Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 6

message: I submit that, had we been aware that we were up for deletion, there would have been much more discussion/participation, and the "consensus" of 70% would not have been reached. Under the undeletion criteria, we have a very valid case for undeletion. (I have requested that the deletion review page be unprotected so you don't have to keep moving these posts) crockspot
:Who is the "we" you're talking about, and why weren't you aware? · rodii · 02:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual discussion page was never protected.  Please participate in the discussion there so I don't have to keep moving these posts.  This page is for discussions about the proper functioning of the Deletion Review page and process, not for discussing specific cases.  Rossami (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not calling you a liar but you are mistaken.  Your first request was correct in that you could not at that time initiate a request.  You placed your request here.  That request for review was moved to the sub-page Wikipedia:Deletion review/Conservative Underground.  Your subsequent comments were also moved to that sub-page.  That sub-page was never protected.  Protection is not automatically "inherited" from the parent-page.  You could have edited the sub-page at any time after it was created.    Rossami (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative Underground discussion

message: Shouldn't records of undeletion debates be kept, in the same way that deletion debates are archived?
Like Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Archives or Wikipedia:Archived_delete_debates?
It all seems a bit unorganized. Odd how Templates for deletion archiving is done differently to Articles for deletion for example. Shouldn't it all be standardized? --Col. Hauler 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving undeletion debates?

message: It would be good if it was process to make a temporary copy of the article that has been deleted available for reference by non-administrators so that we can make an informed decision on whether to undelete or keep deleted - it is very unfair how the rest of the community is excluded from knowing what was actually deleted in this way. --Col. Hauler 18:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory at least, the content of the article should have no bearing on whether or not it is to be deleted- just the topic counts. But practically, I believe that making available a copy of the article will be useful, so ppl not connected to the topic may have some idea what's it about. Admins have access to deleted history, so this shouldn't be to difficult. Borisblue 19:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe this would be better decided case by case. Admins can have a look at the deleted article, and if someone sees something worth noting, they can paste the article or part of in on DRV. - ulayiti (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This would have been very useful to me. I got very pissed off at the deletion of the Shohé Tanaka, and part of that was not being able to see what had been in the article or to view the article history. It's very abusive to non-administrators, who are not second-class editors, but who seem to be treated as such sometimes. Gene Ward Smith 18:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provide a temporary copy of deleted article for reference? 

message: The recent addition of subpages to DRV has been removed.  This has been discussed many times by the people who actually maintain this page and been rejected.  There's the monthly archive now, and if people include the diffs (which is being done inconssitantly) then there is no need for subpageing. 203.214.19.79 10:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to list blah blah blah... 

message: I presume this page is semiprotected to keep the sockpuppets and anons off, on the grounds that they don't have anything useful to add to debates. This is largely true; but it also makes it more difficult for anons to appeal a deletion, as in the present Conservative Underground case. 
Often the deletion is correct, and the appeal worthless (and it sounds like it was about CU). But we should hear and answer complaints, even if we then teject them unanimously; that's how newbies learn. Septentrionalis 23:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you; the same should apply to the subpage at WP:UBD Septentrionalis 03:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. —Encephalon 16:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotection

