User talk:XxxSKOOKUMxxx
Strike-breakers deletion review
[edit]It isn't about suppression of facts. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Deletion review is for cases where deletion policy was not followed properly. In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of strike-breakers, however, it clearly was, as there was clear consensus to delete.
Also, for future reference, it's often best to place new comments at the bottom of a user's talk page, usually under a new header if it's a new conversation. -- NORTH talk 06:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, it would not be safe to assume that. As I said above, deletion review is more for a review of the process than a review of the article itself. (AfD is for review of the article.) I have actually never seen the List of strike-breakers. I endorsed the deletion in deletion review because process was followed with a clear consensus from other editors during the AfD process. -- NORTH talk 07:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
"I have actually never seen the List of strike-breakers." How about actually reviewing the case on it's merits as opposed to passing judgement based on what other (non moderators) have to say about it. Isn't that a requirement of your position as administrator? Is Wikipedia about procedurue above truth? Active listening?
I apologize again, I made my post concerning your legitimacy in the matter before researching. While I don't understand your desire to suppress truth, I was unaware of your 'request for adminship which failed spectacularly'. Active listening?
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
[edit]
|
