User talk:Alpha Quadrant

Archives

---

__________Archive list ________

April 21, 2010 - May 31, 2010 June 01, 2010 - September 17, 2010 September 18, 2010 - October 02, 2010 October 03, 2010 - November 14, 2010 November 15, 2010 - January 03, 2011 January 4, 2011 - February 28, 2011 February 29, 2011 - May 22, 2011 May 23, 2011 - August 25, 2011 August 26, 2011 - October 12, 2011 October 12, 2011 - November 5, 2011 November 5, 2011 - November 21, 2011 November 21, 2011 - December 15, 2011 December 16, 2011 - February 7, 2012 February 8, 2012 - March 1, 2012

Please see the archives to the right for older messages.

When AfD discussions have had substantial debate, they are not relisted unless there was a procedural issue or a deficiency in the discussion. When relisting such debates, editors should explain why they are relisting them. Would you append a rationale to your relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad on the AfD pages, so that the participants understand why the discussion was deficient? Cunard (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RELIST for the purpose of relisting a discussion. Currently there is two users (you and the nom) arguing deletion, one arguing userfying, and one arguing keep. That is by no means clear consensus. That is why we relist discussions, to establish a clearer consensus. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are three users arguing for deletion. Because six users have participated in the debate, there has been substantial discussion. WP:RELIST states (among other things):

However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus.

For the first clause, I do not consider six participants to be few. For the second, I believe that policy-based arguments have been advanced regarding the notability of the subject and whether the page should userfied. It is time for the consensus to be assessed. Please undo your relist. Cunard (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in the event that you failed to notice my reply because of the intervening edits of Drimplants (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have reviewed several AfC creations since 21:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC), the time I posted my above message. I will revert your relist if you intend to ignore my messages. Cunard (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such an action would be inappropriate, as you are involved in the discussion. The debate is relisted so that a clear consensus can be established. Two keep !votes, one userfy vote, and one keep vote is not clear consensus. It doesn't matter if there are 6 participants, or 60. Discussions that have unclear consensus can be relisted. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally replying.

"Two keep !votes, one userfy vote, and one keep vote" – there are three delete votes, one userfy, and one keep.

It doesn't matter if there are 6 participants, or 60. Discussions that have unclear consensus can be relisted. – You have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:RELIST. WP:RELIST states:

[R]elisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.

Even if there had been no consensus, your relist would have been wrong.

Your counting of the votes does not take into account the strength of the votes' arguments. I believe that consensus has been achieved.

You have failed to demonstrate that your relist meets the above criteria I quoted from the WP:RELIST. Please undo your inappropriate relist. Cunard (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AQ. There is a discussion on my talk page about this relist. Perhaps you may find in that discussion that there are reasons why re-listing discussions like this can be damaging and why it is best to avoid re-listing a discussion until it has fallen off the seven day log. I'd join Cunard in asking that you consider relisting this one; had I noticed it without having been asked to look at it I probably would have reverted it myself. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gregori_M._Kurtzman,_DDS,_MAGD,_FPFA,_FADI,_DICOI,_DADIA

Here are 3rd party sources to verify. Should you need additional sources please let me know and if you can be specific in what is needed. Thank you.

Many of those sources appear to be first party sources. Can you please add reliable third party sources, particularly news sources. The sources do not need to be online. They can be books, magazines, newspaper articles, or online news articles. For details, please see VRS. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Carbonero over three days early; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runt Marr nearly two days early; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand's Top 100 History Makers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Největší Čech, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suuret suomalaiset, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Os Grandes Portugueses, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Croatian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Grootste Nederlander, and several other discussions a day early.

Given Kww (talk · contribs)'s discussion with you yesterday above, why have you speedily closed these discussions and not let them run for the full listing period? Cunard (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look, I speedy closed the above debate that Kww highlights. Speedy closing was inappropriate in that case (yes, I made a mistake here), however, if I had done an early close it would have been appropriate. Yes, early closes are not in a given guideline, and therefore can be controversial, but they are not forbidden. If you look, I am not the only editor who makes early keep closures. By the way, now that other users have commented after my relisting in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad, it would be inappropriate for me to revert my relisting, so please stop asking me to do that. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not close debates early because as you note, they can be "controversial". There is no harm to leave them open until the full 168-hour listing period has passed.

