Romney's House, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Preston By-pass you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Preston By-pass, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Britain's first motorway, the Preston By-pass, had to close within weeks of opening due to frost damage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Preston By-pass. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Preston By-pass), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they effect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.
@TheSandDoctor: I wouldn't really say I have key areas for choosing reviews in. Admittedly I don't go for particularly long ones as I simply couldn't commit the time needed for a thorough undertaking, but often i'll do a micro review of an article before taking it on, to ensure I feel my involvement will be beneficial. Of course, i'll likely stay away from very specialist subjects as it may well be you'd need someone with knowledge in the field to understand whether the subject is broad, beyond just being well written and referenced. Bungle(talk • contribs)09:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First off, thank you so much for your help with Video game walkthrough and doing a thorough review on it and taking the time you did, I really do appreciate it. If you can think of any good DYK's let me know, I am sort of drawing a blank as there are a lot of possibilities.
Secondly, would you be willing to consider doing a GA on a music related article? Would you be willing to take a look at one for me and see if you think it could qualify for GA? I have been fixing up a few (and created one) that I eventually want to take to GA and like your reviewing style/detail. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: I'm quite particular about articles I choose to review, probably because I know i'll be prepared to invest time in doing a complete review and not just to increase a tally. I wouldn't necessarily say music articles is a particular interest though; which article is it you're referring to? Bungle(talk • contribs)19:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: I think it was fairly obvious I was wiki-linking the category to demonstrate its existance, rather than trying to add the AfD to a category (which was unintentional). I see you have removed it none the less - it may have made more sense to change the markup so it just linked only, as per my original intention. Bungle(talk • contribs)21:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reversing my changes
Dear Bungle - I made the amendments to the article as the reference was added to gain a commercial advantage which is against the Wikipedia rules - that is why it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipIngram65 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilipIngram65: You don't just remove a site that is being used as a citation without any explanation (especially as I notice a trend from your contributions for this particular site). If that site has a news article of some sort that collaborates what the article explains, then it's valid. If you feel there is an issue, you take it to the talk page or better yet, find an alternate reference which confirms the same information from a different source. Simply deleting references without explanation is considered, by some, to be vandalism. Bungle(talk • contribs)13:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking up this review! I apologize if it's not up to snuff. If there are any issues found in the review, I will try my best to deal with them. @Robtalk20:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dang I did not realize it was being reviewed, I have not had a lot of Wikipedia time lately so I just took off the nominations. I will revert my removal. MPJ-DK21:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Has been listed as failed, so I am leaving that alone. Few people have shown interest in Lucha Libre articles and the GANs have sat there for months on end so I figured it was easier to just drop them instead of have someone else spend time on them. I believe the Rey Escorpión GAN is still being reviewed so that remains open if you want to take over. MPJ-DK21:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MPJ-DK: It lists as failed because you withdrew the nomination. The reviewer seemed happy to allow certain improvements to be done for it to pass. I wouldn't know how to put it back to in review, though. Bungle(talk • contribs)21:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Bungle. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Poundland you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AmericanAir88 -- AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Southport Pier you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haldanes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Davey2010Talk21:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas!
TheSandDoctor (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I have posted issues for the review of "Poundland" and it has been some time since you have accessed the page. I am sending this in case you forgot about the review. I know this is a busy time so take all the time you need. Thank you. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AmericanAir88: Yes I noticed, thanks; your most recent comments were less than 3 days ago, so well within the acceptable timeframe. I will look at this more closely after the next few days, as you appreciate other commitments for this time of the year. Bungle(talk • contribs)18:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Haldanes logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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).
