Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 4

Institutions 2
Reverting someone's useful additions is disrespect and against the whole principle of wikipedia. . Not to say the "close" note is not a strict policy. What is more the current note is plain stupid: is suggests to continue discussion at a "relevant live page". The category is to be deleted, not moved. Where I am suppose to continue the discussions and how people will find it?

Please realise that rules and policies are for convenience of editors, not vice versa.

And finally once more, there are very definite rules about reverting: vandalism, rudeness, etc. Please reconsider your attitude. mikka (t) 19:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

A constructive advice: if you know a better place to continue discussion, you must copy there and what is most important provide a pointer there. Treating me as a random vandal is beyond my understanding of community work. mikka (t) 19:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To begin, I tried to be as polite as possible, and was not treating you as a random vandal. I made the note of the closure on Cfd talk, before I closed the discussion, which you had participated in this discussion previous, assuming you had it on your talk page. Being an admin yourself, you should know better than the "random user", that continuously to add to a closed discussion does not help Wikipedia, as it just prompts other users to do so. I used rollback instead of reverting manually, only for time, as you did the same you had to edit again to leave a msg in the edit summary, so I didn't do so to be rude. I also explained my reasons both on your talk page and the reason for the closure on the cfd talk page. Which I also requested any objections be made there, this link was also provide on the closed Cfd, and this is how users would find the pertinent information you mentioned above. I am sorry if you fealt offended by my actions, it was not personal, but I personally feel your addition was more of a reply to Instanood, and neither contributed or detracted from the closed discussion, so it was reverted.  I am the only Cfd admin working at the time, and there is quite a backlog, the category would not even exist if it weren't for this.   &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  19:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have nothing personal to you as a person. Last two weeks I happen to confront quite a few hand-slapping admins here. I understand you are busy with cleanup (a necessary but really boring thing; I am doing my fair (IMO) share once in a while myself). But I see you still don't understand what was actually wrong with your (and some others') attitude: your respect to policy far overweights your respect to the contribution I added. By the way of example I have demonstrated (I hope) how these cases should be treated: to copy to the place you think is appropriate and to leave a pointer there. mikka (t) 20:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW you may be interested to know how all this happened: it was really simple: you and I edited almost at the same time; I was minutes later and landed into an edit conflict. I mechanically copied my additions without reading yours and not noticing that you were closing. I would not have edited the discussion I saw closed; I am not that stubborn. mikka (t) 20:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's cool. I was really not trying to be a "dick" :) I always look who I am reverting b4 I revert. I should have messaged you first, before the first one, but as I said, I am just in a rush, Cfd is so backed up. I just think we should make an example as admins to other users, not that we accomplished that today. But that's ok. I hope there are not any ill feelings, and I look forward to working with you in the future. &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  20:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)