message: Is there a special reason why DRV is running so far behind?  Everything up to May 3rd should already be closed.  Please don't take offense to me saying this: but maybe before any admin comments/votes on a new DRV case, they should first close off an old one.  This is especially true in a case, where an article has been "protected deleted", but the a large majority supports undeletion.  I would love to help out, but obviously, I can not, as I'm not an admin.  --Rob 00:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Thivierr here. I would also love to help out but I am not an admin yet. I hope an admin would look into this as soon as possible. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for this note, Rob. It bears mention, firstly, that part of the reason that DRV discussions seem to take a long time to close is simply that they really are meant to be open longer. DRV has the longest open period of any deletion-related forum in Wikipedia—discussions are generally only closed after at least 10 days, unless there is a large, usually unanimous or near-unanimous, majority in favor of a particular outcome by about 5 days. This is a deliberate policy, the idea being that any interested party ought to be afforded fair opportunity to comment in the discussion, in what is often the final say on a particular contribution. I share the observation, however, that discussions are sometimes left open for considerably longer. This seems to happen, I think, because most of the experienced Wikipedians who patrol DRV also usually comment in the discussions; where contentious or complex subjects are under discussion, the wish to maintain an impartiality in the proceedings results in a reluctance to close debates in which one has participated substantially. I know this has stopped me from closing quite a number of times. One other point you raise bears comment. You do not necessarily have to be an administrator to close DRV discussions, or for that matter any discussion on Wikipedia. If the result will not require the use of administrative permissions, any experienced, knowledgeable Wikipedian, whether administrator or not, may close the debate (note that this is subject to administrative review). Now, it is generally advisable that controversial discussions in particular are closed by people who know what they're doing, but we have generally not had a problem with editors closing debates when they really shouldn't be. I would have no objection to someone such as yourself closing DRV debates not requiring use of sysop permissions, Rob. Regards —Encephalon 19:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response.  The thing is, in cases where a non-admin can "close", it doesn't matter really.  Such cases aren't really "holding up" anybody.  If an article is going to be kept deleted, it really doesn't matter how long it's listed here.  It's not like AFD, where we want to remove the message box.  The only cases where prompt DRV action is needed is where an undeletion is called for, so editors can get to work improving the article.  --Rob 19:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog 

message: These comments, up to and including Fang Aili's post at 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see our communication here and here. --Fang Aili  說嗎? 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shohé Tanaka]] 

message: I propose we eliminate the need for a vote in cases of an article speedy deleted as A7 with no AFD *if* any admin feels there is a serious claim of notability, or trust one can/will be added promptly.  It should be possible to promptly undelete the article, and immediately relist it on AFD.  Wikipedia:Deletion review/Reverend and The Makers is an example of needless process (April 26 to May 9).  We now are spending more time with the AFD discussion (which is really the only discussion needed).  A serious flaw of DRV delays, is that it discourages interested editors, who can't add to the article, until it's undeleed.  Some aren't preapared to wait, and won't be around to add what they can, when they're finally allowed to.  What I say applies just never-AFD'd articles.  If something is deleted by AFD, then its appropriate to demand a DRV before undeleting/relisting (as we don't want unlimited AFDs, or disrespect for community consensus).    --Rob 19:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already the "article deleted out of process" loophole if something is a screamingly bad "no claim of notability" deletion, and there is also already the "go ahead and create your own better stub" loophole for non-admins.  I don't see it as taking that much extra work for us to review these speedies.  If an editor is so impatient that they can't be contented with working on something in their subspace for a couple of days, I'm hardly going to cry a river.  If the subject of the article is so obscure that only that editor is going to write about it it sounds like the A7 cluase was probably spot on.  So, I'm not seeing any advantage to this personally. - brenneman{L}  01:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This, of course, assumes that they have it in a subspace, which is generally not true. Experienced editors can ask for a private copy for review, but most of the editors who come here don't know how to do that. (And even that takes a while.) Septentrionalis 01:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Reverend and The Makers.  I filed it on April 26.  Before that, the creator asked for an undeletion.  That didn't happen, not even to user space (as it aught to have).  On April 27, I requested the page, at least be undeleted to user space.  That request was ignored by admins.  On May 2, I again asked why was it protected deleted.  No admin response.  On May 9 Sjakkalle (bless him) undeletes the article.  That was much more then a "couple days".  This is beaurocratic process, that's fundamentally unwiki.  I find it humorous, that there's active debates about whether making people take 30 seconds to register is an unfair obstticle to article creation, but making people wait weeks is considered dandy.  --Rob 22:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  I also encourage people to NOT use the A7 tag, and use prod instead. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  For now at least, DRV is small enough that we can review all cases without creating a bunch of exceptions, and I'm sure that any totally-obviously-completely wrong A7 speedy would probably be restored without a DRV anyway (like if any admin went nuts and deleted George W Bush as an A7 speedy.  We must remember to avoid instruction creep.  There's no reason to create rules upon rules and then exceptions to each and exceptions to the exceptions.  Not necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would argue that minimizing instruction creep would take us in the other direction.  The understanding has always been that if a speedy-deletion is contested in good faith by an editor in good standing, it is immediately reversed and sent to AFD for full discussion by the community.  DRV didn't change that.  What DRV adds is a place and process so we can discuss requests where the "good faith" part is not obvious.  Rossami (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So, why the long delay in the Reverend and The Makers (I described above).  Undeletion and the current AFD, were largely uncontested.  But it still sat "protected deleted" for all that time.    --Rob 22:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skip redundant process for a7 cases (if no AFD occurred)

