|
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux Talk 15:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux Talk 02:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really pleased to see you editing again - yours is a name I remember fondly from the old days. If you'd like your admin bit returned, please do post at WP:BN. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well thank you so much. Very canny of you to spot my return! I tailed off editing and adminning after getting a new job here at Hull University but with us having UK City of Culture 2017 it seemed a good opportunity to write some stuff again..... I will inded ask for the bit again, though I may not be quite so conspicuous at AN/I as I used to be! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ANI has always been a cesspit, so very happy to hear that. There's plenty of room for your talent and experience... not least in editing, never mind admin work. Welcome back. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add my welcome as well. I usually glance at the list of admin's desysopped for inactivity and usually don't recognize the names, but I definitely recognized yours, so I was happy to see that you are active again.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! It's a very nice surprise to get welcomes like this from names who are well known to me too! Looking forward to getting stuck in again.... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks! I will take it easy at first, there will obviously be some changes to policy and procedure that I need to catch up on. So I'm not going to jump in with both feet just yet.... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kim Dent-Brown. Please see my comment at Talk:UK City of Culture#New page for Hull UK City of Culture 2017 -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi again Kim Dent-Brown. I'm not sure if you noticed this, but File:Hull CoC black and white.jpeg is lacking a non-free use rationale for Hull UK City of Culture 2017. Could you add an appropriate rationale for file's use the article? Thanks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This redirection/delete game is just not in my skill set. 4 keep- 3 redirect 2 delete somehow displays a consensus for--no-consensus! Where am I going wrong? How does 3 trump 4? The final three comments are all showing a tendency to keep? Is a quick U-turn is needed here? --ClemRutter (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the point that Clem is making here but we needn't get too excited about this as nothing has been deleted and the close accepted that further expansion would be reasonable. Clem has prepared a detailed outline structure on the article's talk page. Myself, I have located and documented eight more good sources, to add to the eight that we already have in the article. Presumably Kim would have no objection to us now expanding the article, right? Andrew D. (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus isn't determined by a headcount but by the strength of the evidence put forward and the policies thatv are invoked. And yes as I said in my close, there's nothing inherently problematic about the title. I'd suggest drafting up a really good article in someone's user space before releasing it, to forestall any repeated objections. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 01:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You read that stuff, or not?
I don´t see within your context page any reference to reality in theology, linquistics or for that matter politics.
Thou shall not suffer a ´which´ to life, is a reference to not wackering the flame of doubt, which many a time is used by quite a few individuals with a ´wannabe´ goth principle to shut down any opposition to their ´King of the Hill´ position.
You should add that, it´s quite a bit more real and can definitely save quite a few more lives, then any humanitarian action or for that matter endowment onto democracy.
- ) Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.63.146 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for closing this AfD. However, I am afraid that I don't agree with your decision to close this as "keep". There were several well-argued and policy-based !votes to delete. The "keep" !votes were really not policy based. I could understand if you had closed this as "no-consensus", but not "keep". Perhaps you could have a second look at this? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, there were several well argued, policy-based arguments to keep the article, while the only two delete votes were hardly based on any Wikipedia policies, but seemingly on an insistence that journals must be included in one particular, commercial database, which is not based on any Wikipedia policy or guideline at all, and which fails to take into account that the database in question neglects in its near-entirety the non-English realm of academic publishing and is of extremely little relevance to a sociology journal in Scandinavia, discipline-wise and language-wise. I think therefore it was correct, based on the discussion, to close this as keep rather than no consensus. Also, Randykitty, I find your attempt to have the result of this time-consuming and fruitless discussion changed from "keep" to "no consensus", which wouldn't alter the outcome, to be a not particularly constructive attempt to beat a dead horse. --Lillelvd (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Randykitty, iIf by "have a second look" you mean "go back and change my decision...." then