Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/October 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Deletion debates

The following debates took place at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion during October:

[edit] 2005-10-29

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep per nomination withdrawl. Xoloz 04:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portals in Wikispace

There are a lot of portal pages left in Wikipedia namespace. Since we now have a portal namespace, they should be moved there. See this link. Radiant_>|< 11:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn. Radiant_>|< 22:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose per the very top of Wikipedia:Wikiportal NOTE: There is now a formal Portal namespace - see WP:PORTAL. If your Wikiportal is designed as a reader-aid, please place it in the portal namespace. If it is an editor-aid, keep it at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Subject. The Portal namespace is for reader orientated portals, and not all portals should be there. There is discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal. Steve block talk 13:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose but not for the above reasons. I feel the distinction between reader-aid and editor-aid has lost all meaning and should be accordingly abandoned. At Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal we are currently discussing ideas for the establishment of new standards and guidelines for Portals. One point I think is generally agreed upon is the moving and restraing to Wikipedia namespace of sub-standard Portals. Thus, those under construction will naturally be found in Wikipedia namespace before being migrated to Portal namespace (provided they meet standards). Besides that, I don't quite understand this nomination. Radiant acknowledges that a Portal namespace has been created for Portals, but wants to delete those not already there? If it was a concern, a proposal should have been made to either Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal or Wikipedia talk:Portal to move them. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Entirely - everything that Cyberjunkie has said. Proposisng something for deletion without discussing it in the relevant talk page is just stupid, and there is absolutely no way that "sub-standard" (we are yet to confirm exactly what defines "sub-standard") portals should be allowed onto the Portals namespace. Current opinion is that a number of portals in the namespace should not be there due to lack of quality/substance/potential - proposing the addition of more Portals, all likely to be sub-standard, is sheer lunacy. Deano 18:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons given above and more. As the WPian probably most responsible for the concept of the creation of the portal namespace (although Tim Starling was, I believe, the one who did the work in the actual mechanical creation, for which I am very grateful), may I offer a few words on its purpose. The Portal namespace is a user namespace - that is, it is for the general public rather than editors, although, unlike the main namespace, advertisements to relevant WikiProjects and encouragements to contribute to Wikipedia, as long as they are discreet, are okay. But it is essentially for user-facing, good quality portals. Nascent portals and substandard portals should remain in the Wikipedia namespace until they are ready to go live. Coincidentally, as the WPians above have noted, there is currently a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal discussing the quality of what is in the Portal namespace, with a view to using it only for portals that meet a certain quality threshold. I think further discussion is better off carried on there, jguk 19:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't say I wanted them deleted (yes, yes, it's mfD, but several ?fD pages also deal with other kinds of maintenance at times). But thanks for the explanation. I hope that the portals here can get improved or removed on an individual basis. Radiant_>|< 22:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was TRY AGAIN. I'm not happy moving anything or deleting anything on the basis of this, very small, debate. Additionally, the Wikispace pages haven't been tagged (nor have the subcats: are they for deletion, too?). I think a renomination, probably at CfD is the best course of action. -Splashtalk 21:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia image galleries and in particular its Wikispace subpages

This category lists literally dozens of image galleries (pages with no content other than pictures) within Wikipedia namespace. Now while I certainly won't endorse deleting all those images, this way of using them seems hardly productive. Some possibilities include 1) moving to Wikicommons; 2) merging such galleries with related articles; 3) moving all galleries to MAINspace rather than Wikispace; or 4) something else. Please give me your opinion. Radiant_>|< 09:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Any image found on a Wikipedia:List of images subpage should be moved to Commons, because it has a free license. Commons is indexing all of its pictures by topic, and it makes little sense to have two different indexes when there could be one big one.
  • Galleries of non-free pictures, such as Wikipedia:Pictures from snp.org, should be converted to subcategories of Category:Images by copyright status, to make it easy to deal with these groups in bulk as the need may arise to convert, replace, or re-license them. These should be categories, not gallery pages, so that the group tag will be added to the image description page.
  • All the pages associated with WikiProject Drugs should be kept, since they are just temporary scaffolding. They can be put into Category:WikiProject Drugs if the gallery category is being eliminated.
  • Galleries already in the main namespace should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis on WP:AFD, if anyone cares to do so. Some of them are quite well-annotated, and/or do a good job of picking representative photos that document a particular subject or topic, in a way which text alone wouldn't do very well. Some of them don't, and might be better indexed on Commons, if the licensing is compatible.
  • I think that should cover all the contents of this category; whether moving or keeping, care should be taken not to destroy any of the information represented by having these images grouped as they are. -- Beland 21:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Radiant_>|< 17:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Broken/ and subpages