message: WP:UBD has only four discussions on it, but they are important tests of whether the (just changed) wording of WP:CSD is consensus. There has been a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#Deletion.2Fclosing_of_DRVU to merge that page back into this one. Please discuss it there. Septentrionalis 05:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed closing of Userbox subpage

message: May I rudely offer my $0.02 on a semi-related subject?  I think that it would be a good idea for pages under discussion on DRV to be temporarily undeleted, so that we can see what we're commenting. --David.Mestel 17:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is the other perennial topic. along with sub-paging.  We should probably make an FAQ section or something.  After epic battles in which the rivers ran with blood and the lamentation of the women rose up in great clouds and blotted out the sun, it was decided not to undelete as a matter of course.  If someone asks, or if the discusion seems to require it for informed participation, it's usually done.  There is the content review section and the restoring admins crew who will also chip in. - brenneman{L}  08:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undeletion 

message: Somehow, Talk:Christianity up and disappeared.  Can an administrator fix this?
KV 19:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Musical Linguist was doing a delete and restore of selected revisions to remove some personal information. It's back in operation now. --GraemeL (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Page with 29 archives deleted 

message: For reasons not well understood by me or anyone I know, template review discussions were once redirected to a sub-page.  As there doesn't seem to be any extant sensible discussions I've moved them back to Deletion review --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) 2006 05 260 6:37:36
:I think it might have been created because userbox-discussions were highly heated, especially some (*cough*user review*cough*admins ignore policly*cough*) and someone felt it would be better to keep them on a seperate subpage. Still, I think the move was a bold, but good idea, as it ensures userboxes DRVs get as much (or litte) viewtime as any other DRV item. 84.145.227.194 10:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still I think I have to ask you regarding the two still ongoing reviews there that you closed. Both were removed with the comment "Close, silly", and you seem to neither added them to the archived discussions there not on DRV. May I suggest a merge with the DRV archives? Also I cannot tell if you simply removed the discussion or removed them and tried to carry out consensus. Link to archived page. Especially the discussion regarding Template:User iamafish-en seems to have ended 15-9 in favor to undeletion/relist at TfD, but there was not noticable action from your side. I suspect that the same would be with Template:User sumofpi had it not been restored weeks before as an out-of-process deletion. CharonX 11:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, from what I can tell, Tony began to label his speedy deletions as "silly" after a discussion about some talk page comments he "erased" that basically called the closings "silly" for the simple reason that consensus was often ignored.  Tony likes irony very much.  --70.218.7.80 02:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DRVU

message: I am a new user.  I saw the article on Wikipedia a while back, but now it is gone, with absolutely no reference to it anywhere.  I wrote the article on "Maine Guide" and wanted to reference the Minor League team, which formerly was here on Wikipedia.
Can someone get this article undeleted???  mitchsensei  12:59am, EST, May 30, 2006
: There's nothing in the deletion log for a Maine Guides article.  Are you sure that was the name of the article?  Powers 12:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think perhaps he/she is referring to Maine Guide, an article he/she created on 22 Apr 06 and which has never been deleted.  Rossami (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Maine Guide is the article he wrote.  He wants to link to Maine Guides, a minor league baseball team.  Powers 19:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An Article on "Maine Guides" a minor league baseball team