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lytham Pier you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Skegness into Skegness Pier. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: Sure. I intend to rewrite extensively, with the copied content as reference material, so I didn't think it would be a particularly big issue. In saying that, I accept making a note of the reference article in the edit history would have been beneficial. I seldom create articles using content from another, so it's not a familiar practice, though i'll note it going forward. Bungle(talk • contribs)12:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Southport Pier, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that professional diver Albert Powsey was known for diving off Southport Pier with a bicycle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Southport Pier. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Southport Pier), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Back-to-back house you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bungle. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
A tag has been placed on File:Fowler dockers shirt.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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 deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tongue firmly embedded in side of buccal cavity
Hi - I just happened to notice your follow up observation to my comment at Enterprisey's recent RFA. It's too late to reply there, of course, but I can assure you that, yes, it was very definitely tongue in cheek. I do take Wikipedia very seriously indeed, but a little light humour is sometimes needed. Sorry if I caused confusion. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: I didn't ping you on that comment as it wasn't something that needed or expected a response. I was perhaps just thinkng aloud how it may affect your future !votes (if you have any without credibility), in a similar vein to the one that was struck, especially if it can be demonstrated you would actually think that way. Glad that's not the case though. Bungle(talk • contribs)08:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article Backlog Drive Barnstar
The Invisible Barnstar
Thanks for your participation in the September 2019 GA Backlog drive. Your 2 reviews made a difference. The work of editors like you helped bring down the unreviewed backlog by over 35%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
18 leagues, 7 FA Cup, 8 League Cup, 15 Charity Shields, 1 Super Cup (=49), 6 European Cup, 3 Uefa Cup, 4 Uefa Super Cup (=13), 1 World Club Cup(=1). Total is therefore 49+13+1 = 63. Koncorde (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just clicked what you are referring to. I have never seen the Sheriff of London Cup given parity with the other trophies before in any article or sources. Think the main article needs looking at. Koncorde (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey BRACK66, as a Liverpool F.C. fan myself i'd like nothing more than to include as many applicable trophies as we can. Like Koncorde, I wasn't aware these trophies were considered in the same manner as those later on. I guess the SLCS was an official per-decessor so an argument could be made this is relevant. What I am unsure of is the FLSC, which was a one-off competition to compensate for no European competitions. However, a competition it was none the less and indeed Liverpool won this, so I will accept your revision on that basis. We could look to add a small note for the purposes of the FLSC though. Bungle(talk • contribs)14:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I repeated the post, as there is a spelling mistake in the original. I am going to place it on the thread again. Could you then delete the first post!! Thanks. BRACK66 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive As you have taken part in previous GAN Backlog drives, or are a prolific GAN reviewer, you might be interested to know that the April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive starts on April 1, and will continue until the end of May.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Welsh Streets, Liverpool you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of KJP1 -- KJP1 (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A very enjoyable and interesting read. Give me a shout on the review page if anything needs discussion/clarification. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am glad you found it interesting (which certainly helps as a reviewer). I have replied on the GA page too in relation to working through the review. Bungle(talk • contribs)15:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: That's great, and much more professional looking than the sketch. It seems the photo may have been in the commons since 2014, looking at the date, or am I reading that wrong? I have also started an article on the nearby Granby Four Streets, which I hope to develop in a similar way to the Welsh Streets; alas, I have yet to determine the architect for this area, although given the extent of Owens' design work, I wouldn't rule him out yet. Bungle(talk • contribs)09:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this book, page 55 suggests Owens designed the Granby Streets area too, although i'd want to ideally find additional verification too. It would sound right, as they are right next to Welsh Streets and he was prolific in construction across the area at that time. Bungle(talk • contribs)09:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're quite right. Jason pointed out it had been uploaded sometime back but kindly cropped and scrubbed up this version. KJP1 (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Granby Four Streets you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of KJP1 -- KJP1 (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - this is taking longer than planned, but work/life keeps interrupting. Shall make every effort to close it up in the next day or so. KJP1 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: That's absolutely fine - I can't expect anything more than that, after you so kindly took the review on so swiftly after I nominated it. Knowing that you will do a comprehensive and thorough review, I am more than happy to wait a little longer if you need the extra time. Many thanks. Bungle(talk • contribs)19:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking there’s nothing you need from me? Absolutely not rushing you - take as long as needed - but wanted to be sure I’d not missed a question/query which was holding you up. KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: All good thanks - I am trying to do an update every day or so as time allows. I did do some further editing yesterday but it seems my update to the GA page to confirm this didn't save! My responses on the GA page are mostly confirming the changes made, perhaps except for 1 query, but I was happy to finish undertaking your review before expecting you to go through this. Cheers. Bungle(talk • contribs)17:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bungle! Since you're listed as a member of WikiProject: Retailing, wanted to let you know we're currently discussing importance assessment criteria for the project on the talk page. Thanks! Tfkalk (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sega controllers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Red Phoenixtalk19:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Southend Pier
@Bungle: - Check out footnote 42. It has a "Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." Excellent photos, BTW. Third paragraph in intro seems short. TwoScars (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for uploading File:Poundland.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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).
