Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Free and open source software

That's funny
In my nomination, I recommended making the page a disambiguation page.

For historical reasons, in this procedure, "keep" means that someone opposes my suggestion and "delete" means that someone agrees with my suggestion.

The closing admin now says the result is "keep" and that he recommends that this page be made a disambiguation - like my suggestion. (or do a merge is his other suggestion) --Gronky 21:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AFD is not the place for your discussion. You should discuss making the page a disambiguation page on the article's talk page, and if you are not opposed, you should do it.  --SmokeyJoe 22:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with SmokeyJoe. Lentower 01:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Len, FWIW, I can almost never understand your comments. It's difficult to guess what SmokeyJoe means, but that's understandable, he doesn't know the history of this and what discussions have already taken place.  As for your agreement, I've no clue what you're agreeing with.  You agree that I should have raise this on the Talk page instead of AFDing it?  ...but that makes no sense since I did raise it on the Talk page.  You agree that I should suggest making the article a disambiguation page?  ...but that makes no sense since that was one of my suggestions in my AFD and since you know that his "and if you are not opposed" clause makes his point null since I have already been opposed on the Talk page.


 * This is just one example of many, and it's only FYI, FWIW, etc. To understand what you mean, I often wish you would be more explicit. --Gronky 16:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that discussions for moves should be advertised at Requested moves. WP:AFD is the wrong place because issues related to a move are usually irrelevent to deletion.  Consensus for a move will only arise from an AfD debate if the move is fairly obvious.  If you've already been opposed on the talk page, then you have an uphill battle.  YOu can try WP:RFC, but I'd be very surprised if your request attracted much outside comment.  --SmokeyJoe 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. I think about putting this on Requested moves.  Thanks.  BTW, I just noticed that in trying to point out the difficulty of this discussion to Len, I was kinda terse in my description of your comment.  What I should have said is that it was difficult to see how you comment applied given the existing discussions (which, in all likelihood, you hadn't read fully). --Gronky 13:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Gronky, you are the only person on WP, I've encountered who has problems with my comments. I'll assume good faith, and that you have some kind of cognitive difficulty. When I said "Agree with SmokeyJoe." immeadiately under his comment, I meant "WP:AFD is not the place for your discussion. You should discuss making the page a disambiguation page on the article's talk page,"  If that isn't clear, you are going to have to be much more explicit about what you don't understand. See the article talk page for what I am in favor of. It is not making it a disambiguation page. Lentower 03:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's likely that others also don't understand your short comments, so I decided to at least point out how they can be cryptic. I was trying to be helpful - with a long term view, valuing improved dialogue over the short term possibility of offending you.


 * "You should discuss making the page a disambiguation page on the article's talk page" - I'll think about doing that. --Gronky 13:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)