User talk:Woohookitty/Archivevfd

transwikied VfDs

Great! Thank you for the heads-up. I'll go and update those articles' entries right now. I'm happy to see you closing vfd discussions, as that's one of those thankless jobs that never ends. Thanks and keep it up! --Dmcdevit 03:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

VFD Peter Chapman

You seem to have closed out Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peter Chapman without deleting the article. Thanks. Leithp 07:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Simpson nudity

Hi there! Don't let a single incident discourage you. We're still happy to have you around as an admin, and you could still do VFD closure if you want (it has a large backlog, too, so your help would be appreciated). We're all human here and we all make a mistake every now and then. As long as we're willing to admit that and learn from it, the Wiki will prosper. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I do, unless the nominator explicitly says otherwise. From the fact that someone nominates an article for deletion, it can reasonably be inferred that said person wants said article deleted. It would be m:instruction creep to force nominator to add a boldened 'delete' tag. For the same reason, 'merge' can be treated as 'merge and redirect', etc. Personally I believe that people voting 'redirect' usually mean 'delete and replace with redirect' but this has proven to be controversial. Radiant_>|< 08:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • And "transwiki" counts as "transwiki and delete" unless otherwise stated. Oops, this isn't my conversation! Well, I was just going to second Radiant's support and say that I must be psychic because I had already encouraged you above without even knowing you were in this controversy (if that's what it is). Then I clicked on edit and saw Rad's second comment. Anyway, praise is a cheap thing, so I thought I'd just give you some more of it! --Dmcdevit·t 08:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that if you are easily phased by being accused of making controversial decisions, then VfD is not really the place to learn adminship. Saying that, you used your judgement, and someone disagrees with it - happens to me all the time. Don't let it stop you from doing what you want to do as an admin. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's another "me too" message of support (even though I voted to undelete). I understand the judgment call you made. Hang in there and do some more VfD closures – there are a lot more that are less controversial than this one, and we have far too few admins closing out clear deletes, as evidenced by the way the backlog grows sometimes... AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:22, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

There there, kitty. =) · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

purrr...

VFD/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess

Will you explain to me why you put "no consensus" on this when it was 14-13 with keep having the most votes. Even though that is close, it is still not a tie vote. -Hoekenheef 14:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

VFD/Wikipedia:Knutsford Services [1]

Hello! A user is creating meanless stub articles for each of the motorway rest points in the UK, which is kind of ridiculous. As I said on the VfD regarding them:

If someone has something to say about a high school, railway station, service station or phone box- and the information is noteworthy and worthwhile- then the article should remain. this however does not mean a stub should be created for each of these entities extant in the world on the off chance someone will write the article. Remember, this is an encyclopedia. Leonig Mig 29 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)

There are certain articles which do pass this 'noteworthy and worthwhile' standard, such as Watford Gap (I think the first such station in the UK.

However, obviously, to just make a stub for such a prosaic structure is kind of dumb, as the voting on the VfD reflected:

       * Abstain  : 1
       * Keep  : 13
       * Delete  : 6
       * Merge  : 19

Now, given the nature of the VfD, you can actaully group merge and delete together as votes which express the attitude that meaningless stubs are not necessary for each of these gas stations extant in the UK (this is very much the critical issue at stake, and why i marked for deletion in the first place.)

       * Abstain                   : 1
       * Keep meanlingless stubs   : 13
       * Remove meanlingless stubs : 25

Now, I don't know how you assess consensus, what criteria you apply, but that seems straight cut to me- however you have sided with retaining the articles, despite a) being against wikipedia policy (check out the Knutsford services, there is no meaningful content) and b) being against a convincing majority vote by interested wikipedians over the course of over a week.

What are your thoughts! - I would like to see the meangless stubs removed, and interested users contribute to a general article. However the user who initally created the articles has taken your comment at [2] to be a vindication and has continued to create articles for the rest of the service areas in the UK, as well as separate catagories [3] for each motorway.

