User talk:Jclemens
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1. |
I'm no longer an administrator, so if you're looking for someone to undelete something I deleted, you'd be better off asking at WP:REFUND
Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...
Rob Palmer DRV
[edit]Thorough discussion? Why no mention of my request to temporarily restore the article to examine the AFD claim that it was entirely unsourced. Can you relist this? Nfitz (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Your request was late in the discussion, just one dissenting opinion, and moved no needle. Sorry, but if it had been earlier and swayed people, I would have left the closure to an administrator. Any administrator can undo my NAC, and I have no problem with you asking around... but I genuinely don't think you'll get traction there, either. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Too late in the discussion? I made that request on the 5th, and you closed it on the 8th. It seems wrong to me to let people ignore a routine request, and then close it early. Did you at least look at the contents of the deleted article? Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- 'late' is a matter of the flow of the discussion, not the time involved. Again, only one person commented in response, and did not find your post compelling. If I'd thought there was any contention left--beyond you just not being happy about how it turned out--I wouldn't've closed it. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Unhappy the way it turned out? I didn't even participate in the AFD. But you dodged the question. Look at the deleted article; does it indeed have no references? And if so, when were they deleted? Something is hinky here. Nfitz (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- You misunderstand my role. If I looked at and had an opinion about the AfD, I would not be closing the deletion review. The closer assesses what everyone else thinks about the closure, not acts as a one-editor override switch. That's called supervoting, and isn't the way we do it. You didn't convince anyone else your critique of the AfD had merit, so consensus is against you. Simple as. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think at least answering the question in the closing statement without expressing an opinion would be voting, let alone supervoting. I do ponder if closing the discussion while the most recent questions remain unanswered is supervoting - or at least voting. Nfitz (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) This close was entirely correct, and obvious enough to be a NAC. We don't keep discussions open for, and certainly don't act on the orders of, a sole dissenter. Local Variable (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think at least answering the question in the closing statement without expressing an opinion would be voting, let alone supervoting. I do ponder if closing the discussion while the most recent questions remain unanswered is supervoting - or at least voting. Nfitz (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- You misunderstand my role. If I looked at and had an opinion about the AfD, I would not be closing the deletion review. The closer assesses what everyone else thinks about the closure, not acts as a one-editor override switch. That's called supervoting, and isn't the way we do it. You didn't convince anyone else your critique of the AfD had merit, so consensus is against you. Simple as. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Unhappy the way it turned out? I didn't even participate in the AFD. But you dodged the question. Look at the deleted article; does it indeed have no references? And if so, when were they deleted? Something is hinky here. Nfitz (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- 'late' is a matter of the flow of the discussion, not the time involved. Again, only one person commented in response, and did not find your post compelling. If I'd thought there was any contention left--beyond you just not being happy about how it turned out--I wouldn't've closed it. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Too late in the discussion? I made that request on the 5th, and you closed it on the 8th. It seems wrong to me to let people ignore a routine request, and then close it early. Did you at least look at the contents of the deleted article? Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
"Knuckles the Hedgehog" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Knuckles the Hedgehog has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2 § Knuckles the Hedgehog until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)