Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Religious harmony in India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Gone with the wind
- Gone with the wind --Bhadani (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Clarifications --Bhadani (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Responding to disruptive canvassing
(Copied from WP:CANVAS, emphasis mine - Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC))
The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, and to block the user(s) only if they continue, to prevent them from posting further notices. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary. The use of rollback to remove notices from user talk pages is not recommended, as the recipients will read the notices anyway, and will post a large number of complaints on your talk page. Canvassing notices can be expunged from user talk pages by deleting the affected talk pages, then restoring all revisions except those containing the notices, and those that were already deleted. It is recommended that caution be exercised before deploying this technique, since talk pages containing an extremely large number of revisions may be difficult to restore, and since the deletion of pages with large numbers of inbound links can cause server slowdowns.
[edit] No big deal
{Copied from WP:ADMIN - Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC))
An often paraphrased comment about the title and process of administratorship – referred to as sysops here – is the following, said by Jimbo Wales in February 2003:
I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.
I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.
I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.
– Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry
A more modern clarification of this statement as of 2008, would be that administrators have high levels of responsibility, and their correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct is considered very important. But the title of "administrator" is not a big deal, nor should the process of acquiring it be presented as a big deal. No extra decision-making ability goes with adminship, nor any extra voice in consensus decisions. In that sense, whether a person is an administrator is not, in and of itself, important.
[edit] Improper close?
I'm not sure the "uninvolved admin" closed this AFD properly. I believe a tally of the votes is supposed to be made for the record. For the record, my tally of the votes is: 9 for keep, 4 for rename / merge, 7 for delete. Also it seem that the POV of the minority has prevailed and that the decision to delete was not exactly neutral nor consensus and should perhaps be reviewed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