This allpages link shows a small number of pages marked as 'broken'. While they do contain some weird unicode chars, they don't look all that broken to me. They are, however, abandoned and mostly pointless. Does anybody know what this is about? Radiant_>|< 22:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless explanation forthcoming, as useless. Xoloz 00:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I seem to remember brion mention that this would happen; I thought we had gotten rid of all of these. I believe these were broken when we converted en's metadata to Unicode during the upgrade to 1.5. These should be converted to pages without the "Broken/", unless there's an existing page with duplicative content, in which case they can be deleted. Most of them are archival, and should not be deleted outright, it looks like. And they will need to have their character issues fixed; just slap them with a cleanup tag if neccessary. -- Beland 22:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Google is fact

"If it can't be found using Google it therefore doesn't exist. Any POV backed up with a superiour number of hits automaticly becomes the new truth." - I'd BJAODN it if I found it at all funny. It's kind of pointless and WP:NOT a jokebook. Radiant_>|< 22:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Pointless, likely to confuse anyone who can't get the "joke." It is supposed to be humorous, right? Xoloz 00:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Rossami (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. It isn't funny, and it supports the supremacy of Google.co.uk over the more often-used Google.com. --Idont Havaname 03:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject JFK assassination

  • Delete - This Wikiproject was previously VFD'ed, but no consensus was reached. It's been several months with no activity, can we delete this already? Staxringold 14:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - The project was only really kept on the grounds thatit could be started. But this has still not happened, and it can easily get to this form from scratch should anyone actually decided to do anything on this subject later. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Inactive Prashanthns 17:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sonic Mew. Xoloz 00:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sonic --Rogerd 05:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no need for WikiProjects that look like ghost towns. --Idont Havaname 03:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Didn't even do the template right. Ashibaka (tock) 01:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. It appears some like the historical value, and there is already a bot request, so I'll drop a {historical} on them. -Splashtalk 21:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles which are number one for one word Google searches, Wikipedia:Google first-page results, Wikipedia:What Google liked, Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, A-K and Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, L-Z

Unless we get a bot to do it, this is unmaintainable. I appreciate the fact that Wikipedia is famous and gets a lot of google hits, but this is not a useful way of indicating that. Radiant_>|< 11:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete This list is ugly, of very low utility, and, as nom. says, unmaintainable. Xoloz 17:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete All Vote amended to included all listed pages. Xoloz 00:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Unmaintainable and not particularly useful. This is mere trivia. Rossami (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all Unmaintainable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia:Articles which are number one for one word Google searches can be merged with Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits etc. But I find this information interesting, even if it is out of date. If you want to tag it as {{historical}}, that's fine, but there's no need to delete it. There's already a request on Wikipedia:Bot requests to update this information. -- Beland 01:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and get a bot, or robot-like human, to maintain it. It's of eminent importance, I humbly submit, because it shows what people most use Wikipedia for—and thus indirectly shows where we should allocate our limited resources, where our quality is highest, etc. And it's a great gauge of success overall. --zenohockey 19:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - tag as historical, put a request on the bot page, and forget about it until some botmeister is kind enough to update it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I rarely vote on AfDs, but these pages are just stupid. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let's not overload Google's servers keeping it updated, with a bot or otherwise. I'm all for pages like Wikipedia:Awareness statistics, but these pages are pretty pointless. --Idont Havaname 03:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • del, for all the reasons for deleting already stated. encephalon 22:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ashibaka (tock) 01:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep at least Wikipedia:Articles which are number one for one word Google searches. I sometimes put things in. How Jew got into the list is significant - many of the others are just curious. --Henrygb 15:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the Template:mfd tag on the first page pointed at an empty discussion until I just redirected it. So strictly the clock should restart. I have not bothered with the other pages. --Henrygb 15:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as historical interest and tagged appropriately--A Y Arktos 20:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just found out about this and it provides some interesting information, can you keep it? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:43, 24 November 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus and therefore the effect is to keep (Counting the nom there were 4 deletes out of 7 explicit votes). However the arguemnts for a merge seem reasonable, and anyone who wishes to be bold and simply carry out a merge to an approperite place could do so. DES (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Contingency Page For When The Main Wikipedia Server Is Down