Again, given the consensus was very much against the further creation of these articles, your decision to support the creation of tens and tens more of these stubs seems odd. Thanks. Leonig Mig 21:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my user page, I understand you need to be as neutral as possible. I am sorry if I seem to be "berating" you as another user has accused me of, I just wanted a little discussion of the decision - I am a new user and value your response. Leonig Mig 13:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Quick note

Don't mean to bother you, but it looks like you forgot to delete Wikipedia:Spoon feeding after closing the discussion. No big deal. Carry on! --Dmcdevit·t 08:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

When you closed the debate over "Cardboardia" you deleted the debate instead of the article. I have undeleted the debate (and deleted the article). We all can make that type of mistake, carry on with your good work. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

'sno problem. It happens way more than you think. Although I wonder, is there a reason it is easier to delete the articles all at the end instead of just as you close each discussion? I always figured it was just a button like "edit" or something. --Dmcdevit·t 21:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, never mind then. I had assumed that you were closing them all first, then going back to delete them all afterwards, and that's why you forgot one. But whatever, never mind. Sorry to disturb your cleanup in action! :)

Nudity in The Simpsons

Hiya (and congrats on your adminship.) You might want to look at WP:VFU; you'll find that people get very noisy when admins delete articles which were VfD'd but did not reach a consensus to delete. A tie is not a deletion consensus, regardless of the weakness or strength of the keep votes. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

My two cents: If you made a mistake or not, don't worry about it. I've been doing WP:CFD for a few months, and people can get just as noisy there when they think I screwed up. Just do what you think is right. Because no matter what you do, someone will get their knickers in a twist. --Kbdank71 20:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• You have a good point there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

--Dmcdevit·t 21:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's the best you got? Maybe you should do some more speedies. I've tagged some quite funny ones. Actually yesterday I tagged Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Meh, that got a laugh. Someone's got a key stuck on their keyboard! --Dmcdevit·t 21:57, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

VFD/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess

Thank you for explaining that. -Hoekenheef 14:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Closure of VfD on Steve Reich (Army)

Hi Woohookitty. The VfD for this article came up on my watchlist. Your decision says delete, which would seem to be with consensus. However, the article still exists as a redirect to List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, which, IMHO, is not with the consensus. I wonder which you intended to actually do? -Splash 22:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right; I should have looked in the log before coming here. Still, it was an admin who undeleted it (obvisously), without recourse to VfU; I suppose that was just a misunderstanding? -Splash 23:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Reprise: Electric_Universe_model

Hi Woohookitty. Congrats on being accepted for admin.  :-)

I'm a relatively inexperienced user of the Wikipedia, so am a little bit confused. In browsing around, I notice that you closed the voting for the Votes For Deletion:Electric Universe Model page. It looks to me like your determination was that no consensus had been reached, and you removed the vfd tag in creating this revision of the article.

But then it appears that Joshuaschroeder about 6 hours later effectively deleted the article anyway, replacing its whole contents with a redirect to a book.

For a non-consensus on a vote-for-deletion, is this appropriate behavior, Woohookitty? Should this article have been wiped like this?

Thanks in advance for your response. -- Furchild 03:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Could you please point me to the policy that states that what I did was a big no no? -Joshuaschroeder 04:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Besides, I read through the VFD, and - once one discounts the double-votes and the anonymous sockpuppets - the consensus seems pretty clear to me; even the article's creator admitted that it's original research. DS 03:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No concensus?

I question your tabulation of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland results. Could you please explain your no concensus ruling? According to my count, the results were the following: Keep 14, Delete 27, Merge and Redirect 7. Four (4) votes to delete should not be counted due to low voters' contributions. See similar criterium used during the Talk:Gdansk/Vote. IMO the outcome of the vote should be ruled delete.