message: Template:User Republican, Template:User Democrat Template:User UKIP, Template:User UK Conservative   
Template:User Chinese reunification 
Can we apply a little peer pressure to not close debates, however obvious, that you've participated in?  It's no different from AfD, is it? - brenneman {L}  23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Splash, I mostly agree. But our careful checks and ballances are designed to protect encyclopedic content against being erased improperly. These processess were never designed to protect myspace crap and insist that it passed the same hurdles before being consigned to oblivion. Let's not allow process to be brought into disrepute for userboxes. --Doc ask? 00:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A little late for that I feel.Geni 01:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if people stop trying to use DRV process to rescue their toys from the trashcan. --Doc ask? 01:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Always was used like that. Eventualy the process wonks were out numbered and people started suceeding. Things change.Geni 01:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevertheless, there is usually one way to go that makes people scream and another that makes them merely grumble. Anti-userbox admins seem invariably to choose the former. I must confess to being entirely unclear on why the silly debates on these boxes have cast their cancer back onto DRV's main page. Most people really don't spend any significant portion of their waking moments fretting about them and they just get in the way of useful work. They were nicely located on a page where those who did fret could go and fret and those that didn't, didn't have to trawl past it all. -Splashtalk 01:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Splash is right.  I'm no lover of userboxes, but sometimes fanatic insistance on deleting them is far more disruptive than the boxes themselves.  For purely practical reasons, we're better off nudging them away than bludgeoning them away.  Friday (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Seconded. There also is no problem with admins who have made limited or balanced contributions closing even very controversial debates. The Land 12:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely.  We do get a lot of relatively low quality reviews and it's appropriate to close them when it's obvious they're not going to prevail.  It is better to close a debate than to let it fester when the end is obvious. --Tony Sidaway 13:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The real issue is, of course, that any "guideline" or "rule" we make up will be only some text, and if someone *cough* decides to ignore that and just do what they'd like... then what?  We've never had to have this talk before because we've mostly conducted outselves with decorum.  So, can we instead just use talking? Tell whomever we see doing it "Please don't," and I mean including this time.  I've already done so, but it might be better coming from someone else. - brenneman {L}  11:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a very good argument for avoiding rule creep, Aaron.  I'd take issue with your suggestion that we tell people to stop doing useful work around the place.  That would be silly.  But you're right that a guideline would be pointless. unsigned comment by --13:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I meant guideline in the sense of "rule of thumb" rather than in the sense of formal instruction.  What Aaron said is what I meant.  GRBerry 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing discussions you've participated in 

message: The content of the (userbox) template(s) under consideration is/are very important, as T1 is one of the reasons most often cited for deletion. "This user is a Satanist" might fall under T1, but "This user is interested in Satanism" probably doesn't. Seeing the template, in my opinion, would help users distinguish there. For example, after I saw the userbox about organ donation, I decided that it did not fall under T1; without seeing it, how would I know? I am asking here because I wanted to avoid an edit conflict, as Rossami has removed it, stating "→Template:User satanist - removing the template. we do not routinely include the contents of a deletion discussion onto the review page"; This may be true, but just because something is not routinely done, does not mean it is inappropriate here. Penny for your thoughts? --Disavian 05:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, as in the case of a speedy, there is no debate to go on. Stephen B Streater 08:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I think we need a less intrusive way to solve the problem.  This page is already very large and slow to load.  Asking it to load images as well (even the relatively small images used on the templates) burdens the page further and makes it harder to use.  The link at the top of each discussion thread already takes you to the deleted page where admins can review the page history.  For non-admins participating in the discussion, I would urge us to use the existing process of requesting a temporary undeletion for the duration of the debate where and when that is appropriate.  If you feel the need to review it, you should also be reviewing the full page history, not merely the most recent version.  Alternatively, I would support moving all the userbox template debates back to a dedicated sub-page where the people most interested and informed on this topic can continue the debate.  That would reduce the respective page sizes to a workable level even with the templates pasted in.  That segregation seemed to be working a few weeks ago.  I'm not sure who decided to reinclude those debates here or what the rationale was at the time.  Rossami (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think back to a subpage is the way to go, then. Please stop removing stuff without a policy or statement that you removed it, if you would. I've put source in for several now, on request of users involved in the debate. If something was speedied, I feel it proper to show what it was that was speedied. So while I prefer not to revert others, I do find myself feeling that my helping users out was wasted effort. I'm not opposed to switching to temporary undeletion but I actually think showing the source and NOT undeleting it is a better approach. ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ex-Template Inclusion in Debate 

