[[User:Dianasweetiegina|Dianasweetiegina]] ([[User talk:Dianasweetiegina|talk]]) 01:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
[[User:Dianasweetiegina|Dianasweetiegina]] ([[User talk:Dianasweetiegina|talk]]) 01:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both;"/>
<br style="clear: both;"/>
Of course it was constructive. I mentioned a reliable source, for one thing, and eliminated reliance on a personal website, which is against policy for this encyclopedia. It was quite out of line for you to remove the flags , so I put them back.[[Special:Contributions/98.109.238.95|98.109.238.95]] ([[User talk:98.109.238.95|talk]]) 02:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Revision as of 02:31, 29 June 2013
This is Martin451's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Hi!
In response to your message, I did not vandalize the page C.S. Marítimo. As you can see, I create the page C.S. Marítimo versus CF União and CD Nacional to put that and other information that deals with the same subject. In order to not have the same information in two pages I deleted the information in C.S. Marítimo. My only intention it was to improve the page and not to vandalize.
I Reverted you partly because of the way the edit was made. You tried to turn the section heading into an external link, which looks very spammy. Feel free to re add the link.Martin451 (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The five prior AfDs all arrived at keep or no consensus, the previous one was closed just 4 days before and had a lengthy discussion which arrived at no consensus. A new AfD straight away will clearly not arrive at consensus. Starting a new AfD just days after the previous one was closed because it did not arrive at the consensus you wanted is disruptive. Are you going to keep renominating it until you get the result you want?Martin451 (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I will. You don't seem to understand how improper your closure is. The "don't renom until two months have passed" isn't policy and never will be. Even if it was, the nomination didn't qualify for NAC. You were completely out of line in closing it the way you did pbp18:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can ignore rules, so can I. Furthermore, there wasn't any consensus in the previous discussion, and I for one believe that something closed as "no consensus" can and should be relisted immediately (and no policy contradicts that, and even if it did, I can just invoke IAR). It should have been relisted, or better, the admin who closed it needed to grow a backbone and realize that more than half the keep votes hinged on "I like" or hit count, and many were kneejerk keepists from the ARS, and should have deleted it on those grounds. That article needs to be deleted ASAP, and if I have to nominate it a seventh time, I will. I don't care if you like that or not pbp19:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in relisting it if we are not going to reach consensus. This is wikipedia, if there are 20 editors commenting on something, then there will often be 20 views, sometimes more. Relisting this article until it is deleted is just going to hurt wikipedia.Martin451 (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you non-admin closed with a supervote to prevent the article from being deleted... for the "sake of Wikipedia"? If you're using your close to guarantee a result then it's a bad close. I actually came here to quietly suggest that next time it might be best to let an admin close something that contentious, but your last comment is concerning. If that was the motivation then it was a very bad close. Sorry. There's no guarantee consensus won't be reached just because it wasn't last time. The last discussion was dominated by bludgeoning and ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT votes on both sides. While immediately renominating something that closed as keep can be considered pointy, there is absolutely no prohibition or restriction on renomination after a no consensus result and the citation of an obscure user essay as a closing rationale doesn't change that. If an admin wants to closed it and take PBP to ANI, let them. But your close was, unfortunately, not a good one. Even less so given your subsequent defence of it. Stalwart11104:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not close it to prevent it being deleted, it was not a supervote. If you look at the 5th nomination you will see I did not even comment in it. If PBP renominates it I promise not to do a NAC. As for my subsequent defence of it, am I not allowed to reply to comments on my own talk page?Martin451 (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Relisting this article until it is deleted is just going to hurt wikipedia." Allowing consensus to form in favour of deleting the article would "hurt Wikipedia"? How? Consensus can change and after several keep results and, more recently, several marginal no-consensus results (that relied on big helpings of WP:IAR), it seems like that change is well-and-truly underway. You stepped in to close the AFD because relisting, allowing that consensus to develop and eventually deleting it, "is just going to hurt wikipedia". That's a supervote, I'm afraid. WP:NACs are for "non-controversial discussions". Under what circumstances did you think closing that AFD with that rationale would be "non-controversial"? Oh, and you can defend your close, of course, but my point was that your subsequent defence had actually exacerbated original concerns rather than address them. Stalwart11103:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having one trainwreck after another is not going to obtain consensus, that time would be better wasted on other things. By BPBs own comments he won't let it rest until he obtains consensus, but that is the consensus he wants. He claims that many of the keep votes were invalid, that is not conclusive to consensus. Yes consensus can change, but this is not the way to go about changing consensus. I suggest if either of you feel what I did was wrong then take it to WP:ANI or elsewhere.Martin451 (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Swaminarayan Mantra
Hi,
Swaminarayan Mantra is not a living person, it is a mantra meaning sound, syllable, word, or group of words that this sect uses to pray. I just was correcting a mistake that identifies Swaminarayan as a faith. It is a sect of hinduism and for some reason, it is being called faith. I looked up wiki's definition for sect and it's a subgroup of a religious, political or philosophical belief system, usually an offshoot of a larger religious group. Also I wanted to ask you, could you help me with some article edits because I am being attacked on here and wasn't sure about it. Will you revert the article or should I.
Sorry for taking my time to reply. Sect (at least where I come from) is often used by the opponents as a pejorative, i.e. and insult to demean others. Many major religions started off as sects. To go through wikipedia wholesale changing faith to sect needs discussion first.Martin451 (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mistake (?)
You said that while editing User:Gionosai It was a test. This is a mistake. I don't know what a test means to you but, under Gionosai's permission, I made this page for him. Please message him for questions.
Of course it was constructive. I mentioned a reliable source, for one thing, and eliminated reliance on a personal website, which is against policy for this encyclopedia. It was quite out of line for you to remove the flags , so I put them back.98.109.238.95 (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
