Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season

I intend to submit this deletion discussion for WP:Deletion review tomorrow morning after I receive input at the DR talk page. The discussion was closed with a decision that did not represent consensus, and which was accompanied with erroneous commentary. Per the directions written at DR:


 * Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.

I have attempted to discuss the matter with closing admin Newyorkbrad in an attempt to resolve this more quickly, and with less expenditure of time. I raised a few specific mistake/misunderstanding concerns for discussion, which Newyorkbrad has indicated he has read, but he has decided to not address them and stated he will instead stick with his decision. Newyorkbrad says I am entitled to request this deletion review, but "doing so would reflect poorly" on me. I've weighed his opinion on that, and it is very clear to me that there is no comparison between the "poor reflection" on me already conveyed by the present mistaken close decision and accompanying remarks and any "poor reflection" that may be generated by my attempt to seek redress of that mistake.

I'm not requesting an undeletion, as nothing of mine was ever deleted. My notepad still exists, although I have moved the contents into a /Notepad subdirectory. I'm simply requesting that the archived discussion page be amended to reflect actual consensus, and to remove language that conveys, even if not explicitly, wrongdoing on my part. There is plenty to criticize about my handling of my wiki efforts thus far, I do concede, but my notepad notes and my intentions are not part of it. Newyorkbrad has been 100% civil in his interactions with me, but the discussion page was still incorrectly closed. I remain open to any suggestions that could expedite a resolution, but a review appears to be necessary.Sally Season (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I remain open to any suggestions that could expedite a resolution, how about just drop this and move on? The deletion page is closed and your main page was not deleted and you have your sub page with notes and, what else? Does anybody really care about this still or want to waste more time and effort? If I was bugs, this is the point where I would be talking about a boomerrang, but I am not so. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG you sound just like me! Do you know how many times I said that very same thing? "you should probably drop this", I said repeatedly on my talk page, and "I'd appreciate it if you all would busy your bodies elsewhere", I requested on admin pages.  I guess I should go open a sock investigation page because you really do appear to be me! ;-} Seriously though, you, me, Newyorkbrad, and most other sane people have all expressed that we would rather not see any more wasted time and effort.  Since the legitimate concerns and questions have all been addressed before the deletion discussion concluded, all that remains now is basically a clerical correction of the closure as described above. That's the answer to your "what else?" question.  It shouldn't take any more than a few minutes time and effort.  But I'm not a fortune teller, so there is no telling what some people might do, or if they intend to obstruct efforts to put this to rest.  On boomarangs: they shouldn't be feared, as long as you know not to turn your back after throwing one.  If you see it flying back to you, that just means you missed your target and need to adjust your aim and force when throwing it again.Sally Season (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I love the picture of the road kill with the caption, very cute :). --Malerooster (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, right? Thank you, I'm trying to find others. I've seen how some people have meters or gauges on their user page to indicate their "wiki-stress" level or how busy they are, etc.  Maybe I'll make a meter for my page out of images of bunnies in various states. Guess I'll need to find a suitable vorpal bunny image :-} Sally Season (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) As much as I agree with your position and prior statements generally I do have to say that it would likely not result in much of anything besides a huge expense of energy. You've already seen many behaving poorly so why revisit the issues and relive it all anew? I suggest making your statement known here, which you pretty much have done. Leave it well enough alone and be about editing articles again, if that is your interest. Some editors focus on community process though so I can see if you're interested in more of a community investigation that could be worth the effort. If so you might ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review by simply stating what is the end results you seek and if the process is a good way of going about that. Part of the undercurrent I was seeing was that there is an effort to delete anything seen as a "enemies list." All the reasons behind that are a bit murky but I can sympathize with someone wanting to enforce a "bright line" against having a list. I can also see it as utter BS so there you go. My take on it is that you have a lot to offer and this will be a distraction from that work. Perhaps see what others have to offer before the circus comes to town. Insomesia (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm taking your advice and dropping a note at the DR talk page (and rescheduling my listing of this at DR until after the holiday), maybe they can help. If I understand the process, there shouldn't be another huge waste of time if I just ask that the "delete" final close result be corrected (overturned).  Input would be restricted to mostly 'Endorse/Overturn', without all the previous commentary and arguments.  Of course, I could ask that the matter be "Relisted", and that would invite all the arguing to start anew, but I don't want that, nor do I think it is necessary.  I'm not getting any input or alternatives from the closer, so the only choice I have is to follow the steps outlined by the wiki policies. I could certainly "leave it well enough alone" as no big deal if I were still editing from IPs and hadn't created my very own account. But I've learned that these archived "community based decisions" about editors are of lasting value around here, as are clean block logs, contribution counts, etc., so fixing this recorded error is of rather high priority to me as a "logged in user". It is a distraction from article editing, sure, but I'm learning a lot, and this will be resolved soon anyway.  Thank you again for thoughtful comments.Sally Season (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * With the full disclosure that I !voted to keep instead of delete, I feel the need to add my view that the closure with decision that there was consensus to delete was astonishing to me, and that I disagree strongly with that decision. Jus  da  fax   03:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)