Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep
 | This guideline has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
|
|||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Edited SK1
editI've rephrased SK1 in a way that makes the structure hopefully clearer, although at the cost of some additional words, and also solves two additional issues: userfy is explicitly recognised as a delete-like outcome for which, like redirect, SK1 does not apply, and the negative presumption in the characterisation on a nom being reversed is toned down, per Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep/Archive 4#AfDs withdrawn because the article was improved. In terms of words it's a fairly large change, but because the only change to the applicability of SK1 (the explicit recognition of userfy) I think will be uncontroversial I was BOLD and changed it directly. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Chalst: I've just made a minor change to your rewrite - I replaced "AfD" with "deletion discussion" because speedy keep is used in more than just AfD. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Phrasing of SK3
editSK3 is currently The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the page in question.
To me, this comes off as a bit too harsh on the nominator, and it is not a comment I would want to make if speedy-keeping something. People make mistakes, and it is possible for a nomination to be completely wrong even if the nominator has made some effort to be accurate. Could I suggest The nomination is entirely erroneous, with no accurate deletion rationale provided
as a less judgemental, but still specific, alternative? User:GKFXtalk 18:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I’m sorry this is just too complicated
editI wrote a short piece about my friend Lara Patangan who is a new author. A published author. My name is Erin Avera as I declared in my registration even though my user name is Runwritenow15. I think. Anyway. I have many emails including one recently telling me the piece has been deleted.
There are links upon links. A sandbox. A long queue. So many layers. Clearly Wikipedia doesn’t need my piece or my money. I know controls are needed. But this is ridiculous. I’m a working mother. I’ve no time for such nonsense. I’ll let the publishing company and the author know that for lots of weird Java script and http or whatever reasons, we can’t be on Wikipedia. Lesson learned. 2601:343:8000:2640:C548:1C13:917C:5484 (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)