While I appreciate the idea of this page, the irony is that when the server is down, this page won't actually appear (and we have a few MediaWiki messages that do). So it's really a bit pointless. Radiant_>|< 11:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. says, useless. My contingency plan usually involves weeping and alcohol. :) Xoloz 17:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Many times the site is not down, but simply very slow. And many people may come across this page when the site is up, and bookmark the other page for reference when it is down, as I have done. How else would people know that this page exists? -- Beland 20:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps we could merge it to some Help or FAQ page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into one of the FAQ's, and Delete as self-negating. We have MediaWiki messages for this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, already covered by MediaWiki error messages. --Idont Havaname 03:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for bookmarking purposes as described on the page in question and as described above by Beland. —msh210 18:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Contingency Page For When The Main Wikipedia Server Is Down -- Zondor 19:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Superseded by MediaWiki messages. Superm401 | Talk 18:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Radiant_>|< 16:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit

For prior discussions of this page, see Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/2005-08-25, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency.

Orphaned/Defunct project has not been updated in a long time and no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did). Clean up of WP namespace by deletion. Agriculture 03:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Agriculture 03:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I moved this deletion here, because it was at AfD, and it was incomplete at AfD. In the process of doing so, I gained a new level of respect for admins and all people who know what they are doing! Wow, such a small move, so complicated! Xoloz 05:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I think the project has basically been abandoned, after the big dispute in September anyway. Xoloz 05:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Since a member has come forward with the hope of enlivening the project, changed to Weak Keep. Xoloz 07:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this project is either an oxymoron or a euphemism for something we will WP:NOT do. Pointless either way around. Radiant_>|< 11:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Prolonged inactivity isn't a reason? Xoloz 00:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I can't see why it would be. If it's inactive stick a historical tag on there and move on. 100+ pages link here; the content should be preserved for future reference. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Although the project has been rather inactive lately, I noticed that two editors have joined the project recently, one of them an admin. I also vote keep per above. I would be interested in couple of weeks (very busy in real world) in contacting some of the other members of the project to see if any of them are still at all interested in getting it going again. If none of the members care about the project, then it should be deleted. Banes 06:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously, as per Banes and Christopher.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 17:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I just joined and am interested in getting involved. How many more times do we have to go through this? Just leave it alone.Gator(talk) 18:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This wikiproject serves no purpose and has done nothing to better Wikipedia... DELETE. Gateman1997 00:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This wikiproject is at it's most useful when it is serving no purpose and should be deleted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep it has yet to develop into what it can be...which is a basis of thought over what constitutes content which will ensure Wikipedia is the most respected on-line source of reference material available.--MONGO 21:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Frivolous VfD. If some people disapprove of explicit images on Wikipedia and want to organize themselves, it is their own business. (In addition, this appears to be a bad faith nomination from a disgruntled former member of the project.) Strong keep. - Mike Rosoft 13:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Erwin
  • Keep, important footnote in the history of the Wikipedia community. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this page and its subpages. While the keep voters (in particular, grm_wnr) bring up good points, we do have a policy against censorship that should be followed. We shouldn't be encouraging people to go against WP:NOT, as it has been well-established in our community. --Idont Havaname 02:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Whatever. Edit it if it bothers you so much. Ashibaka (tock) 20:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no reason for deletion. The project may be inactive now, but does that mean it has to be forever? Also seems a good idea to keep for future reference. -R. fiend 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no reason for deletion --Rogerd 23:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Moved to BJAODN, to be precise, since several people suggested that, even if I didn't find it all that funny. Radiant_>|< 17:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject hot chicks

