简体版 繁體版 English
登録 ログイン

deletion guidelines for administratorsの例文

例文モバイル版
  • For the relevant policy see : Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators.
  • Also Deletion Guidelines for administrators which quite clearly states:
  • Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators enjoins admins to respect the judgment of Wikipedia participants.
  • See Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators # Rough consensus, shortcut WP : ROUGH CONSENSUS.
  • I believe that the closing admin had not followed the Deletion Guidelines for administrators which quite clearly states:
  • :: Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators ( AKA WP : Rough consensus ) is the key guideline to consider here.
  • If administrators comply with the advice in Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators then more than one set of eyes looks at the situation that triggered their concern.
  • :The guidelines on deleting particular versions of pages is contained at Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators # Version deletion, Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators # Libel in edit summaries and Wikipedia : Selective deletion.
  • :The guidelines on deleting particular versions of pages is contained at Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators # Version deletion, Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators # Libel in edit summaries and Wikipedia : Selective deletion.
  • I wanted to start off with saying this review is not that I disagree with the outcome of the AfD, but because I believe the closing admin did not follow Deletion Guidelines for administrators which quite clearly states:
  • I direct your attention to the Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators policy under Deciding whether to delete, number 3 : " As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in.
  • :In the light of the activity yesterday around this and related articles that fell into the " creative fiction " category ( see Wikipedia : Votes for deletion, I agree that this should be added to the list of reasons for speedy deletion on Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators.
  • "' Closing statement "': The guideline Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators says, " When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted.
  • :Please see Wikipedia : Deletion policy # Deletion discussion and Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators # Rough consensus, in particular, " Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy ( if any ) . " talk ) 15 : 53, 18 February 2008 ( UTC)
  • And though there may be a general consensus built that the " Death of Marvin Schur " may be deleted I direct your attention to the Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators policy under Deciding whether to delete, number 3 : " As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in.
  • Under Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators # Rough consensus administrators are directed to three policies, and only three, that should automatically negate consensus . ( Other policies can require deletion of information or entire articles without even going to the deletion-discussion process at all, so that violation of copyright or libel laws, for instance, can override consensus ).
  • However, AfD is not a vote, and the only way which I can see of counting that AfD as a " keep " consensus is by counting heads, which runs counter to Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators # Rough _ consensus : " Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy ( if any ).
  • Although it isn't my main argument, it's worth noting that this statement and decision violated Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators # Deciding whether to delete, specifically items 1 [ " Whether consensus has been achieved " ], 2 [ " Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants " ] and 4 [ " When in doubt, don't delete . " ].
  • There were three ! votes for deletion, 4 to keep, and one to rename, but per Wikipedia : Deletion guidelines for administrators # Rough _ consensus, I attached little weight to the arguments of the " keep " voters, whose arguments run counter to the existing guidelines; in particular, they offered no reasons for making geobox an exception to the principle of avoiding self-references which could not be equally applied to many other infoboxes.
  • :: : : IMO these flawed and disrespectful opaque decisions can largely be avoided "'( 1 ) "'if the deletion policies were amended so advising the person who started the article, category, template or image was no longer optional, and administrators making deletions told nominators they had to make sure they left the heads-up before the deletion process could go forward . "'( 2 ) "'if administrators followed the advice in deletion guideline for administrators, and only deleted articles that hadn't been tagged in the case of real emergencies, or in cases that were truly open and shut, like patent nonsense . talk ) 23 : 16, 25 February 2008 ( UTC)