@Redrose64: The image which replaced it has seemingly been reverted due to being inferior quality. While I suspect it may be recreated or improved at some point, the aforementioned image has been restored, for now. Please advise the process or make any appropriate action with regards to the CSD. Thanks. Bungle(talk • contribs)16:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I hope you are doing well. I dont think this AfD close by you is accurate. I would recommend to undo your close, and let some other editor handle it. Also, I am involved in the AfD. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk)19:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: Thanks for reaching out. The AfD in question had already been relisted twice and the sole involvement to come subsequently was from you. With 4 people expressing an evenly split opinion, there was no clear consensus to delete the article, nor was it evident that there was support for it to be kept, either. I considered that the AfD, having already had 2 relists, was ultimately not going to end with any consensus. I am mindful this is against your own viewpoint, although I consider sometimes it is not appropriate to relist when it has already been done (more than once). Bungle(talk • contribs)19:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt reply. There were two keep comments, and two+one delete arguments, including the nomination. Also, both the keep arguments were not supported by any policy, whereas the delete arguments were based on policies. That makes the AfD in favour of deletion. —usernamekiran (talk)20:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: FWIW, after 2 relists and no "clear" consensus (or at least, no clear consensus favouring delete), I have opted, against my better judgement, to relist for a 3rd time. A different editor will then subsequently close the AfD. Bungle(talk • contribs)20:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. Although, I was not asking or expecting for a relist. But thanks again, it is very much appreciated. See you around :) —usernamekiran (talk)20:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677: You will have observed that the AfD saw four "keep" votes (and well thought out, too) and no votes contrary to this (not including your own, as the nominator). There were no other viewpoints expressed that supported your own position or point of view. You evidently feel this should have been deleted, but wikipedia works on consensus and the consensus in this particular AfD was that the article should be kept. The plausibility was adjudged by those who expressed an opinion. I am sorry you disagree with this, though that is what the community decided. Bungle(talk • contribs)22:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you closed this as No Consensus, there were 9 Deletes (including one Weak Delete) and one Redirect as opposed to 5 Keeps, that shows a clear consensus for deletion. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist: There was no "clear" consensus for deletion. Yes, there was a greater number expressing a view for deleting the article, but an AfD is not a straight vote of majority wins, but a consensus building exercise. The discussion had been relisted on 11th February as consensus wasn't clear, and after this point there were a further 2 keeps, 2 deletes and 1 redirect expression of opinion. No consensus is not a "keep" outright, though that is the default outcome, however it's not uncommon to rerun the AfD after a short period of time has elapsed to see if a clearer consensus can be reached. If you consider deletion is appropriate, you may well do this in the near future? Bungle(talk • contribs)08:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: I am unsure what you are actually asking here? I am familiar with many of those editors who expressed a keep opinion in this discussion and even without considering the few I am not familiar with, there is clearly a sufficient consensus from reputable editors for the article to be kept. I was aware the article has previously been deleted and has been the subject, or referenced in a historic SP investigation, yet it isn't for me to dispute what was actually an overwhelming consensus to keep the article. What i'd say is - 1) do you have evidence, or highly suspect any of those who expressed a view in this AfD to be a sock-puppet, specifically one with a motive to keep this article, 2) would you consider that there is sufficient keep consensus from those with credible editing history on wikipedia that the outcome on this occasion could not have been different? Bungle(talk • contribs)17:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You will observe from the closing statement that I am not an administrator on wikipedia, nor checkuser. However, with that said, and in reference to my prior response, there were sufficient expressions of keep from editors whom I know are not sock puppets (and others with sufficient edit history to consider them not a sock puppet), that the outcome of that discussion was, in my view, not going to end a different way. I sense you are disputing the outcome that I expressed on the closure. If that is the case, i'd advise you take this through a review of the AfD where your concerns can be considered. Bungle(talk • contribs)17:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK. Unruffle your feathers. I asked whether you had checked for socking; I see from your response that you didn't; so the outcome is that I need to do it. You don't need to point me to deletion review, I'm not new.—S MarshallT/C18:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I can see you started editing wikipedia around the same time as myself, so I am sorry if it sounded like I was advising you on protocol (which wasn't my intention). However, you directly raised a query with me in response to my action in an AfD which you initiated and I took that to be on the basis that you disputed the action taken. Whether you subsequently choose to undertake your own investigation is your prerogative. I considered the outcome that I expressed to be the only one available. Bungle(talk • contribs)19:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done so, and although you do seem very certain, I feel that it would be discourteous of me to go to DRV without giving you the results and offering you a chance to self-revert. The accounts that !voted keep were:
Grin, a good-faith account.
Xia, an account with many edits; I've been through their last five years' worth and this is their only vote in an AfD during that time.
Samat, who had never voted in an AfD prior to voting "keep" in that one.
Minerva97, who had never voted in an AfD prior to voting "keep" in that one.