This project is a sexist, mysognist disgrace to Wikipedia. It serves absolutely no purpose and is utterly offensive. Ambi 12:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; Bananas, this **** is. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 12:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yay! No more template signature for Merovingian! Delete in support fo that fact. Alphax τεχ 13:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • BJAODN This seems like a joke, and should be treated as such. Still, it seems weird to not have Merovingian's sig though. Karmafist 13:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm going to make it all one color, so I can see it better when I scroll down. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's not causing any disruption and it has a single well defined goal which goes hand in hand with the general goal of Wikipedia, to improve articles (see the Towel article for instance). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Isn't it possible to illustrate articles without being sexist? Ambi 12:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • You know, you can start Wikipedia:Wikiproject hot males, if you want. :-) bogdan | Talk 13:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you dislike this project because you define hot chick too narrowly. A hot chick could be anything: a girl, a woman, a chicken, even obese men (see the project page). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • What? You mean the page isn't just for humor? — Matt Crypto 13:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless they agree to include fat chicks as well. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Karynn, apparently weight isn't a problem as long as they're not cold -- that'd go in Wikipedia:Wikiproject cold chicks Karmafist 13:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • In anatomy or other refernce books, when they show you the female body you won't see any drawings of fat women! bogdan | Talk 13:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course fat chicks are included (they're hot too!) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless we include fried chicks and chick nuggets as well. --Cool Cat Talk 13:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Remember that KFC doesn't fit in this. Contrary to popular belief, KFC products are not made out of chicken. bogdan | Talk 13:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll grant you that stuff like chicken nuggets might not be (haven't tried those), but the last time I went go KFC I ate some chicken wings that definitely had the bonestructure and meat of a chicken. How do you explain that? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Genetically engineered pigeons. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Amazing what the petrochemical industry can do these days, isn't it? :-) bogdan | Talk 13:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Chicken nuggets and fried chicks are hot chicks too;) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --HappyCamper 13:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This isn't sexist, how on earth is this sexist? In my opinion, this is just silly. --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð 13:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Inherently POV - they havn't mentioned user page photos - and some of our editors look hot to me :-) --Doc (?) 13:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Try to keep Wikiprojects a bit serious OK? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* --Ryan Delaney talk 13:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN --Phroziac(talk) 13:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't support something as sexist as this. I know from first-hand experience of the KDE project that this is likely to push a lot of female editors away. chowells 13:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not due to sexism. It is just a load of nonsense. Xtra 14:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Where is the humour, people :(. Don't delete it, BJAODN it rather. -- SoothingR 14:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not especially funny, certainly no other merit. Xoloz 17:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. --Carnildo 03:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rossami (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. -- Beland 01:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think Ambi should chill out a bit as this clearly is just a bit of a joke, and a harmless one at that, but we don't need it, so delete, jguk 19:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep what a noble goal!  Grue  21:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I like it a lot. BJAODN. — Matt Crypto 22:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Making articles more visially appealing is an objective improvement to Wikipedia. Potential editors who are so sensitive as to be offended by this would certainly be reduced to quivering tears on encountering an actual controversy at some article like George W. Bush. Vonspringer 03:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Get a clue. Arguments over articles are necessary, and I'm as much a veteran of difficult areas as anyone. Sexist crap like this, on the other hand, is not necessary. Ambi 05:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I am admittedly not entirely serious with my vote. "Hot chicks" is a pretty ridiculous category. However, I do not think it's sexist, as I would certainly not be offended by a "hot guys" category. In fact, both could well serve as a rather harmless diversion from the occasionally intense battles elsewhere on Wikipedia. Regardless, I believe my point stands. The entire raison d'etre of this category is simply that attractive people are visually appealing in an encyclopedia, and I do not see how those who are offended to the point of leaving by this can function in an atmosphere of heated controversy. Sorry if I caused offense to you however, you were not the target. I was referring to the people chowells referred to above, those who would leave over something like this.Vonspringer 05:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Ambi, there is no place for this kind of objectifation on Wikipedia. We should be aiming for a factual, useful encyclopedia, not this Fark.com-esque nonsense. Cnwb 06:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete on the opinion that "hot chicks" is a broad, abstract, POV title that makes this WikiProject's focus unclear. Perhaps you should start a WikiProject on something like supermodels or Playboy Playmates instead. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN I can live with losing this from the WikiProjects, but if it doesn't at least stay in BJAODN, there's no justice in the world. Speaking of hot chicks, I've got a picture of a white bitch in nothing but her knickers. Chris talk back 05:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete silly --rob 05:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I added this to my watchlist earlier and think it's nice. Right now I'm leaning towards keep. If there's any evidence of this project leading to a real improvement in some articles, I'll agree more, but right now it does seem sort of unnecessary. Cookiecaper 06:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN and Delete silly --JAranda | watz sup 06:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN current version; I love it! Before that, it should have been deleted, no questions asked. --Idont Havaname 03:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but copy to BJAODN first - sure, it's funny, but WikiProjects should only be used for serious subjects. --Ixfd64 04:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- No censorship -- Test-tools 10:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] 2005-10-28