Regarding the AfD, Mkativerata asked you at 23:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC) to undo your relist, and I asked you at 01:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC) to undo your relist. There were no further comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad until 15:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC). You dealt with a number of AfCs in that intervening time period.[reply]

I opened this thread not to convince you to undo your relist (I did not mention it, knowing it was futile because you ignored the requests of myself, Mkativerata, and S Marshall yesterday) but to ask you not to close discussions early. Cunard (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No where in policy does it say that non-admins can't close clear consensus discussions early. If someone protests the early closure, then we reopen it. If you take a look, the discussions I closed today were clearly non-controversial. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I also closed an AfD debate 6 days early. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither admins nor non-admins should close discussions early unless there is a good reason for doing so. One, when a non-admin or admin closes a discussion earlier, he or she introduces a procedural irregularity that can make the nominator feel that s/he has not received FairProcess. Second, an early close could cause the discussion to be overturned at deletion review. Third, early closes encourage others to close earlier and earlier. I ask you not to close discussions early if the nominator has not withdrawn and if the participants are not unanimous. Cunard (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1)Fair process? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. 2) That is what deletion review is for. 3) Like I said, editors already make early closures, some of them the day they are opened. Policy doesn't support your arguments. You can't go around "requesting" that editors only edit the way you want them to, and then harassing them if they don't. That is not how Wikipedia works. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Alpha Quadrant! Cunard has asked me on my talk page to speak with you about this, so I'll try to help clear this up.

  "FairProcess" is a meme from meatball wiki, which is a wiki about wikis; it's about making sure our processes are fair. AfD is the process in question, and the reason why early closures can sometimes make the process unfair is if the early closure stops a user from having a voice in a discussion when they might reasonably have expected one. If you're interested, you can read more about the thoughts behind FairProcess here. Of course, that shouldn't stop you from withdrawing your own nominations as in one of the examples on this page. The important point is that there is a strong community consensus that an AfD should only be closed after 168 hours. Would it be helpful if I linked the discussion for you where this was agreed?

  You will, of course, see editors disregarding that rule. Like all rules there are times when that is appropriate; Cunard's concern, and mine, is that your perception of when it's appropriate and ours are significantly at variance.

  I know you think Cunard is harassing you, but I respectfully ask you to reconsider that view. Cunard is a rather respected and trusted editor who has absolutely no history of harassing anyone, and I think the reason he is repeating his requests is in an attempt to avoid more difficult and formal processes in future. You don't have to listen to him, or indeed to me, but I do respectfully ask you to think about what Cunard says most carefully.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ S Marshall, I found the discussion regarding the deletion process changes, and it appears it discussed changing the time from 5 to 7 days, as well as early closures. The discussion didn't appear to have a strong consensus to only close after 168 hours, (for deletion, yes, but for keep/redirect/merge there was actually quite a few editors in favor of early closures.) I see your point on early relisting discussions, I erred in relisting early the other day, and the debate that Kww pointed out was incorrectly closed by me. However, early closures do happen. Currently on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 7, there are several early closures (both delete and keep) where the discussion hasn't been listed for a full seven days. If there is a specific problem with one of the closures I made yesterday, I would be willing to listen.

@Cunard re [1], I didn't appreciate your threats to unilaterally overrule my relist if I didn't reply to you right then and there. I didn't appreciate your "hurry up and reply" comments either. Just because I had the audacity to go back to reviewing AfC submissions, and taking a break from the discussion, rather than replying to your comments right away. I replied a mere 40 minutes after your first comment, it hadn't been 20 minutes after your comment before you started demanding I reply. I didn't mind you asking for third party input, I had a problem with you asking 3 different editors to overturn my decision, after the previous editor you asked already declined your request. Then you stated that "maybe one of the 109 talk page stalkers will do it". Then you go on threatening to open a Request for Comment if I "continued to make poor decisions". Yes, I erred the other day, however, how have I erred in the closures you linked in this discussion? Early closures are no where prohibited. Also, you canvassed at [2] [3][4][5] for opinions on whether or not the article should be userfied. You did not inform the other users who commented in the debate (partisan canvassing), you only informed the editors that agreed with you. Then, after you canvassed, you came here to criticize the fact that I made early closures, citing a discussion I had with Kww about an incorrect speedy closure, a discussion that should have been an early closure. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Newspaper vending machine, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the newspaper vending machine was invented by George Thiemeyer Hemmeter in 1947? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Newspaper vending machine.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

please can u explain to me how did u manage to review this in less then 5 seconds?