User talk:Cavarrone
|
||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 51 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
[
[edit]Wikiclaus greetings | ||
|
have a delicious trout
[edit]Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Sorry for the complaint, but I personally believe your close of conventional weapon is a WP:BADNAC. The administrator who relisted the AfD previously correctly noted there were no policy based arguments. There still aren't. AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE and it would likely have been relisted a 2nd time were a typical admin to look at it because all the keep arguments so far are essentially just votes with some extra claims. I would like to request that you reverse the close, thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I am not sure which point of WP:BADNAC my closure would fall under. And how is AirshipJungleman29's comment not policy-based? I have no horse in this race and I am strongly against non-admins closing contentious AfDs, but in this case I frankly just see a deletion proposal that clearly failed to gain any traction. I am surprised of the complain and don't see how an extra week could overturn the situation and result in a deletion, but as you feel I didn't read consensus correctly I am undoing my close and let others decide. Cavarrone 07:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm the first one to withdraw my AfD if I truly feel that it failed. If obvious sources get pointed out, I "know when to fold 'em", so to speak. But I do not believe this is one of those times. Therefore I feel it falls under WP:NACPIT #2, where it says "Contrary to popular belief, especially among newer editors, discussions are not a vote. Editors who close discussions use rough consensus to determine the outcome. The process of rough consensus requires administrators to occasionally ignore opinions (sometimes called !votes) because they are against policy". In this instance I am still waiting for a policy based rationale besides "duh! Lots of people use the words 'conventional weapon' in a sentence!" AirshipJungleman's comment is a strawman that refutes one of my claims without refuting overall non-notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently I was not that wrong, after all. Cavarrone 15:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm the first one to withdraw my AfD if I truly feel that it failed. If obvious sources get pointed out, I "know when to fold 'em", so to speak. But I do not believe this is one of those times. Therefore I feel it falls under WP:NACPIT #2, where it says "Contrary to popular belief, especially among newer editors, discussions are not a vote. Editors who close discussions use rough consensus to determine the outcome. The process of rough consensus requires administrators to occasionally ignore opinions (sometimes called !votes) because they are against policy". In this instance I am still waiting for a policy based rationale besides "duh! Lots of people use the words 'conventional weapon' in a sentence!" AirshipJungleman's comment is a strawman that refutes one of my claims without refuting overall non-notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
[edit]Two years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
"Best Comedy Series" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]The redirect Best Comedy Series has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 30 § Best Comedy Series until a consensus is reached. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Fumoon.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Fumoon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)