Crazy!
Enlarge
Crazy!
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Userfy. Radiant_>|< 16:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Silly-o-meter

A barometer that is intended to be attached to proposal pages to indicate how silly they are. And of course reflexive on itself. BJAODN. Radiant_>|< 23:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Or, as a compromise, userfy. This has no place in Wikispace. Radiant_>|< 14:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete or BJAODN. I don't really think it's funny, but I don't think many of the BJAODNs are funny, so I'm out-of-step in this area. Xoloz 04:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep this is an extremely important asset to Wikipedia, there's no other known way to reliably measure sillyness. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have been touched by his holiness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he spoke into my heart and said this should stay. --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð 13:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ramen to that. Radiant_>|< 14:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete I would say that this was silly if it wasn't so stupid. Cyferx 14:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • BJAODN, if only for the caption on level 1 and 2. Hermione1980 23:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It doesn't appear to be in use anywhere. Rossami (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It now appears that this is in use in exactly two places - Ævar's userpage and the talk page of another article that is very likely to be deleted. I would have no objections if Ævar wants to move it to a user-subpage but it doesn't belong in the main space. Rossami (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Very weak Keep. Sigh, it appears that Ævar has decided to post this kind of thing on his userpage, and this kind of categorization of oneself as "silly", "not silly" or "extremely silly" is acceptable. But please, keep this kind of thing away from policy proposals, the rejected templates are good for rejected proposals, otherwise assertions of the proposal being silly belong on the talkpage and not as a stupid "silly-o-meter". Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. --Kizor 19:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Claramente, nobody on Wikipedia has a sense of humor anymore. Matt Yeager 01:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reflexive reason that the silliness of a silly-o-meter proposal clearly needs to be measured by a silly-o-meter. :) Delete (or userfy) because nothing else does. (Is that silly? Who can say?) :) Rd232 talk 23:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. No one's using it, so keeping it is rather silly. --Idont Havaname 03:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for egregious and unnecessary use of Comic Sans. --PHenry 05:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Obvious parody of WikiDefcon. --cesarb 20:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Userfy. Radiant_>|< 17:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fox News