message: See the case of Transwiki:List of tongue-twisters. Community consensus was Transwiki to Wikibooks and it was moved there but User:Jguk has deleted it. What is to be done now? Adam78 15:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That deletion happened on Wikibooks, right? You'll need to complain about it over there. -Splashtalk 15:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That they do. Moreover, admins are only admins on wikis on which they have been so created. Thus, you need to go to Wikibooks and find an admin there. -Splashtalk 15:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that was my fault, it should have gone to wikiquote. The people in the AFD said wikibooks, but wikibooks is not for that. Wikiquote has q:Category:Tongue twisters though. Undeleting it here and transwiking to wikiquote seems like the best idea. Kotepho 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam78 18:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones on wikiquote aren't cited now, but I don't frequent there so I don't really know.  Same goes for wikisource. Kotepho 18:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don't.  An AFD decision has already determined that the content was inappropriate for Wikipedia.  It can be transwiki'd from the deleted history if that becomes appropriate.  It should not be restored to Wikipedia without a Deletion Review discussion.  Rossami (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have transwikied it to q:Transwiki:List of tongue-twisters. I hope you fare better there. -Splash - tk 13:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overriding a "Transwiki" decision 

message: In response to Template:User no notability:
*Who closed it?  It appears to have been closed improperly.  --BlankFlank 02:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From recently concluded

message: Hi, 
Somehow this article was deleted and I dont understand how it could be with so relatively many Keep votes and so poor arguments for delete?? Do you? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_Reserve_Bank
--Swedenborg 20:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Reserve Bank Deleted.. 

message: The consensus of the community in multiple DRVs and TfD is quite clear. This template, and others simply expressing affirmative belief in a major world religion, are not divisive and inflammatory according to the meaning of that phrase as interpreted by most Wikipedians. It is pointless and tiresome to continue to speedy delete these templates. They will be eliminated only on the day when a consensus against all userboxes is firmly adopted, not before. Until then, targeting simple religious userboxes for speedy deletion is foolish, a waste of effort, and truly disheartening for those of us who would like to focus on building an encyclopedia. There are myriad bizarre, relatively unimportant, and idiosyncratic templates out there to speedy -- and several are created every day that are truly vicious. Speedy those. Leave earnestly religious templates be, until the userbox matter is firmly settled, once and for all. Making these templates the frontline of the userbox conflict will only alienate people of faith -- considering their number, this is profoundly not in Wikipedia's interest. Template will be restored according to consensus, not sent to TfD. I suggest humbly that any administrator speedying this template, and other comparable simple statements of faith, be blocked for disruption. Xoloz 16:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People have been accusing me of that kinfd of thing ever since I got involved in the userbox war. Why should the other side be exempt? Jay Maynard 02:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No "side" (and I don't actually think there are two sides here - there are multiple viewpoints) is exempt from the requirement to be civil. Metamagician3000 11:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from main page 

message: I recently posted a DRV that I have since withdrawn, realizing that it was misguided, at best. Do I delete it? Does an admin delete it? This end of the 'pedia isn't really my stomping grounds, so any help will be appreciated. Cheers.  youngamerican (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just let it sit for a while so that others can catch up on the discussion.  You've changed your mind but others may still agree with your original point.  They deserve a chance to read the replies, too.  After a day or so, someone will remove the discussion and make a note at the bottom of the page so we can find it again later.  No worries.  This is how we learn.  Rossami (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict on main with the prior response here).  I just delisted this as a withrawal, no consensus (default keep) afd result upheld.  A no consensus keep is not a keep and it can always be relisted for afd. — xaosflux Talk 02:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misguided DRV 

