|
Hi Jushyosaha604! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Osarius ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 16:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
Hello! This message is to notify you that there is a discussion at the Wikipedia Village Pump that may be of interest to you. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 17:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know! Jushyosaha604 ( talk) 18:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The article Armanaz massacre has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS failing WP:GNG and borderline CSD A7, which I have not used because this is not technically a 'organized event'.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Dysklyver 15:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I saw your comment. Yeah, the discussion has been a bit hard to follow. I think the gist of it was that the closer found both sides had "equally compelling" arguments and therefore the result of the RfC should be decided on which side had "the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians" i.e. more votes. I interpreted your vote as a support for my version and opposition to the OP's version, whereas the closer felt it was a bit ambiguous. That's why I tagged you, so you could clarify your own position. I see that your comments are incredibly polite, although politeness can sometimes get in the way of clarity. Thanks for chiming in! VR talk 18:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
|
|
Hi Jushyosaha604! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Osarius ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 16:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
Hello! This message is to notify you that there is a discussion at the Wikipedia Village Pump that may be of interest to you. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 17:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know! Jushyosaha604 ( talk) 18:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The article Armanaz massacre has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS failing WP:GNG and borderline CSD A7, which I have not used because this is not technically a 'organized event'.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Dysklyver 15:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I saw your comment. Yeah, the discussion has been a bit hard to follow. I think the gist of it was that the closer found both sides had "equally compelling" arguments and therefore the result of the RfC should be decided on which side had "the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians" i.e. more votes. I interpreted your vote as a support for my version and opposition to the OP's version, whereas the closer felt it was a bit ambiguous. That's why I tagged you, so you could clarify your own position. I see that your comments are incredibly polite, although politeness can sometimes get in the way of clarity. Thanks for chiming in! VR talk 18:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)