"Repeated edit wars have demonstrated the need for a series of abreviations to allow more succinct rebuttal during NPOV debates". That seems hardly a good reason to propose a new guideline. There are lots of things that WP is not, which is trivial and vacuously true. Would suggest deletion or a redirect to the already overly long WP:NOT. Radiant_>|< 23:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Since the creator likes it as a "proposal," why not Userfy it. He can employ the abbreviation all he wants in argument, linked to his user-space, and (if it catches on with enough people), then he'll have support to move it back to name-space. At the least, he'll be able to use it himself, which is probably what he wants. Note that (although I am myself proudly very politically liberal), a corollary for those of the other opinion could be NAF (Not Al Franken). Xoloz 04:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This seems like a personal opinion piece. Since no one else has expressed approval, it looks like it's not going to be anything more than that. Probably something best to have on a user page. -- Beland 02:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy - will the closer please do so. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Usersubpageify into a Wikiphilosophies type of page. --Idont Havaname 03:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] 2005-10-24

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. ~~ N (t/c) 00:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Abraham Lincoln was a woman

Orphaned talk-page for a speedied article, no useful content. —Phil | Talk 15:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Unverifiable. :) Xoloz 19:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied (criterion G8). There is no need to list talk pages of deleted pages for deletion - they are clear-cut speedies unless they contain a deletion debate that is not archived elsewhere. ~~ N (t/c) 00:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] 2005-10-23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 04:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Fangush

This WP page isn't notable enough is too neologistic to warrant it's own article or page. The article only has two edits, by an anonymous IP address. The term renders only one result from a full site search of all WP's namespaces, and Google only renders 48 results; most from WP's category listings of it. LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 07:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 08:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC))

  • Comment. This is not an article in the (Main) namespace. Notability, which is a contentious criterion for deletion in that namespace certainly doesn't apply to an article in the Wikipedia namespace. Jkelly 07:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Jkelly's point is correct, but in my experience, this term is simply not used here, and the description of it seems inappropriately pejorative anyway. Also, redundant in light of the widely-used well-established "fancruft." Grounds for deletion is analogous to neologism -- term not in use. Xoloz 07:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you google for "fan gush", which picks up that and "fan-gush", you get over 235 hits, just about all of them outside Wikipedia and most of them having this meaning. I suspect that's more outside-of-WP hits than the various forms of "fancruft" get, although I haven't weeded through the results to verify that. The article could use some work, and maybe even get moved to the main namespace with a reference to its WP applicability, but I wouldn't just remove it. Wasted Time R 13:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. First, it's not a proper Wikipedia-space article since it has nothing (that I can tell) to do with the mechanics or administration of creating an encyclopedia. To all appearances, this was created in the Wikipedia-space merely to avoid the regular AFD deletion process. Second, what is there is a mere dictionary definition of a neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Rossami (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Move it out of Wikipedia space into a general article. prashanthns
  • Delete. Is not a term used on Wikipedia. If it's used elsewhere it might warrant an article in the main namespace. Optichan 13:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Over 235 hits? Oh please. Come back when you get some kilogoogles. Delete. Radiant_>|< 00:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment How many hits does "deletionist" get? Jkelly 01:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • About 10k, which you could have easily looked up yourself. It is unfortunate that my Association of Mergists gets less than 1k. Despite my sig, people tend to overlook efforts at accessibility and organization of information. Now kindly stop jumping to the wrong conclusions. Radiant_>|< 11:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] 2005-10-22

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 04:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Bukkake Theme Park

Delete - another attempt to create an article on a non-notable band and disguise it as a User page. This, and the image included therein, are the user's only edits.  BD2412 talk 20:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Sneaky, and mildly disgusting, vanity. Xoloz 04:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with changes The page describes a band and its latest songs. The adjectives used to describe the songs need to be more objective.prashanthns
    • If you are suggesting that this should be kept because it is article-worthy, then it should be moved to article space, not kept as a user talk page. In that case, I'll gladly move the page to article space and initiate an AfD there. Cheers!  BD2412 talk 16:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, inappropriate user space, not a real user (only edits are to this page and its picture), vanity, lack of verifiability, and band fails WP:MUSIC. Radiant_>|< 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] 2005-10-21