I'm afraid not. The AfD had been open for a couple of weeks and I felt that a close had to be definitive, either to keep or to delete. A "no-consensus" close would have been a cop-out (as well as a de-facto keep!) As I said in my close, the balance of decision was extremely fine in my view; I think those of you on both sides of the debates thought your arguments were much stronger than I found them to be. I was expecting a note on my talk page from whichever side I disappointed in this decision. I accept much of what you said in the AfD but my final litmus test, in the spirit of WP:IAR was which outcome was overall the best one for Wikipedia. I don't honestly think it's worth expending much more energy over this - but you can use the appeal process at WP:DELREV if you feel strongly that my decision is a wrong that must be righted. And Lillelvd there was really no need to post the victory dance above. The pair of you have invested far too much in this disagreement and there is nothing to be gained by continuing it. Grace in victory and stoicism in defeat are virtues to be cultivated. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I know that "no consensus" would also have defaulted to keeping the article. However, the difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is not trivial. A "keep" decision makes it much more difficult to re-visit the question of notability in a future AfD (after a suitable waiting period, of course). So I guess DRV it is going to be. --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's your prerogative of course. But I think it's a massive waste of time that could be spent on article creation. And can we now keep any further discussion on ice until the DRV case, please. I'll delete any further input here from either side. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You closed this AFD on 19 Jan., redirecting the article in question to another one that was only created (by the nom) on 17 January. Only two of three users who joined the discussion after 17 Jan. explicitly supported that result. Given the six explicit keep votes (incl. mine) before 17 Jan. and only one delete vote, this close seems questionable. What's more, as I raised on both the new article's talk page and the AFD page without any response, the new article lacks a citation for its central claim: the general definition of a military ace. Srnec (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a reasonable point Srnec and deserves an explanation, although I'm not certain it will convince you. I tend to close the "left-behind" AfD discussions, the one or two left after a week that others have been unable or unwilling to close, perhaps because the discussion is heated, or complex, or the options are varied. AfD is not like WP:RFA where judging consensus is largely a matter of mathematics between two very simple alternatives. It would of course have been possible to close it as "No consensus" but I try and avoid that as the least desirable outcome; it leaves the article vulnerable and nobody satisfied. In this case I was interested not only in the numbers of people voting, but also in policy, in judging the quality of the article and others linked to it and in trying to think holistically about the encyclopaedia as a whole and what was the best outcome right now. I didn't feel Delete would have been right as it's a viable search term and would have hidden the history of the article from anyone who wanted to use some of it. However with the content as it stood, Keep did not seem right either. The title was inconsistent with the content and what little content there was fitted perfectly well. as was pointed out, in other articles. The title and thus the Redirect went best to the article identified; when it was created and by whom have no bearing on whether it's the most suitable architect. And as you point out, of the three comments posted after 17 Jan, two supported the redirect. The content of the article (because of the disconnect with the title) belonged elsewhere I felt and because the page history still exists anyone who cares to can migrate that content if they wish. In the long run if a better article, with content consistent with the title, can be written and placed over the redirect I'd be very happy. I don't imagine I've convinced you that I came to the right decision, but I hope I have at least persuaded you that I gave it some thought and this was not just an unthinking close. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (Belated response) "With the content as it stood" is a good point. I rescued two other articles from deletion this month (Ralph IV of Valois and Napoleon and Protestants) and I did not feel like doing a third, even though I feel confident it could be done. So long as the history is there and the article was not deleted, there is no prejudice against recreating it with better sourcing. My bigger problem is with the redirect target, which I think suffers from exactly the same problems from which Submarine ace was alleged to suffer, namely SYNTH and OR. I have now opened a discussion at the Military History WikiProject and we'll see where that goes. Perhaps it can be fixed. Srnec (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the understanding response! Yes I hope you get some help from the Military History WikiProject. Submartine history is a minor interest of mine - I wrote most of HMS Storm (P233) but I'm afraid I don't really have the time myself to try and overhaul the two articles we're discussing! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