message: Oh wondrous devs. They maketh image undeletion possible with immediate effect. And it worketh, too, I just testeth it. -Splash - tk 14:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were forced to eat Robin's minstrels, and there was much rejoycing. Syrthiss 14:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like we've had our first case of an image brought here, onyl to find out it's not a en: image at all.  I've added a header section Wikipedia:Deletion review/Multimedia Information explaining the file undeletion process, with warnings about commons' files. Please have a gander at it, and see if it needs anything else.  AFAIK commons doesn't have a DRV (wouldn't have had any use for it before undeletion was possible) yet. — xaosflux Talk 16:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is necessary. We have reams and reams of instructions at the top of this page as it is. We've always had images come here, the one you mention was very far from the first. It was just coincidence that it happened also to be on Commons. I removed the section to keep the overweight down to something bearable. We can just refer people to Commons on the exceptionally rare occasion they actually come here. -Splash - tk 16:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image undeletion now possible 

message: I have reverted this closure as it was done by someone emphatically involved in the debate, being that they were the petitioner.  Their definition of "undelete" is also apparently "cut + paste the content back".  Kotepho 06:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The closure may not be right but I don't believe a non-admin can revert a closure. This is especially the case because you are not an disinterested party (You participated in the vote and the apparent result is against your vote.) You should have sought help from an admin. --WinHunter (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an admin and he did the right thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok, never faced this kind of situation before. Btw, I just checked that Dtm142 is an non-admin but he proceeded with closing the DRV, is that inappropriate (other than the fact that he is not an dis-interested party)? Closure by Dtm142 --WinHunter (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If so, what should be done? --WinHunter (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not claim to be unbiased in any regard, only that it should be closed by someone that has been uninvolved, or at the very least someone that can actually undelete if that is to be the result. Kotepho 06:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do feel that the closure by Dtm142 is inappropriate. Originally I thought the closure was done by an admin therefore I have had my 1st reply. Now I feel your action is justified (on the discovery that Dtm142 is an non-admin) and probably Dtm142 should be warned or reported somewhere? For that I have no idea how to proceed though since I never faced this kind of thing before. --WinHunter (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think that we needed a sysop to close it, because I already knew the code for the deleted page.  Maybe it wasn't right to close it, but it had a restore consensus, and it had been 5 days. Dtm142 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early closure of [[User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes]] and [[Template:User Gangster]]

message: For the record, I have no problem with labelling something that actually was a "strong endorsement" a "strong endorsement".  But this wasn't.  I'm sure those who voted to endorse deletion endorsed it very strongly -- but note that even some of those who voted "keep deleted" specifically did not endorse the deletion.  That's indicative that the endorsement overall was not strong at all.  Powers 12:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to go all vote-counting here, but where in the spectrum does "strong" fit?  Ok, so something with 50%+1 we can say "barely" and with 100%-1 we can say "near unanimous" but everything in between in grey.  Even if you pick 80% at random, does 4/5 constitute "strong?"  What about 160/200?  It's messy, but more to the point it serves no purpose. - brenneman {L}  05:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But to be clear, I'm through complaining about any particular past decision.  I'd like agreement on what's appropiate for closing notes for future reference. - brenneman {L}  05:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there should be any "strong", "weak", or any other type of adjective. I preferred the way it was done before, as neutral as possible. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Exception: "Unanimous" is fine, as long as it was definitely unanimous with no opposition. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that, with the only caveat that perhaps there should be a minimum number of opinions registered (3? 5?) to count as a sufficient sample size. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Putting on my parliamentarian hat for a moment: Any DRV with no opposing votes qualifies as unanimous. A negative comment without an actual vote shouldn't count, and neither should an abstention. I don't expect the question to arise, but it never hurts to be explicit. In any event, there's a difference between "strong" and "unanimous": the latter can be determined objectively; the former cannot. It is that objectivity that is needed, especially here. Jay Maynard 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My Parliamentary experience is different - no one opposed counted as nem con, with unanimous requiring all those present voting in favour. Stephen B Streater 18:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a little note--the page you linked to says "i.e. unanimously" in the "nem con" entry, implying that the two are synonymous.. jgp (T|C) 18:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  This is why I included the note about abstentions: An abstention is not a vote, period. It is not counted for any purpose when determining a voting result. If there are 50 people present, a vote of 25-0 is unanimous; the other 25 people are not counted, just as they would not be counted if the vote were 13-12 (a majority in favor) or 17-8 (2/3 in favor). This is according to American practice; British and Canadian practice may be different. I've also not encountered the term nem con. Jay Maynard 18:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  But what's "strong?" 

