| Revision as of 13:57, 4 January 2017 editGreenMeansGo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers64,331 edits →Your Non-Admin Closure of Leslie R. Mitchell: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:58, 4 January 2017 edit undoGreenMeansGo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers64,331 edits →Your Non-Admin Closure of Leslie R. Mitchell: fmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
| :# It was a contentious discussion, with multiple rationales for both delete and keep. As such it is not at all {{tq|Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participants.}}. | :# It was a contentious discussion, with multiple rationales for both delete and keep. As such it is not at all {{tq|Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participants.}}. | ||
| :# Your rationale summary of the keeps is not at all the clear result, and the arguments for keep split about 50/50 arguing for GNG and the presence of secondary sources, and the other arguing from whatever notability may be bestowed by the award. | :# Your rationale summary of the keeps is not at all the clear result, and the arguments for keep split about 50/50 arguing for GNG and the presence of secondary sources, and the other arguing from whatever notability may be bestowed by the award. | ||
| :# The closure may potentially impact 350+ other similar articles. | :# The closure may potentially impact 350+ other similar articles. | ||
Revision as of 13:58, 4 January 2017
Status: Unknown 
 |
|
| This is AKS.9955's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Your non-admin close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip
At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip, your close discounted the redirect !votes with a statement that "Point 2 in WP:NALBUM clearly states that albums, singles or recordings are notable if it has appeared on any country's national music chart. The rule is "either-or". You completely disregarded the very start of the guideline which states "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I am requesting that you reverse your close and let an administrator close this. -- ~~
New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello AKS.9955,
- Please help reduce the New Page backlog
This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.
- Getting the tools we need
ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
Merry Christmas
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello AKS.9955: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Misplaced Pages. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU 22:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Your contributed article, 2016 Russian Defence Ministry Tu-154 crash
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2016 Russian Defence Ministry Tu-154 crash. First, thank you for your contribution; Misplaced Pages relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 2016 Russian Defence Ministry Tupolev Tu-154 crash. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Misplaced Pages. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2016 Russian Defence Ministry Tupolev Tu-154 crash – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Misplaced Pages looks forward to your future contributions. WWGB (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- WWGB, I already posted you a message on your talkpage which is self explanatory. Please reply there. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
@AKS.9955: If you look at 2016 Russian Defence Ministry Tupolev Tu-154 crash: Revision history you will see that Admin TParis has done a history merge of your original article and the other article. If you look through the revision history, it should show all your original edits. Has this fixed the problem you raised?-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Galdan Namchot
Hello! Your submission of Galdan Namchot at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Your Non-Admin Closure of Leslie R. Mitchell
Hi, you recently performed a non-admin closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Leslie R. Mitchell. As per the rules on non-admin closures provided here, a non-admin should restrict themselves to clear outcomes, absent any contentious debate among participants. This is clearly not the case here. In addition, you have not provided any rationale for your decision which you should have done (and should do in all cases). If you had read the debate you would have seen that it was decided to "test" the notability of Bronze Wolf recipients first and an admin nominated another article for deletion to test this - in effect placing this AfD on hold until the outcome of the other AfD. Please undo your closure. -- HighKing 13:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- -- HighKing, its a clear keep. As requested by you, I will add a rational (although it is not mandatory) in the AfD. If you are not satisfied, you can open another AfD or opt for WP:DRV. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- It will be interesting to hear your rationale that it is a clear keep given the contentious debate among participants which, by the rules, effectively rules out a non-admin closure. A clue that it is not a clear keep should have been that it has been listed for nearly two weeks and hasn't been closed. -- HighKing 13:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- -- HighKing, I understand that you passionately argued otherwise and appreciate your enthusiasm. As I said, if you are not happy with the outcome, kindly consider DRV or a second AfD. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Np, I expect though that one of the many admins who contributed to the debate will simply revert your inappropriate closure. Also, a reasoning is mandatory - its in the rules. -- HighKing 13:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've now seen the reasoning you provided. Kindly also explain how you have decided that the winner of a Bronze Wolf award denotes notability, especially in light of the reasonings put forward by multiple editors that a winner of a Bronze Wolf award is not automatically notable. -- HighKing 13:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I do not wish to start an argument with you. If you are so confident, kindly take it to DRV or second AfD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please note the Uncertain comment by DGG and the nomination of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robbert Hartog to test the notability based on being a Bronze Wolf recipient. -- HighKing 13:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why are you over-writing on my comment? Anyway, for the last time, I do not wish to argue with you. If you are confident about what you are saying then please take it to DRV / second nomination. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I'll take it to DRV but it would have been a *lot* less dramatic if you'd followed the rules which are very clear about non-admins leaving contentious AfD's alone. -- HighKing 13:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- It will be interesting to hear your rationale that it is a clear keep given the contentious debate among participants which, by the rules, effectively rules out a non-admin closure. A clue that it is not a clear keep should have been that it has been listed for nearly two weeks and hasn't been closed. -- HighKing 13:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm going to second the notion that you should undo your closure and let an admin do it. There's no reason to draw DRN into this, seven day waiting period, and more bureaucracy for no reason.
- It was a contentious discussion, with multiple rationales for both delete and keep. As such it is not at all
Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participants.
. - Your rationale summary of the keeps is not at all the clear result, and the arguments for keep split about 50/50 arguing for GNG and the presence of secondary sources, and the other arguing from whatever notability may be bestowed by the award.
- The closure may potentially impact 350+ other similar articles.
- It was a contentious discussion, with multiple rationales for both delete and keep. As such it is not at all
- If you want to be stubborn about the issue, I'll take it to DRN, but I will also note the fact that this was clearly and abundantly not an appropriate NAC closure, it was addressed by two other experienced editors, and you refused to acquiesce, actions which generally call into question your judgement in closing discussions, and your willingness to take the advice of others. TimothyJosephWood 13:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)