Keep (14) 1. TheUnforgiven 2. mysekurity 3. Splash 4. Harmil 5. Xoloz 6. Deror 7. Grue 8. Briangotts 9. Kloniumus 10. Falphin 11. TheCoffee 12. GabrielF 13. wayland 14. Goodoldpolonius2

Delete (27) 1. Halibutt 2. Balcer 3. Space Cadet 4. jamesgibbon 5. Ttyre 6. SylwiaS 7. JamesBurns 8. Thorsten1 9. Radiant 10. mikka 11. Tomer 12. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13. Akumiszcza 14. Ttyre 15. Irishpunktom 16. Pibwl 17. Forseti 18. A.J. 19. Molobo 20. Cautious 21. Lysy 22. Taw 23. Tirid Tirid 24. Schwartz und Weiss 25. Rubezahl 26. V1 27. logologist

Merge and redirect (7) 1. Pburka 2. brenneman 3. Avihu 4. Chris 73 5. Pavel Vozenilek 6. Kpalion 7. mikka

Discounted votes (4) 1. 208.54.14.65, 9 contributions including 3 for VfD 2. Signature unprintable, no other contributions 3. Gilgamesh he, low contributions 4. Hbk3, sock puppet - no other contributions

--Ttyre 15:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I also don't understand why it's no concensus instead of delete, please, check the votes one again. --SylwiaS 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

VFD - Islamic Term

You incorrectly closed the VFD debate with the decision as Delete. The actual decision was to delete and redirect to List of Islamic terms in Arabic. Please fix this. Thanks. freestylefrappe 01:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here but I was a voter there (and this page, as you can imagine, is on my watchlist). I disagree; the deletion was correct. I see five delete votes and only two redirect votes. Besides it's not a great name, being miscapitalized. I don't think the consensus lies with a redirect. And your tone here comes off as a little presumptuous and bossy, freestylefrappe. --Dmcdevit·t 02:41, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a small change to make. My aim was not to boss anyone around but to be succinct. I dont understand what all the fuss is about...the whole motivation for the page being deleted was that its content was an incomplete replica of List of Islamic terms in Arabic. Now whether or not the specific decision of the VFD was to redirect...I could care less. Im not attacking u for not doing it, im simply requesting that u add the redirect. Thanks. freestylefrappe 02:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Totes

The VFD for this article was invalid as the article was altered to the extent that the nominated article and the end result were completely different to each other. Compare this edit (when it was nominated for vfd) to this edit (me removing the vfd tag). In cases where the article has been dramatically altered since the original listing to this same extent it is common practice to disregard the vote in the discussion, which I have done and undeleted the article. I did try to explain that the page had been altered at the vfd debate. -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Willienator

I think you missed--it hasn't been deleted yet. :) Make this guy's nonsense go away. --Etacar11 16:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD OnenewsAfrica

I disagree with your decision to remove the VfD from OnenewsAfrica and OneNewsAsia. I feel the copyvio system seems to be backlogged, and that if a page is unable to survive VfD, it should not fall to the copyvio department to deal with. Copyvio should make deletion calls on articles that are on notable topics, but are copyright violations. I think that if an article can be dealt with on VfD, and removed, so much the better. EvilPhoenix talk 00:44, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

To me this is splitting hairs a bit. I say that because either way, the page will be deleted. Either way the articles will probably go bye bye. Besides, it's not like there were a ton of votes on either and they had been sitting there for a few days. I can see it your way too but I think that making it a copyvio issue is the right thing to do in this case. And btw, if you think the copyvio page is backlogged now, you haven't seen nothing yet. :) I think this was before you started here, but back in March/April, there were literally 900 items on the copyvio page. The management of it has gotten MUCH better. --Woohookitty 05:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

personally I wouldn't mind helping out on copyvio, is there much I can do as a non-admin? EvilPhoenix talk 05:29, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

VFD Nimrod Kamer

You have closed the VFD vote on Nimrod Kamer on the grounds of "The result of the debate was no consensus." I disagree. All votes for "keep" (except Babajobu's) were either by sockpuppets, anonymous people, or users who's first edit was this vote. The majority of real wikipedians voted for deletion. DMTsurel 05:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello? DMTsurel 05:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Rose

Hello. You deleted this article as a result of a VfD against it. However, the article had already been deleted by that VfD and rewritten by me, so I think you accidentally deleted an article that had never been VfD'ed. Therefore I am undeleting this article. Let me know if you feel that I've made any error here. Cheers --malathion ^talk 07:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Ultimate Leagues VfD cleanup...

