Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Liquid Air

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

@NeilN: Onel5969 has returned to the mode of saying "I don't hear you" by closing this discussion, one in which I was a participant.  Suggestions?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: I'm pretty confused here. Didn't they agree with your !vote and compliment your editing? --NeilN talk to me 23:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the problem is not me needing and getting compliments, but convincing this editor to stop closing discussions in which I am a participant.  I had hoped after he repeatedly refused to agree to stop doing this yesterday, that he would quietly stop doing so without an agreement.  With this close, the problem has no resolution in sight.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Unscintillating: You'll need to explain the problem with their closes and where you've discussed this with them. Right now, all I'm working with is, "don't close discussions I'm part of". --NeilN talk to me 00:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amortias and NeilN: I am responding here to a question by Amortias, who declined to protect the Project Page here.  His question on my talk page led me to retrieve the evidence that I was talk page banned.  Starting from my post here, I posted a total of two times and was talk page banned here.  I was told, "Don't post on my talk page in the future. I have no wish to have any further interchange with you."  The issue of putting cats on redirects for kreuzes and dreiecks has yet to be resolved. 

I repeatedly requested at Talk:Betty Cherry that Onel5969 agree to stop closing discussions in which I was a participant.  But there was no resolution there.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please understand that I wrote the part of WP:NACD that explains the remedy for a participant-reverted NAC close, so I am familiar with what is supposed to happen.  Any editor other than the closer may restore the close.  This includes all participants in the discussion.  If the closer is the only one that wants the close, that is a problem.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Unscintillating, Amortias, and Onel5969: It looks like a discussion needs to be had but I'm not sure this is the page for it. If you want to move it to my talk page, that's fine. Unscintillating, I do want to point out that Onel5969's banning you from their talk page is not an official interaction ban and does not preclude you from posting there when required by our procedures. They can choose not to respond, which may prove problematic for them if you raise valid concerns. It sounds as if you want a limited interaction ban. If Onel5969 does not agree, only the community can impose one. Question: Would you object to Onel5969's closing of AFDs you commented in if they indicated they were amenable to listening to any concerns you had about their closures on their talk page? --NeilN talk to me 01:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NeilN - I have no issue with anyone posting on my talk page, as long as they post in a civil manner, without personal attacks. A request not to post on a user's talk page for uncivil discourse does not preclude any editor for posting on that talk page when required to. That being said, if a user has a history of uncivil discourse (for the latest example, simply look at the personal attack posted on Talk:Betty Cherry, which after this the other editor humorously posted that "I have consistently treated this contributor with respect...." So, if any post contains uncivil discourse or personal attacks, it will simply be deleted. Over the past few days, Unscintillating has incorrectly reverted several NAC closes, citing no valid policy or guideline. NAC is pretty explicit, that a closed AfD can only be re-opened by an uninvolved administrator, or through the revdel process. I'm not sure (not being able to read minds), but I think they may be conflating the guideline for early closures, which doesn't apply in these instances. I have no issue with Unscintillating (other than his repeated lack of civil discourse), as long as he follows the appropriate policies and/or guidelines. Again, thanks for looking into this. Onel5969 TT me 02:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: The NAC reopen guidance is inconsistent. I've asked for clarification here: Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process#Undoing_NACs. --NeilN talk to me 02:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NeilN - Please be aware that the inconsistent verbiage was added by Unscintillating, without discussion or consensus, with this edit. Onel5969 TT me 02:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Consensus states, in oldid=767216503
===Through editing===
Shortcut

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.

Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Those are thoughtful points, and Amortias was helpful in getting me to look up the ban.  Onel5969 has stated, "I have no wish to have any further interchange with you."  Can you just ask Onel5969 if he will agree to stop closing discussions in which I am a participant?  There is a lot here that need not be discussed if we can just get one "ok".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Liquid_Air&oldid=767793247"