User talk:Kesh/Archive-Feb2008

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for seeing a questionable admin action (mine!) and taking the time to ask about it, and convince me. - Philippe | Talk 06:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you! My first barnstar! n.n -- Kesh (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

im just starting out and i need to know what was wrong with my entry how can i improve

thanks Henslee57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henslee57 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need help with? -- Kesh (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you were one of the users who sent my article on Guerilla Marketing Talk Radio to speedy deletion im really new and am not sure what i did wrong or how to correct it - Henslee57 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 2-26-08[reply]

The reason is that the article read like an advertisement for the radio programming. Wikipedia is

verifiable third-party sources, not sources created by people involved in the radio program. -- Kesh (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

reply

WRT your comment here.

1. The article was userified, with its edit history. That edit history shows no record that Kingboyk was responding to a {{
   prod
   }}, or speedy deletion tag. None of the articles show any record that they had been previously tagged.
2. You admonish me for making accusations without checking the facts first. You admonish me for going straight to ANI. So, did you check Kingboyk's talk page, to see if I tried contacting him or her first?

I did, in fact, contact Kingboyk first and second.

My next step was not to go to

. When I realized that Kingboyk had not been online for almost three weeks my third step was to make a request for userification on DRV.

I believe, in all this I was completely in compliance with

and all other wikipedia policies.

I believe I was fully compliant with policy in my question on WP:AN/I.

With the authority the wikipedia community grants to administrators comes a very serious obligation to exercise that authority in an open, responsible, accountable manner. Kingboyk may be a great wikipedian, in general. However, now that I have had a chance to review the edit history of these articles, it appears that Kingboyk did delete the articles without any input from anyone else.

I never said that Kingboyk deleted the articles "out of spite". I do not, in fact, think Kingboyk deleted the article out of spite. I have no doubt that Kingboyk sincerely felt, at the time, that the deletions were in the best interest of the wikipedia. However, sincerity is an over-rated virtue. I think Kingboyk should only exercise his or her authority to unilaterally delete articles when there is no possibility that others would disagree with their actions, unless it was a genuine emergency. I continue to believe that Kingboyk's judgment, in deleting these articles, was flawed, because they somehow didn't see that these deletions (1) weren't totally and unambiguously non-controversial; and (2) weren't emergencies.

You suggested it was "...more likely that someone tagged them for speedy deletion, which Kingboyk then deleted." Are you suggesting that the admin who userified the articles restored all the revisions in the edit history except the revision where a mystery tagger left deletion tags? If so, you are correct. This is a very, very slim possibility. In the unlikely event that the admin who restored these articles chose not to restore the revision where a mystery tagger left a deletion tag, you can count on me making a full acknowledgment of that.

So, are you still disturbed by my actions? Geo Swan (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though I'm glad to hear that my concerns were unwarranted. I had, in fact, looked at his talk page as well as found the link to the admin who userfied the documents (though I never did see any links to read the userfied documents myself). Nowhere was any indication whether or not the articles had been prod-ed or tagged for speedy. I do believe your wording was too harsh, and going straight to ANI was over-the-top at this point. That said, since there was no prod/speedy tag, I agree that the admin action was inappropriate and the articles should be restored.-- Kesh (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to bother you but I wonder if you would revisit this discussion, please? What happened was that after a speedy deletion the author recreated so we still have a decision to take. BlueValour (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]