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Lets not just delete things that we disagree with from other user's pages. This is not an article.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Grue/List of ethnic stereotypes

I realize this is on the guys user page, but a lot of the content could be construed as attacking, such as the claim that blacks are prone to venereal disease. This is just not appropriate for an encyclopedia as I see it. —Gaff ταλκ

  • Although I am nominating it, it is much for the purpose of seeing how the community feels about this article. I will hold off on voting for now.—Gaff ταλκ 02:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- I'm not usually one for political correctness, but if Wikipedia's policy is 'no personal attacks', in my opinion this should go. Reyk 03:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He or she does not seem to find them to be true and I just can't wrap my head around deleting something like this from someones userpage. Youngamerican 03:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and that has nothing to do with how I feel about it. It takes a lot more cause than is under discussion here to delete a userspace page. --Aquillion 04:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Not an article; moving to MfD.  BD2412 talk 04:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, by the way - user space is user space, and gets much broader leeway for content.  BD2412 talk 04:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • So its okay on a user page to say that Jews are "hated in almost every place in the world."—Gaff ταλκ 07:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    • If someone made that claim on the talk page for Judaism, it would stay there - this is not much different.  BD2412 talk 20:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It's important to remember to not let your emotions get in the way of your judgment. This article is NPOV (notice how some positive stereotypes are included as well as the negative). Most importantly, this is not yet an article. Grue has every right to keep this in his user space. It's far from a personal attack. Acetic'Acid 04:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I feel this article may be useful to some people (for example if you want to count how many stereotypes are encountered in some movie), so I'm keeping it in my user space.  Grue  07:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The list isn't a personal attack against any particular WP user (or any particular group either). It is just an insult catalog with the hope of being exhaustive. In this context, even the insults that might be directed at me are usefully listed. Xoloz 16:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Grue is not stating a personal belief in any of these stereotypes. Like it or not, stereotypes are part of life; there's nothing wrong with cataloguing them. This is a userpage, in any event. - Sensor 23:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Extremely strong keep per everyone else - in fact, this would make a good article if appropriately sourced. ~~ N (t/c) 00:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it and close out the discussion. I nominated this mostly becuase I was not sure what the attitudes of WP would be. Clearly its a keeper.—Gaff ταλκ 01:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but edit. I also believe that it is useful for some to see these entries. I like that it is so comprehensive in covering so many different groups. However, it does need to be edited, both for content and grammar/spelling/etc. - User:Sorria2000 26 October 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete due to request from Rex071404 on my user talk page. Gamaliel 06:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Rex071404/Liberal Editors Cabal

[edit] Attention any admin

Please delete this page: User talk:Rex071404/Liberal Editors Cabal.

