Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics § 2023 Nigerian general election. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Heads of government of republics
• Template:Heads of government of monarchies
• Template:Heads of state of republics

I made them as an experiment to see if the template is useful or not. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Unfortunately, I cannot request speedy deletion of these under G7 (author request) because other people significantly contributed to the templates too (by adding countries and altering listed heads). In addition, I cannot delete them myself since I do not have administrator privileges. Let the TfD discussion conclude in favour of deletion first. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NAC closures are supposed to be for non-controversial debates. Almost by definition, "no consensus" means that it is controversial. Please self revert. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no prohibition against non-administrators closing anything as "no consensus". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But NAC closes should not be controversial. In addition, the discussion was still ongoing, the last comment actually being from today (and I myself was writing a comment when you closed this. That close was inappropriate and I kindly request that you undo it. There is a good probability that a consensus may still be reached with further discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have relisted so that you can reply to other participants, as you have claimed to be edit conflicted. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You closed an RfD discussion as no consensus, which defaulted to keeping the redirect. However, nobody in the deletion discussion supported keeping the redirect. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 22:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) A closure of "no consensus" with no other action is nonsensical for a discussion like Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 5#Ivy Road where no one supports the status quo. Please see this section for more details. Randykitty also gives good advice in the above section; if it has a chance of being controversial, non-admins should not be closing it. Please reverse your closure. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undone and relisted. I forgot that somebody had to explicitly voice support of the status quo to call "no consensus". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well no, that's not a fair summary of when to call a "no consensus" either, but I digress. Anyway, I'm returning because I also don't think relisting the discussion is the way to go. This makes it the fourth(!) relist, and WP:RELIST recommends, in bold, that in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough Sorry again. Also undone that (have trout been raining over my house today?). That was caused by a habit of mine to autopilot to relisting when I self-overturn. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tavix: Forgot to ping back. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That one should be relisted too. It's got the same divide and same argument as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 22#Functional Ecology – journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will change it to a bundle. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there! I sent a request to change my name, I'd like if you could accept it. E.S. Cohen - א.ס. כהן (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mellohi, I noticed a couple of your recent AfD relists seem to be done just for the sake of it. Not every AfD needs to be relisted simply because it is older than seven days. Please have a look at WP:RELIST. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read it. I will be more careful in AfD relists from now on. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mellohi, I appreciate your openness to feedback, and today I also saw your relist in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Parr. I noticed the relist because it seemed unusual for a comment to be added in the first relist, but there are also some parts of your comment that seem to indicate it may be best to leave this discussion to an admin, per WP:NACPIT. For example, per WP:RELIST, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure, and your comment begins by describing the discussion as a "deadlock" and then describes participants as "keepers" and "redirectors" without noting a comment from a participant who has not !voted. Your comment also does not seem to address why [you] did not consider the debate sufficient, per WP:REFLIST, including because it does not appear to offer guidance to participants about further discussion. This seems like an example of a discussion where it is better to participate as a !voter or let an admin review it due to the substantial discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I will from now on either a) vote/comment or b) leave it alone or c) ask on WP:CR if there is such a blatantly divided article deletion discussion. It's a bad habit inherited from my RM experience, where no-consensus seems to be an extreme last resort and relists are used liberally whenever an outcome is not obvious. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have much experience with RM, but it sounds different than AfD - and I just reviewed your AfD stats, and while this is an imperfect tool, it looks like you do not have much experience as a !voter or nominator at AfD. I appreciate your comment here, and I encourage you to reverse this relist due to the nature of the AfD discussion so an admin can review it, and to consider becoming more familiar with the AfD process as a participant before attempting further NAC actions at AfD. Thank you again, Beccaynr (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mellohi!,

I don't want to dampen your obvious current enthusiasm for administrative duties on the project but I don't think that you shoud be closing discussions at Deletion review. You really have only been consistently active here since May 2022 and usually these DR discussions are closed by senior editors/admins who have a deep knowledge about Wikipedia policies. For example, I've been editing on Wikipedia since 2013, have been an admin since 2015 and I don't think I would close a Deletion review discussion until I had a lot of experience participating in these discussions (which I haven't done yet). You need to have experience as a participant first before you step up to closing discussions.