message: This is the third time this page has been put forward for deletion - first two times due to concerns over copyright infringement. On both counts I have made it quite clear that no copyright violation has taken place and that is proveable if necessary. 
Now, on this third attempt somebody is suggesting that the Kelly Roberti article is for self-promotion etc.  I debate this accusation - Kelly Roberti is a world renowned jazz musician and does not need to promote www.kelly-roberti.com.  
www.kelly-roberti.com is copyrighted by myself and I was not instructed by Kelly Roberti to either make that website for him, or to make this wikipedia contribution. I have however, had permission from Mr.Kelly Roberti that I may do as I wish with any of his material, which is copyrighted by himself. 
Mr.Kelly Roberti has many musical connections with many other legendary jazz musicians who have their own articles in wikipedia. 
May I suggest that the person who has made two attempts at deleting this article - perhaps consider  editing it instead ?
All facts within Kelly Roberti article are extremely accurate & of particular interest to a great many musicians and jazz enthusiasts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blastphemy (talk • contribs) 
Hi Blastphemy, you might have noticed that Biographies of Living People can be a sensitive subject on WP. I think the major issue with Kelly Roberti was a possible copyvio which you seem to have taken care of. I expect you'll get your chance to keep and expand the article. Good luck :) --Doc Tropics 17:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kelly Roberti

message: Ever since we started transcluding daily log pages, people have continued to add new days to the log page for the old day. I added a handy link to edit today's page similar to the *fD pages, along with text to copy and paste if today's page is blank. diff If you guys figure that there is a better place to put it, feel free to move it to the appropriate place. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to make it more friendly by using preload (if the page does not exist, it automagically puts the contents of Wikipedia:Deletion review/New day in the edit box for them).  I don't think enough people screw it up that it is a major problem and it is pretty easy to fix (given the low number of drvs/day), but instructions are always nice? Kotepho 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, anything to make this easier is good. This "preload" option of which you speak solved that big usability problem I had with my hackjob about how the hell you fill in header text in a blank article.  --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  *death gargle* I even said "please."  One of the objections to having any sort of subpaging was that complication was undesirable.  The editors who bring issues here are often pretty inexperianced.  I'd prefer an informal system where we let people make edits directly to the page as before, and when a more experianced editor comes along they create the subpage.brenneman {L}  04:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be my preference. I would have preferred everything to be kept on one page, but now that it's not, I've seen people making a lot of mistakes, so we might as well make it as easy as we can anyways. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: IMO, a newbie would click on the section link (if they even know to click there and they don't have section editing turned off... I don't know if anyone does, but it will totally screw up subpages, but every process other than DRV uses/used them so it cannot be that common) they are presented with an html comment that they might not read or understand, and there is the difference between what is there () versus what they are told to type (===blah===) so that in and of itself might be confusing.  I'm not sure how the instructions make it harder for someone unfamilar (usability testing always surprises me and is aggravating). Kotepho 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, usability testing is always aggravating for me too, especially because I can't say anything while the person is going through the instructions. I'd like to have newbies follow these instructions and see what they think (and what they end up doing), but alas, that's not too likely to happen. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow?! Instructions?! -Splash - tk 17:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't follow instructions, don't come crying to me, because my answer will be RTFM. So nyah nyah nyah. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a new entry for the day