From: Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com>
On 10/17/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
The fact that is was deleted
in the first place means (in 99.9% of cases) that
there was consensus to
delete.
why is you
rationale an excuse for the repetition of the false claim that the
content of an article should not be taken into consideration in
undeletion, which has taken such a hold on VFU that we have ridiculous
situations like this that require someone like me to take his
reputation into his own hands simply to secure the undeletion of a
perfectly good article about a published author who has appeared on
Nova documentaries as an expert?
I haven't made any excuses or rationales or repeated any "false claims".
You stated that "We should undelete unless there is a consensus to delete.";
I pointed out that the fact that an article was deleted by AfD in the first
place means there was "consensus to delete", so your condition would never
hold.
As for VfU, until now it has served as an appeals court, dealing with policy
issues. You obviously want to change that, but seem unable to get consensus
for that change. Describing de facto policy as a "false claim" doesn't
really help - if you want policy changed, you know what you need to do, get
consensus for that change, rather than trying to impose your will on other
admins via various sorts of reversions (in this case, reversions of articles
that were deleted because of consensus at both AfD and VfU).
Jay.