3QIbLwcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEPoukYdWZeaKTZsH/jt3 W+xFPXlavHwA4kain3SXH9wrYCFHpnCCySWN3eN3BGaRf/TxwVsAxZocZ1P0U2H4 Il75FZ4TscdeqOha8ESbc79NAP/oTjRzqJNV/1ljsdHsaRSkc1Tfu4iTwWC3I2Hb Wj0FtLs08YdE94DhJGmSyZWb7p6nSTr22O0nH4dT4sM7HO/LsnDj44q2uSu2R950 VfP5S3XVOoijR5TP7QhkLZDTdb8b6HqRaWSoIsK70XBKk/voTAZe2bOCqrlUK59H O7tyHyoPK1Jcz2QmkFOmK/U5ot5m0S/GvhWvTLLmcAPIJO9/SqsJY8mX6ax09XxE QjAehIm5tOW00ukfkyu5AQ0EUN0k3QEIAOtGhpLp4zwGN0ZuSfA2TfDKq7qZB/Mp L9ZBzepRpKIPj4pcLdJNwQgYmb2XxElLWwOwsanN61yFZ2P3CUF89I5RgmzkyrSK nD4qgvMCKthLPI3FEnaXL+LR9br7VCeoYfjQdGrSsxOFtdfUQ0SsJCUvLduBblaA mEwOCarpG6cegl4Tbq0Fqg2lw8MZAQc7/nrZvpCkIk9ZYMYGFUaGW875xbCUt0T8 df6WG7KSWRrS2jy/2rgUmDNiyHI4LOUe5+8C6w0eOOLumKwdD3tXMtbuFNFluYzK 2nVIHrc3D2WmUnPd/ESed3ms4YCuGEGiybcKtyCILVhBOv2LGPLgKAsAEQEAAYkC PgQYAQIACQUCUN0k3QIbLgEpCRD6LpGHVmXmisBdIAQZAQIABgUCUN0k3QAKCRCU 2R0REJq2jqcNCADHnXpwpgbwGV+pd4tU05yHqMwIbyvXFlO/ScY9vKgtPlAU3Go+ wM3pEXeBUftCYzHraYOigc3GeZAM7QbQqyUMzWjrNDPb5/LWCiEvKoJu223+x432 E1kCmRqC8WEBj+Dz5dHUUd3EOfoE3pOjw+EXdgyMsj6HwxeygocTZvkcur9yLZhh mXYehcJVJXvjZDNdFnCv7lnXTM8McccsAOQj3uwVONabk92aQ8dZq7GXS0F2BE2t APz5NJ3Rz7jjnqI9YjTkuSKuNZGMeeQVuF7ae0ee97qZ4lVDHgR2ZlfxRzzO2kYp tIMv2QG0MB5cRLXKluJAIQ13qqAXqF/Aolc9vj4IAJY0PXpMKmsYheWGwuf3LYMb mT1C2zXal1t1A+p0KpMk7phQLSfjgHVUFzNIg245tQpHR9AORRGARggpjcfRJVb0 RZzYPvHFDZx+W+lannAKVCSEjlOywf6HOk4Wf80llpXyf6ahAUqypvOzOVV0y9QV myOQP36XL7IA7f1Eet/sgRMWQsQNxXCPGyv34/BOUiE8V5NBaYUMw9XYy6OOTfA7 /L5xAA5WPbBQe4KgfoCF/QWxJGbINtOf/guw3CKlRebqWdzmzADviIoCT6OImcrM RJHS+H7wL/fXRWGP9wOsqWclTtrP0QWRPEJpNK8RhWcYEOkIE0at8WzKSMtvfBc= =oCnW -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- |
Deletion review for Shekou Railway Station
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shekou Railway Station. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentin Smith (talk • contribs) 11:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 3 October 2011
- News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy
- In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts
- WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand
- Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan
- Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
"list of important publications in ..." AfDs
Can you give me a rationle as to why you feel these should be kept?
I ask because List of important publications in biology was deleted.
List of important publications in mathematics was kept because 2 sources were found that indicated such a topic was discussed.Curb Chain (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm unwilling to stretch the meaning of the word "consensus" far enough to reach a delete conclusion. In any event, the primary argument that "important" is inherently OR has been substantially challenged by those on the keep side. T. Canens (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well the articles have been relisted except for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security. I'm not asking your to stretch consensus to make discussion result in deletion. I'm asking you to provide a rationale for deletion, because on deletion discussion, we assess the merits of arguments, not (by) counting disagreement within the debate.
- You may have merit in stating "In any event, the primary argument that "important" is inherently OR has been substantially challenged by those on the keep side.", but in list articles which the inclusion criteria that is there on the lists, such topics must have sources that show that such a topic has been mentioned resulting in notability. You haven't provided such an argument for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security.Curb Chain (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
About Equestria Daily
I was wondering if you could move a copy of the deleted article to User:Rainbow Dash/EqD2. I personally think it should be worked on more before it goes back into the main. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 14:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- 17 people said the article should be kept based on the coverage found, and 12 said delete. How is that consensus to delete? Please explain your closing rational. Dream Focus 16:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- [1]. T. Canens (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your rational makes no sense at all. Whether people showed up before the relist or afterwards, doesn't matter. And there is no requirement to how many edits you have to make before you can participate in an AFD. I see a delete voter near the end had only 6 edits in 4 1/2 years. I see three keeps that made few edits ever, and two deletes that made few edits ever. That isn't really something that would shift things too greatly. And there is no such thing as a fair cross section of the community. Its all just randomly whoever shows up. Most people said the sources proved it notable. Dream Focus 17:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- You are welcome to seek further review; I will, however, not be amending the close. T. Canens (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Have done so. ==Deletion review for Equestria Daily==
- You are welcome to seek further review; I will, however, not be amending the close. T. Canens (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your rational makes no sense at all. Whether people showed up before the relist or afterwards, doesn't matter. And there is no requirement to how many edits you have to make before you can participate in an AFD. I see a delete voter near the end had only 6 edits in 4 1/2 years. I see three keeps that made few edits ever, and two deletes that made few edits ever. That isn't really something that would shift things too greatly. And there is no such thing as a fair cross section of the community. Its all just randomly whoever shows up. Most people said the sources proved it notable. Dream Focus 17:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Equestria Daily. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dream Focus 17:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Why?
Why'd you remove your "old afd full" tag there? LadyofShalott 16:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)