This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia. The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia does not aim to contain all knowledge...
Click to read more »I'd also like to say that this should be a discussion, not a vote (WP:NOTDEM). Most moves for deletion so far seem rather superficial in analysis. —CodeHydro...
Click to read more »consensus? Several AfD until someone gets his way? STOP. You must accept WP:NOTDEM. Wikipedia is not a democracy but it built on consensus. There was no consensus...
Click to read more »Therein is minor gatekeeping. I don't argue strongly against that, because WP:NOTDEM, I respect gatekeeping if it's both neutral and quality (to exclusion of...
Click to read more »categories combined). Other comments such as "neutral" omitted. I'm aware of WP:NOTDEM, just wanted to point out a consensus seems to be building. Please let me...
Click to read more »understand or to not believe me (despite my directing him to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTDEM). It would perhaps help if someone else--from outside this argument--could...
Click to read more »3F, I've assumed that your real question could be phrased, "Can I invoke NOTDEM prevent my losing the MOSDASH debate?" Sometimes we really do have to take...
Click to read more »reason to call for re-opening a discussion on supposed miscounting. WP:NOTDEM:This is no a democracy, the discussion participants were not a jury, due...
Click to read more »explanation. When considered in its totality, and in consideration of WP:NOTDEM, what about the RfC actually looks like no-consensus? I think it's a legitimate...
Click to read more »added this.- WP:NPOL Well, All after this, Leaving it, I'm done. ✍️👉 WP:NOTDEM, WP:NOTBURO. Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2021...
Click to read more »to "throw the bums out" contravenes the spirit of Wikipedia policy (WP:NOTDEM, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTBURO). But more importantly, it's ethically wrong...
Click to read more »2015 (UTC) The close on that discussion appears to directly contradict WP:NOTDEM, so I would not give it precedential value. --Regards, James(talk/contribs)...
Click to read more »of the idea per self-contradictory interpretations of WP:NOTBURO or WP:NOTDEM mentioned in my essay. Wer900 • talk 23:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC) There are...
Click to read more »WP:CONSENSUS policy or the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy. (WP:NOTDEM, in particular.) Consensus is supposed to apply at all times, not when it...
Click to read more »over again. I also remind you of WP:CLUE, yes I know it's an essay, and WP:NOTDEM. But the only so-called "uninvolved editor", besides myself, who has actually...
Click to read more »consensus? Several AfD until someone gets his way? STOP. You must accept WP:NOTDEM. Wikipedia is not a democracy but it built on consensus. There was no consensus...
Click to read more »categories combined). Other comments such as "neutral" omitted. I'm aware of WP:NOTDEM, just wanted to point out a consensus seems to be building. Please let me...
Click to read more »added this.- WP:NPOL Well, All after this, Leaving it, I'm done. ✍️👉 WP:NOTDEM, WP:NOTBURO. Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2021...
Click to read more »Therein is minor gatekeeping. I don't argue strongly against that, because WP:NOTDEM, I respect gatekeeping if it's both neutral and quality (to exclusion of...
Click to read more »2015 (UTC) The close on that discussion appears to directly contradict WP:NOTDEM, so I would not give it precedential value. --Regards, James(talk/contribs)...
Click to read more »over again. I also remind you of WP:CLUE, yes I know it's an essay, and WP:NOTDEM. But the only so-called "uninvolved editor", besides myself, who has actually...
Click to read more »forcible argument for saving it as is. However according to WP:VOTES and WP:NOTDEM it would be preferable to find a WP:CONS. As you ask to “NOT DELETE THIS...
Click to read more »I'd also like to say that this should be a discussion, not a vote (WP:NOTDEM). Most moves for deletion so far seem rather superficial in analysis. —CodeHydro...
Click to read more »forcible argument for saving it as is. However according to WP:VOTES and WP:NOTDEM it would be preferable to find a WP:CONS. As you ask to “NOT DELETE THIS...
Click to read more »reconsider, except perhaps what I could summarise by raising the red flag wp:NOTDEM, also can’t suppress “weasel” as a response to “esteemed”. Yogesh Khandke...
Click to read more »reconsider, except perhaps what I could summarise by raising the red flag wp:NOTDEM, also can’t suppress “weasel” as a response to “esteemed”. Yogesh Khandke...
Click to read more »15:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia doesnt actually use voting. See WP:NOTDEM and WP:CONSENSUS. If someones !vote is based on reasoning that is not supported...
Click to read more »