Some of these closures might seem obvious to you but I think you should really leave them to editors and admins with decades of experience working on the project and handling complicated discussion closures. I honestly do appreciate the work you are doing but I don't want you to spread yourself too thin, take on too advanced responsibilities and find yourself sanctioned. I've seen it happen before but it doesn't need to happen if you gradually work your way up to more responsibilities instead of jumping into new areas. Thank you for your contributions to the project! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mellohi,

For templates, you have to remove all transclusions before a template can be deleted. This is the responsibility of the TFD closer, not the admin who deletes the page. Have you reviewed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions? Particularly, If the decision is Delete, the template can be deleted by an administrator after all instances of the template used in pages have been removed. You should become familiar with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell before you close any more TFD discussions. Deleting a template or category often involves bots and is VERY different than deleting an article or redirect. Please look into the details of how TFD works before tagging any more templates for deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz: I do always check for transclusions before sending my closures to the ready-to-delete cell. I usually post my closure in other cells like the subst and orphan cells if I find transclusions, but this time with the ABL template I chose to manually remove the transclusion before listing the template in the "Ready for deletion" cell. I thought I did remove the template's sole transclusion that time (by substing). Did I miss others? If I did miss any, I'll use the other cells more from now on to prevent this error from happening again. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You closed Talk:Clayton Lake#Requested move 9 June 2022 as consensus to move but you don't appear to have moved it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think what happened was I meant to submit a technical request (I did not have page mover permissions back then) but somehow failed or forgot to do it. Don't expect such an omission to happen again. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry about it, we all forget to do things sometimes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mellohi!

Are you sure it was correct to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Ramsay as keep when there were two !votes for delete and one for keep?

In the end, I don't necessarily think the article needs to be deleted based on the sources added. But there was not a consensus for keep. Then again, perhaps you were right to assess the sources and say it should be kept. I'm aware we don't go on a simple !vote count, but it seems perhaps it should have been a no consensus close given the doubt over how substantial some of the sources were.

Also pinging User:Liz who relisted the discussion in case they have an opinion.

Thanks! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MarchOfTheGreyhounds: Self-reverting to vote or relist. I think I had interpreted Joseph's comment as supporting a keep even though he did not formally vote, which led to my confusion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! As it happens, this is purely a procedural point, as I've now changed my !vote to keep after looking at the new sources. Thanks for engaging! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like I closed the discussion as "Keep" as well. But your additional comment was a factor in my decision, MarchOfTheGreyhounds. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Mellohi: How goes it? That was a WP:BADNAC on the above nomination. It wasn't a snow keep. There was several dissenting voices. More so, I withdrew the nomination withdrawn, so the result should have been nomination withdrawn. Can you please go back and change it. I would also suggest you stop closing Afd's as you seem to be getting flak. Go back and change this please. scope_creep^Talk 07:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Several dissenting voices" that, for all but one redirect vote, retracted their !votes when the article was fixed. Slightly expanded the close reason to make that clear as why I called it SNOW. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was a WP:BADNAC. You do not how to close Afd's. If the nomination is withdrawn, then the result is "nomination withdraw". If you see if it looks like all keep, then you make a statement afterwards that consensus seems to be for keep. You don't say its seems to be snowing? Please don't close anymore. I'll need to take you WP:ANI, otherwise. scope_creep^Talk 14:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came here to mention the closure on this AfD, and see that a discussion has already been started. It was not a snow keep, I for one was really on the fence as to whether the article should have been kept or not. Many if not most of us take our work/service at AfD very seriously and spend a lot of time looking into and reading any sources that are brought to the discussion. In some cases (not this AfD) hours are spent translating sources to be able to analyze their merit. It feels a bit dismissive to read "It seems to be snowing" rather than a more neutral statement. It also seemed unusual that it was closed as keep, when scope_creep had clearly withdrawn the nomination hours before the closure (based on sources that were found). Netherzone (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariatu Candé was also closed as a WP:SNOW keep - early, and despite a source analysis by the nom during the discussion. I would also echo Netherzone and encourage caution with AfD closures, especially early closures in discussions where sources are being translated and debated. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Given the feedback, I will be more careful in using WP:SNOW to close early. If non-keepers contest newly provided sources, no matter how many other participants are satisfied with the new sourcing, I will not call snow and will let the nomination pass 7 days naturally before closing as keep (or any other available closure outcome). I also now figure that my heuristic ratio of seeing whether an AfD should even be considered for snow-closing is too low and will increase it a bit. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thank you, Mellohi! As I review the guidelines, including WP:NACAFD and WP:SK#NOT, I am wondering if you will reverse your close of the Mariatu Candé AfD, because it appears that WP:SNOW is not an appropriate basis for an early closure. Beccaynr (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Done — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thank you, Mellohi, and to clarify my comment, WP:SNOW can be a valid early close, just not a speedy keep, but per WP:SK#NOT, may be controversial and additional care is warranted, so it seems better left to an admin. My apologies for not being more clear in my earlier comment. Beccaynr (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  With all due respect for your efforts Mellohi, it seems from the comments on your talk page(s) over the past few months that there may be a pattern of problematic closures. It goes beyond just being more careful in using WP:SNOW to close early. This is a little troubling, please do review the guidance on non-admin closures. Netherzone (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Also  Done. Will also vote instead of NACing as well on potentially controversial close opportunities. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]