೮ ನವೆಂಬರ್ ೨೦೧೭
Bot: Migrating 15 langlinks, now provided by [[d:|Wikidata]] on d:q4663389; 1 langlinks remainingಚು
೨೨ ಅಕ್ಟೋಬರ್ ೨೦೧೭
೨೮ ನವೆಂಬರ್ ೨೦೧೬
೧೦ ಡಿಸೆಂಬರ್ ೨೦೧೩
೧೬ ಜೂನ್ ೨೦೦೭
→BLP deletion standards: restored previous wording
rv WAS 4.250 ... this was already talked out here; BLP violations shouldn't exist on talk pages either
→BLP deletion standards: the other wording is better here
revert Black Falcon. take to talk first.
೧೫ ಜೂನ್ ೨೦೦೭
→Trivia sections: per a consensus reached at WP:TRIVIA, trivia sections should not be copied to talk pages ... content should be integrated or removed *if* removal is justified
→Trivia sections: rm "notable" ... notability applies to articles as a whole, relevance applies to content
→BLP deletion standards: there is no consensus that the subject's wishes should be given any weight when the subject is notable; a semi-notable person is still notable
→Disputed deletions: Removing weaseling. Very important to leave no wriggle room here.
→Disputed deletions: remove DRV repetition- the subject is the issue, not the forum
→Disputed deletions: Even Sidaway agrees there needs to be flexibility for admins on extended wikibreaks, who've been blocked or whatever else makes it impossible
Sorry but I disgree with both of those changes, the first in paticular essentially allows BLP to be used as a deletion club
→Disputed deletions: Do not take a disputed deletion to deletion review where there is no consensus among administrators that it is not sensitive. Discuss with other administrators first.
→Disputed deletions: "by an administrator citing this policy" Let's not leave any wriggle room here.
೧೪ ಜೂನ್ ೨೦೦೭
→BLP deletion standards: this is one thoughtಚು
→Disputed deletions: the writing had deteriorated again
semi-notable is probably clearer
→BLP deletion standards: current wording implies the possiblity of deleting notable BLPs, which is preposterous
೧೩ ಜೂನ್ ೨೦೦೭
→BLP deletion standards: remove redundant modifier "currently" per WP:CCC - consensus by definintion can and does change
→Disputed deletions: Clearer wording on how to resolve disputes
→Disputed deletions: if you want to add something as unwiki as that, at least get consensus first; we are equal both as editors and admins
Undid revision 137797032 by Pmanderson (talk) Your compromise undermines the point that a deleting admin may know more
→Disputed deletions: Compromise?
→Disputed deletions: slightly altered version; broke sentence in two; simplified and clarified final sentence
→Disputed deletions: four words removed as change to policy; rest of sentence disputed
→Disputed deletions: The four words removed here were a change of policy; and there is no consensus for the rest of this sentence.
೧೨ ಜೂನ್ ೨೦೦೭
Undid revision 137787688 by Prolog (talk) The material does not change policy; it only reinforces it
this new addition has no consensus and it seems to go against the long-standing undeletion/deletion policy
rv to lst by tony sidaway- resolve this on talk page - Slim Virgin is at 3RR
PMA, stop this; see talk
This is Tony;s private opinion; no matter how well written, it is not consensus
Tony's version if much clearer, much better written
→Disputed deletions: from talk.
→Disputed deletions: practicable.
→Disputed deletions: No sigh of consensus for this; rewrite as conditional
→Disputed deletions: typoಚು
→Disputed deletions: before contacting the deleting administrator *and obtaining his agreement*. I think this is the key. Otherwise go to other admins/DRV/etc.
→Disputed deletions: defining clause; no commas
→Disputed deletions: clearer
→Disputed deletions: I presume this is what is meant
→Disputed deletions: Seeking better wording.
→Disputed deletions: complete sentence
OK, no "reaffirm"; more on Talk.
rv to Tony; better writing, and the "we reaffirm" thing sounds a bit odd
→Disputed deletions: More than this does not, and should not, have consensus
→Disputed deletions: clarify - it's not the forum that is important, it is the material being discussed