I noticed that you closed out this VfD. Can I get you to also delete List of Ultimate Frisbee leagues, which is now a redirect to an article that doesn't exist? I think this could be safely covered under the VfD. (Note: I voted Keep, but since it got deleted, we might as well do the job right.) Thanks. Wikibofh 17:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Salad Fingers

Hello. I noticed you've closed the VFD on the Salad Fingers theories article, declaring lack of consensus. I'd like to know why, since, unless I counted something wrong, 6 voted to keep it, 5 to merge, and 10 to delete. That doesn't sound like a votation with no consensus.

Thank you.--Kaonashi 02:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it's alright. Just thought the difference was big enough, even though the opinions seem to be mixed. I also thought it was important to consider the way an article just like that one was already deleted due to VFD before, and somebody, unhappy with that, recreated it.--Kaonashi 06:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

2005 Michelle Bachelet Scandals

Could you please explain how you came up with "no consensus" on this when all of the keep votes were either anons or brand new voters? Zoe 19:29, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Jennifer Vasquez

Hi, you formally closed the Jennifer Vasquez vfd with a "re-direct". However, days before you formally closed it Zoe had effectively ended the process less than half way through by putting in a re-direct unilitaterly and protecting the page (which only just now was unprotected at my request). As a result, nobody could see the vfd message on the page (if they followed a link or typed it in). In other words the people most likely to want the article, didn't see there was a vfd about it. Also, it was not possible for any improvements to be made to the article. There were four "keeps" (plus me would be five). So, with no consensus at 2 days and 8 hours, at a minimum a fresh start is called for. Thanks for your consideration. --rob 21:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

2005 Michelle Bachelet Scandals

Hi there FYI, my vote on the VfD for the above was vandalised. I checked the page and the only vote to keep was sockpuppetry and my own altered (originally delete) vote. Could you please revisit this? I think the consensus was clearly in favour of deletion. Also please protect against recreating the article as the (I presume) author clearly has issues. Otherwise we'll have to renominate it for AfD; given the stated preference, that seems unnecessary. Thanks! Dottore So 18:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks!! Nice job. ps let Zoe know. Dottore So 05:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete?

Hey there. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypnoticus as delete, but the pair of articles are still lurking. I'd get them myself, only I was part of the AfD. Thanks. -Splash 14:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Naomi Almeida

Hi Woohookitty! I was a bit in doubt on that VFD debate, because I counted 10 valid delete votes and 5 valid keep votes, which put it at exactly two thirds majority for deletion. In general I put the line at two-thirds, but I make exceptions sometimes, and this debate was an example of that, where I didn't really see a "consensus". Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

vfd for Nittwits

Hi Woohookitty. I saw that you closed the discussion for deletion of Nittwits, an article I marked for afd as no consensus. By my count, the vote was 3 to 2 including my nomination and the 2 votes against deletion were either from the same person or members of the organization the article was about. One of them was from an anonymous user. I'm still not sure about the logic behind the no consensus vote, but if you could shed some light on it, that would be great. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Nimrod Kamer

Hi,

Following Lomn's advice, in the talk page of the above atrical, I would like to hear you opinion on the the unregistered/sockpuppet votes that were made in the VfD page. Thanks, Yonidebest 19:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• FWIW: In particular, 10 of the 11 keep votes are either unregistered users, unsigned, or apparent sockpuppets. The signed keep votes, with two exceptions have a single edit, and it's to the AfD. One of the two exceptions appears to be a valid user (User:Babajobu and the other has 4 edits, of which 3 are to that AfD. Wikibofh 19:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)