I'm no longer an administrator, so if you're looking for someone to undelete something I deleted, you'd be better off asking at WP:REFUND
Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...
Sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong, just like me. Sometimes I just tag things with notability for few months, sometimes I propose a merge and sometimes I take them to AfD when I don't think there is any benefit for us to keep the article. I guess I could just redirect them, but I feel bad doing so with no prior discussion. But when I post on the talk page nobody replies. Unless I ping you, then you always say keep, then we have to take it to AfD. And if I just redirect it, what would stop you from reverting me at which point we would end up at AfD anyway? At least at AfD you'll see it and so will others and we can have a decent discussion. Otherwise the article either won't change or would be 'stealthily' deleted. Btw, I am always ok with soft deletions, i.e. deletion through redirect, while leaving the history of old article in place. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Why would I revert it a redirection? When something is deleted it is GONE. All the donated time and text, lame though much of it may be, cannot be recovered by a non-admin. When something is redirected, if someone sees it and wants to improve on what was there before they can see it in the redirect history, and then un-redirect and improve it. I'd rather have a redirect 'war' than an afd:
- You: Redirects X
- Me: Un-redirects X, adding a couple of sources
- You: again Redirects X, noting that the sourcing is uncompelling
- Me: Un-redirects X again adding more sourcing.
- The cool thing about that sort of editing collaboration is that every time the article comes back, it comes back with more sourcing, and we only go to AfD when an impasse is reached. It also has no timeline, so we can each leisurely move like a chess game with no clock, without any frantic rush to delete or save anything in a weeklong timeline.
- Every time you prematurely nominate a fictional element for AfD, you're holding a gun to the head of the article: fix it, or it dies. For fictional elements, that is almost never the right answer (Quorum of Twelve seems to be a recent exception). If you stop threatening content with deletion, I don't have to rush to defend it. There are all sorts of POV pushing, pseudoscience, and advocacy on Wikipedia that REALLY do need deletion. In contrast to those, fictional elements are harmless, and by taking up AfD time and attention with harmless 'cruft' that could easily be dealt with by redirection, you're actually slowing the throughput for removing truly harmful material. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Barnstar of Diplomacy|
|This was one of the best, most gracious comments I've read in a long while. Thank you for your kindness, perspective, and gentle advocacy against grudge-holding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)|
Discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Really suitable for inclusion?
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Really suitable for inclusion?. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Listcrufts removal . John1234ou812 (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello again. I read your comments at Talk:Firefly (TV series), indicating some interests, especially since you contributed to the article. I assume that you already know Wikipedia:Featured article review/Firefly (TV series)/archive1, though I'll remind of you this, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)