Adumbrativus, an account that was registered this month.
The Bushranger, a good-faith account.
Dodi123, who had never voted in an AfD prior to voting "keep" in that one.
JSoos, who had never voted in an AfD prior to voting "keep" in that one; he has 1,000 edits, about a third of which were made on 19 October 2018.
GhostDestroyer100, a good-faith account.
Spiderone, a good-faith account.
A7V2, a good-faith account.
Mjbmr, a good-faith account, despite his curious history of AfDing articles that he started.
Nyiffi, who had never voted in an AfD prior to voting "keep" in that one.
Hyperion35, who hadn't edited for 7 years prior to voting "keep" in that AfD.
In addition, in my opinion many of the "keep" !voters bear all the hallmarks of sleeper socks. I'm going to go ahead and say that whole AfD is a duck for UPE.—S MarshallT/C19:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are discussing accounts which have been registered for many years and of course to really determine their legitimacy means having a checkuser done. If that results in any meaningful amount of accounts being considered suspicious, then the AfD may be looked at again. However, by your own reckoning, there are sufficient "good faith" editors expressing a view to "keep" that with those alone (plus ser!, who changed vote) I do not believe it would have resulted in a different outcome (maybe NC at a long stretch, which is still default keep). While I would be interested in the developments of that, i'd ask that you don't continue this on my talk page. Thanks. Bungle(talk • contribs)19:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenvale Transport until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
This was a bad close IMHO. It is standard for nominations without clear consensus after the initial 7 days to be relisted for further discussion, rather than closed, and per WP:NACAFD "experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep" only, which was not the case here. GiantSnowman16:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Thank you for your message. While it is not unusual for relists (and indeed, it often does happen), I would disagree that this is "standard" as you alluded. It is worth remembering that discussions like an AfD is not a straight vote and in this instance, the deletion !votes where largely "per others". The keep arguments actually referred to sourcing and there was no dispute to these once expressed. Is there any reason why you wouldn't want to renominate freshly? Bungle(talk • contribs)16:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Not at all. The reason you raised it with me is because, I assume, you wanted to see the article deleted (otherwise, you're just making a point in messaging me about it?). There was enough discussion that a relist was not absolutely necessary (there is no NC prerequisite of prior relists having occurred). The nominator wished to withdraw, which obviously under the circumstances was not appropriate and I reverted on that basis. There is no "point" being made from your side if you wanted to renominate with your own rationale, which would be on a clean discussion. Bungle(talk • contribs)17:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reason I messaged you was as a way of letting you know the close was bad. Next time, or if another editor picks up in it, might be more severe. GiantSnowman17:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: I respect your view, but please just be mindful of the tone. There are many users who, despite opting not to gain access to an extended toolkit, are no less competent than those who have. I value the consensus approach of wikipedia and would generally always prefer to see actual outcomes. In this case, I just felt that a new AfD would be a cleaner approach than a relist. However, if you do not agree on this occasion, I will be prepared to self revert and relist. I have no view either way on the article so it wouldn't be an issue, if it seemingly is for you? Bungle(talk • contribs)17:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: The delete !votes were essentially pile-on and not reflective of the subsequent discussion occurring after the discussion of sources. There is no explicit prerequisite for NC to be given after relists. I recognize your status as a project administrator, though we both are equally long-registered users with our own views. I feel we have exhausted the discussion and don't consider it appropriate to continue in this manner. You have a view, you expressed it and I offered to give your view the benefit of the doubt by enacting a relist instead. Feel free to reply (one last time) if you wish for me to do that, or not if you consider the conversation concluded. Thanks. Bungle(talk • contribs)17:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think they were "pile on" then you clearly don't have much experience at AFDs and shouldn't be closing them? Either way, no, I don't want it to be re-opened, as I am sure that would be merely delaying the inevitable 'no consensus'. What I would please like is for you to acknowledge that the close was perhaps questionable, and a commitment not to repeat it again. GiantSnowman20:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: I feel this conversation has reached a natural conclusion now and need not be continued. You declined another afd, you declined my offer to reverse the closure and you accept a "no consensus" as a credible outcome. I am not a disruptive editor and edit in good faith. Your views are your opinion, and so I am unsure how I can commit to not performing a future action which you would personally disagree with. I will commit, as always, to engage in constructive dialogue with anyone, in a reasonable manner. You may be weary in accepting that my action was made in good faith, though I don't think there is more to be said now. Hopefully our future dialogue can be on better terms. Many thanks. Bungle(talk • contribs)22:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
