User talk:11WB: Difference between revisions

Line 79: Line 79:

:I left that comment in good faith. Your contributed takes up half of the total discussion, which is quite a lot, especially considering the second largest is actually me at 12% ([https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Silvagni see this]). Your two comments after both relists challenge the same point regarding [[WP:CRIME]]. As you have raised this on my talk page, I will take it seriously and ping an administrator, @[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]]. I believe my comment was fair and respected all sides, however I am happy to be told otherwise. I believe following [[WP:3O]] is the correct thing to do in this situation. [[User:11WB|<span style=”color:#8C6A31; “>11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]]) 22:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

::Just as an extra note, the diff you linked was before I updated my comment to include a ping, as it replied to @Kelob2678’s reply initially. The comment I left can be viewed [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Silvagni#c-11WB-20260110134200-Aspirex-20260109213100|here]]. [[User:11WB|<span style=”color:#8C6A31; “>11WB</span>]] ([[User talk:11WB|talk]]) 22:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

:::3O isn’t really the way to go for something that’s not a content dispute (and this is a conduct dispute). For what it’s worth, I think Aspirex’s comments here are fine, and I can easily sympathize with someone who is trying their best to raise legitimate BLP concerns at AFD to no apparent effect. — [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 06:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Happy New Year! 🎆🎉 11WB (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year @BhikhariInformer! 🎆 11WB (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and happy new year! Would you kindly review this AfD, which you relisted. It is now pretty clear that the consensus is to redirect. The only outright “keep” that is left is the IP, and 8 or 9 editors have indicated their preference or willingness to redirect it (the nominator and the one delete vote are, functionally, the same as redirect). — Ssilvers (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree a consensus has now formed. I relisted as there were outstanding participants that hadn’t commented on @ROTP’s merge. 11WB (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for notifying me about this and Happy New Year! 11WB (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Ssilvers (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue the review of ASMR soonish! – Flower (she/her; Accounts) 15:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response! I hope you had an enjoyable Christmas and New Year! I look forward to working on the article with you again! 11WB (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 11WB!

I just wanted to alert you that Brightspot has just been recreated. Also pinging Gheus and This has to be edited. Owen× ☎ 19:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh..? Doesn’t the six month rule apply as there was a solid consensus for deletion? 11WB (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure which rule you mean. WP:6MONTHS refers to renominating an XfD closed as Keep. Recreating an article deleted at AfD is subject to G4 if it is sufficiently identical to the deleted version, but otherwise requires a new AfD to remove, regardless of how long it is since the previous AfD. The new Products section has been greatly shortened from the deleted version, and an Operations section was completely removed, so this doesn’t qualify for G4. I haven’t checked the sources, so I don’t know if this should be renominated. Your call. Owen× ☎ 19:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I thought it applied to both keep and delete from memory. There are a few unreliable sources, such as Forbes. I have a feeling renominating it will just end up with it being recreated in a few months, so I probably shouldn’t bother this time. 11WB (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per G4. 🙂 Owen× ☎ 17:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably for the best, they were aware of the AfD after all! Thanks Owen! 11WB (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification request in which you were named as a party has been closed and archived. No action is needed on your part. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

… even though the numbers have nothing to do with age xD Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for that. I re-read that comment and cringed. Really hoped no one had seen… guess I wasn’t fast enough! 😭 11WB (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LOL You’re good – I laughed before anything 😀 Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thank you for the continued work you are doing in that part of the project. My brief time with the RfC I started was quite stressful and the tensions were high. I don’t think this AN/I has any basis whatsoever personally, you have followed existing policy and guidelines to the letter! I’ve read sections of your RfC, hopefully it will bring about much needed changes once it is closed. 11WB (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an unfair accusation, so much so that I think you should retract it. My comments throughout this discussion have been:

Agreeing with somebody’s redirect proposal as an alternative to deletion which was not proposed at the nomination stage.
Expanding on my initial deletion rationale after the first relist asked for more thorough discussion
Neutrally answering someone’s direct question on an SNG
Calling out an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument as drawing invalid comparisons – which was my only directly disagreeable response to someone’s contribution
Giving my view on the twice-mentioned alternative-to-deletion proposal of converting from a biography to an event article – something my prior contributions never addressed because they required discussion of a different set of policies to the ones in the nomination.

With the exception of the first one agreeing with the redirect proposal, I’ve only made these new comments immediately after a relisting explicitly called for more discussion, and I have taken a new angle with each new comment rather than just repeatedly hammering home the same point over and over – a very deliberate approach by me to avoid exactly these accusations of bludgeoning. Aspirex (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I left that comment in good faith. Your contributed takes up half of the total discussion, which is quite a lot, especially considering the second largest is actually me at 12% (see this). Your two comments after both relists challenge the same point regarding WP:CRIME. As you have raised this on my talk page, I will take it seriously and ping an administrator, @Asilvering. I believe my comment was fair and respected all sides, however I am happy to be told otherwise. I believe following WP:3O is the correct thing to do in this situation. 11WB (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an extra note, the diff you linked was before I updated my comment to include a ping, as it replied to @Kelob2678’s reply initially. The comment I left can be viewed here. 11WB (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3O isn’t really the way to go for something that’s not a content dispute (and this is a conduct dispute). For what it’s worth, I think Aspirex’s comments here are fine, and I can easily sympathize with someone who is trying their best to raise legitimate BLP concerns at AFD to no apparent effect. — asilvering (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply