Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jovanmilic97: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:42, 21 November 2018 editJovanmilic97 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users30,804 edits Got it! Removing the matters that are not closed yet!← Previous edit Revision as of 07:20, 21 November 2018 edit undoRenamed user U1krw4txwPvuEp3lqV382vOcqa7 (talk | contribs)68,802 edits →your AfD closures: reNext edit →
Line 17: Line 17:
*] I can revert a relist on this one if that is what you feel it is needed. Keep voters proved both good arguments and feel much strong that the delete vote, but I wanted to see if there is a chance for even more clear consensus to happen so that one does not get to Deletion review for premature closure or such. *] I can revert a relist on this one if that is what you feel it is needed. Keep voters proved both good arguments and feel much strong that the delete vote, but I wanted to see if there is a chance for even more clear consensus to happen so that one does not get to Deletion review for premature closure or such.
*] Not sure why did you ask me about this, is because this should have been speedy kept because of too many articles nominated for AfD? Looking at voters, !delete vote is just a vote with no further explanation and FOARP's comment needed to be discussed more. ] (]) 23:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC) *] Not sure why did you ask me about this, is because this should have been speedy kept because of too many articles nominated for AfD? Looking at voters, !delete vote is just a vote with no further explanation and FOARP's comment needed to be discussed more. ] (]) 23:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
::Thanks for taking time to explain each of these AfDs. Appreciate the revert offer for relist but I guess, no need to revert them since new participants have already commented. Instead of diving into the examples I will address the main concern with which I posted here. I have a strong belief that you are deciding (at least some, if not all) AfDs on the basis of ] instead of judging the merits of the comments. This belief of mine is based on the evidence from your contribution history of just last 48 hours, where you are closing or relisting long discussion threads within 1 minute of the last edit. You would obviously know better on how much time you are devoting on the reading of the comments and assigning of weight for the comments. But the time you are devoting to these important tasks is certainly lot less than how much an average AfD closer will take close such long threads. For ] sometimes even a lone strong policy based argument with sound reasoning can trump opinion of multiple users whose !votes lack the sound reasoning. Similarly a deletion discussion with no participation can still be closed if the nomination is strong as a case of expired ], hence a relist is not necessary every time. Please see ], that covers some more point that may or may not apply to you, it will be good if you review it anyway. I will end this comment saying that your efforts are indeed appreciated but remember, closures are subject to scrutiny and if there are multiple such cases then the editor may be subjected to sanctions. Hope you will take this criticism in positive stride and use it to improve your efforts at AfD. regards. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 07:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:20, 21 November 2018

your AfD closures

Hi, thanks for helping at AfDs, can you explain in detail how, you decide to NAC close or relist an AfD. I have some concerns related to some of the recent AfDs that you have closed and relisted. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Hi! Can you say which ones you have concerns about so I can revert my closures if needed? I relist when I feel there is no consensus achieved up to that point, or when it is really close from both sides (no I do not count votes in numbers). When I keep, I check if there is a huge proper support to keep the article or there is no agreement with nominator to delete at all. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Pinging again just in case, since I got reports some people did not get my pings today Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2007 British Army order of battle I did not think delete !voters supported things around. Per XYZ person is something to avoid in AfD. And apart of that from the relist and over, there was overwhelming support to keep the article (along with nominator showing WP:IDONTLIKEIT signs which is not a valid reason to nominate).

Thanks for taking time to explain each of these AfDs. Appreciate the revert offer for relist but I guess, no need to revert them since new participants have already commented. Instead of diving into the examples I will address the main concern with which I posted here. I have a strong belief that you are deciding (at least some, if not all) AfDs on the basis of counting of heads instead of judging the merits of the comments. This belief of mine is based on the evidence from your contribution history of just last 48 hours, where you are closing or relisting long discussion threads within 1 minute of the last edit. You would obviously know better on how much time you are devoting on the reading of the comments and assigning of weight for the comments. But the time you are devoting to these important tasks is certainly lot less than how much an average AfD closer will take close such long threads. For WP:CONSENSUS sometimes even a lone strong policy based argument with sound reasoning can trump opinion of multiple users whose !votes lack the sound reasoning. Similarly a deletion discussion with no participation can still be closed if the nomination is strong as a case of expired WP:PROD, hence a relist is not necessary every time. Please see ], that covers some more point that may or may not apply to you, it will be good if you review it anyway. I will end this comment saying that your efforts are indeed appreciated but remember, closures are subject to scrutiny and if there are multiple such cases then the editor may be subjected to sanctions. Hope you will take this criticism in positive stride and use it to improve your efforts at AfD. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
User talk:Jovanmilic97: Difference between revisions Add topic