| Revision as of 11:33, 26 May 2015 editAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,819 edits OneClickArchiver archived History to Misplaced Pages talk:Advocacy ducks/Archive 10← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:33, 26 May 2015 edit undoAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,819 edits OneClickArchiver archived Contested deletion to Misplaced Pages talk:Advocacy ducks/Archive 10Next edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| | minthreadsleft = 4 | | minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Contested deletion == | |||
| This page should not be speedily deleted because it represents an actual divide of opinion between editors; supressing it will only drive the dispute underground. | |||
| ] (]) 21:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not only that the essay was deleted CSD G4, but the essay that was deleted by discussion was COI Ducks, that dealt with COI. Advocacy Ducks does not deal with COI but advocacy. Its a different subject. ] 21:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am entirely uninvolved. I briefly saw the essay earlier today, and looked at the deletion discussion for COI ducks just now. If memory serves, the essays seem very different. I concur that speedy deleting a controvertial essay that seems to have undergone major changes since the previous deletion is not productive, nor is it appropriate under the stated criterion. Could it please be reinstated so that it can be properly discussed. ](Please ] how to improve!) 21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The only thing I believe was the same as the COI essay were the photos of ducks. ] 21:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This essay really has went thru major changes. G4 really does seem to be a bad call. If anyone wants to seek a deletion the better call would be to open a new deletion discussion for this page it seems to me.] (]) 23:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So how about we take this essay to MfD and see what the whole community says? ] (]) 23:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you feel there is a reasonable call to delete this essay that would be the appropriate avenue to take.] (]) 23:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I would but I don't want to be taken to ANI or falsely accused of being part of some advocacy cabal. I'm hoping someone else will put up the MfD tag. ] (]) 00:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}I'm sorry you feel that way, Ca2@james, especially considering your insightful contributions to this essay. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 00:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Ca2james}} You might get taken to ANI, but you wouldn't get in any trouble. The individual who takes you there might catch a boomerang. ] (]) 00:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, . Let's see how this goes. ] (]) 01:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == removing the template of a guidance == | == removing the template of a guidance == | ||
Revision as of 11:33, 26 May 2015
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Advocacy ducks page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Misplaced Pages essays Low‑impact  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 23 May 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
removing the template of a guidance
Could you help me understand the nature of your objection? I left an edit summary so "unexplained" is incorrect. The original author even thanked me for changing to the proper template, so I'm puzzled. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am pasting Short Brigade Harvester Boris here from my userpage since it is pure article discussion. FYI: teh word "Nope" in the edit summary is no explanation. the fact that atsme thanked you for your edit is irrelevant to me.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- If I may please interject with a few of my thoughts on the subject of essay vs guidance essay. Considering what we've been through and the distrust expressed by a few editors regarding the motivation behind this essay, I think we have done our best to demonstrate its "worth" but now we need to see how it's going to perform. In other words, it has to prove its worth. I respectfully request that we all try to focus on the big picture, not the small things that can be upgraded/modified/deleted later once the essay has earned its place. I understand both sides of this debate and appreciate both positions but I also believe in compromise especially when it comes to trivial matters. I have always welcomed collaboration, substantive criticism and suggestions for improvement, and we have done our best to accommodate both perspectives. Now it's time for the essay to prove its worth. Wuerzele, you have been a good collaborator and helped improve this essay with your contributions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris, you expressed your concerns and I have done my best to address them but it is WP's essay now. I think we all want what's good for the project which is why I have addressed the concerns expressed by Jytdog and other editors who questioned or disproved certain aspects of the essay. I now respectfully request that we please let the essay have a chance to perform and see what happens. I realize some editors will never recommend it, but let's wait and see, ok? I think it's going to surprise us....hopefully in a good way.
--Atsme 23:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- thanks Atsme. I am waiting to see what boris has to say- he did the unexplained ("Nope") content removal.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- If I may please interject with a few of my thoughts on the subject of essay vs guidance essay. Considering what we've been through and the distrust expressed by a few editors regarding the motivation behind this essay, I think we have done our best to demonstrate its "worth" but now we need to see how it's going to perform. In other words, it has to prove its worth. I respectfully request that we all try to focus on the big picture, not the small things that can be upgraded/modified/deleted later once the essay has earned its place. I understand both sides of this debate and appreciate both positions but I also believe in compromise especially when it comes to trivial matters. I have always welcomed collaboration, substantive criticism and suggestions for improvement, and we have done our best to accommodate both perspectives. Now it's time for the essay to prove its worth. Wuerzele, you have been a good collaborator and helped improve this essay with your contributions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris, you expressed your concerns and I have done my best to address them but it is WP's essay now. I think we all want what's good for the project which is why I have addressed the concerns expressed by Jytdog and other editors who questioned or disproved certain aspects of the essay. I now respectfully request that we please let the essay have a chance to perform and see what happens. I realize some editors will never recommend it, but let's wait and see, ok? I think it's going to surprise us....hopefully in a good way.
