User talk:XxxSKOOKUMxxx

Strike-breakers deletion review
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 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?