User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus
Quelccaya Ice Cap, Laguna del Maule (volcano), Huaynaputina, Uturuncu, El Tatio, Lake Ptolemy, AD 1500 tsunami, 1669 Etna eruption, Garth tsunami, Cadamosto Seamount, Sabancaya, Cerro Blanco (volcano), 1540 heatwave, African humid period and add French, Italian sources from 2019 (PR for Green Sahara? And Ciomadul, Haruj, Lake Cahuilla, Lake Tauca, Salar de Punta Negra and FAs in that same batch), Cueros de Purulla, Cerro Blanco (volcano), Pali-Aike volcanic field, Cumbre Vieja sector collapse/tsunami risk, Negra Muerta volcanic complex, Mount Morning (also update other articles with "Mt. X" rather than "Mount X"), Ojos del Salado, Mount Melbourne (), California River (https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/38/10/931/130122/The-Paleogene-California-River-Evidence-of-Mojave), Tatara-San Pedro
|This is Jo-Jo Eumerus's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Jo-Jo Eumerus.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52|
- 1 File:Nuclear power is not healthy poster.jpg
- 2 Southcott (band) DRV
- 3 A barnstar for you!
- 4 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
- 5 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 4#Lera Loeb
- 6 Disambiguation link notification for November 17
- 7 Tech News: 2019-47
- 8 ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus. Do you know what's going on with this file? It was discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 18#File:Nuclear power is not healthy poster.jpg and you closed the discussion as "delete". There, however, is nothing in the page's history or the log which shows that the file was ever deleted. I'm asking about this because the file has just been tagged for speedy deletion per F5 which seems odd. Some other odd things are that there's no file displayed on the file's page (only a link to a non-existent file), and there's no indication given of the page being refunded or recreated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Greetings, Marchjuly. I am guessing I simply forgot to press "delete" when I closed that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. The page would likely now be eligible for CSD per WP:F2 I guess. Seems unnecessary to wait for F5 unless some is possibly currently requesting a WP:REFUND. it also seems a bit odd that a bot only picked up on the F5 only now, apparently a year after the file most likely became an orphan. Do you think this is some kind of bug? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Southcott (band) DRVEdit
A barnstar for you!Edit
|The Admin's Barnstar|
|Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus,
I wanted to commend you for your thoughtful, reasoned closing analysis and consensus determination (or lack thereof, in this case) at the Jo-Ann Roberts (2nd nomination) deletion discussion. Your analysis thoughtfully and rationally considered all arguments and, in this way, should be highlighted as a feature decision that AfD is notionally not a vote. For example, despite the number of "keeps" outweighing the "delete" or "redirects," the strength of the arguments put forward by those !voting in the minority shines through in your determination.
Anyway, just wanted to thank you for this closing rationale. It is truly the best AfD closing rationale I've read thus far.
For this, although somewhat non-specific, I award you an Admin Barnstar.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotEdit
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
At Oakshade (talk · contribs)'s DRV for Lera Loeb at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 4#Lera Loeb, you wrote:
I know that sometimes we treat "No consensus" on reviews of speedy deletions as "list at AFD"; the reasons I didn't go for this here are that a) whether to do this has been extensively debated here already and b) a lot of people are hinting that an AFD would likely result as "delete".
If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.
Please reclose the DRV as "speedy deletion overturned owing to a lack of consensus" as required by the DRV closing instructions.
I also do not find the reasons for not listing at AfD to be compelling. DRV is focused on process and AfD is focused on discussing sources. Many editors did not discuss sources at the DRV because they were focused on process. An AfD would give editors the opportunity to focus on discussing the sources. I found this DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Recent discussions and was not a participant in it. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oi. Seems like I forgot that line; I've restored it. I am not convinced by your argument on the not-listing-at-AFD question, though; the people in the deletion review were discussing sources to a substantial degree and there was little indication that they would be considered to be adequate at AFD stage (for example, there was little indication that there was more than one GNG-qualifying source). Besides, the concern about pursuing ultimately useless processes was articulated in the deletion review and long historical experience indicates that they can be indeed harmful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Andagua volcanic field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Crust
- Purupuruni (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Aeolian
20:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)