It's my page and I am changing my position regarding the deletion of it from oppose to support. My reasoning can be found here Rex071404 216.153.214.94 06:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's see if you can guess why... you get three chances, in case I made this too difficult--anon editor 00:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • fine, let's just start the whole thing over from sratch ALL comments, votes, etc.. from it's past life as an AfD, removed--anon editor 01:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete still. Reyk 01:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this is not anyone's concern - why are you bothering with my personal scratch pages? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 01:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and why are you bothering with personal attacks? let alone dedicating an entire page to them?--anon editor 01:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
You are mistating the facts; there are no "personal attacks" on that edits log. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 02:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Good, because there are no personal attacks on this page either--anon editor 02:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
True, that's why I would not complain about it. Also, it's not true that I am "stupid". Rather, I am sometimes "pig-headed?...", but not stoopid (oops, maybe I should check that) Rex071404 216.153.214.94 03:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that it's stupid but since it's under a user page it really doesn't bother me. -Haon 01:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this an article? No? Then to MfD it goes.  BD2412 talk 01:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • um, that's where it is already, for reference, please see this--anon editor 02:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops - got fired up because I found it on AfD (where it was still posted). All fixed. Happy, happy, happy.  BD2412 talk 02:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah yes, I knew I forgot to do something--anon editor 02:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, by the way - he can keep such records as he pleases on his own sub-page.  BD2412 talk 02:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, but when something like that becomes a hit list, it doesn't need to be here. Look at the Big Daddy case. This guy is either a clone or BD himself. No posts for 6 months...BD is banned...and then suddenly here is this Rex character. Yeah. --Woohookitty 02:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I am NOT "bigdaddy" I was on a self-imposed ban which had offical ArbComm sanction. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 03:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Problems like this need to be worked out on RFC, and if necessary RFAr. Deleting the page doesn't solve them at all. Also, calling these personal attacks is borderline. However, the idea that dewikifying the word "wound" is evidence of being in a liberal editor's cabal is a bit laughable. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
He just returned from a self-imposed ban caused by a RfA back in April. --Woohookitty 04:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I understand that he's had previous problems, which just goes to demonstrate that there are root issues that won't be solved by just deleting this page. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Besides BigDaddy, I also consider the recent consensus to delete Coolcat's ramblings. While this list has more specific charges, it also looks much more like a "hit list" to me than that ever did. Xoloz 03:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page will be useful as evidence in the fourth RfAr against Rex, which already seems inevitable. Besides, as one of the people listed on the page, I consider that being attacked by Rex can only enhance my reputation in the eyes of most editors. JamesMLane 05:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
JML misstates the page - pease read it yourselves - there are no personal attacks on that page. Also, he is threatenting me "RfAr against Rex" Rex071404 216.153.214.94 05:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Dude, the only time you can stop somebody from threatening you is when they're threatening physical harm against you. Like, if somebody threatens to call a lawyer you can't get them hauled into court or jail for "threatening" you. There are no laws against threatening legal action against someone in real life, and there are certainly no rules on Wikipedia against threatening to take anyone into Dispute Resolution. Behave yourself, and you'll have nothing to worry about. Otherwise, people will be glad to see it go into Dispute Resolution and get settled. Jdavidb (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you contending that I have misbehaved? If so, how so? If not, why are you admonishing me? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 16:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
No, I know nothing about your behavior. I know that if you behave yourself, you generally won't find yourself involved in dispute resolution or anything. I'm not contending anything about you specifically; I am only contending that a cry that someone on Wikipedia is "threatening" you is irrelevant in any meaningful way either under law or Wikipedia policy. Jdavidb (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of that list of edits is to refract it over time - as a edits tracking device - should I have to refer to it to discern a pattern which can be pointed to during any official procedings. As it stands now, I feel that Accountable 1135 has pushed too far against me and ought to be sanctioned by Arbcomm. Suffice it to say, I feel that over time, the depth of the pro-liberal bias on various political pages will be clear. Please see my full details on the talk page of John Kerry. I think the facts support my position that critiques (even factual, tactfully written ones) are more tightly screened from entering biographic pages about Liberals, than they are with Conservatives. Look at the page for George W. Bush and see how critical/harsh it is. Then read Kerry's page and see that it's a virtual hagiography. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that's how I see it. Yet, certain others at Kerry's page gang up to block any edits at all from me there. As for the "cabal" titled page itself, I am only opposing its deletion so as not to set a precedent which prevents me from keeping an edits log. In no way is my log a "hit list" (as it's been called - whatever that means). Nor are there any personal attacks, bad words or imprecations on it. Because of that, if I assent to it's deletion, I am allowing an editor (who's edit history is suspicious to me) - that being Accountable 1135 - to boss me right all around the wiki. Also, I have already copied the "cabal" titled page to a less offensively titled scratch page and am working from my new page since yesterday. Even so, I am presenting my details here, so as not to let this complaint go un-addresssed. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 08:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
To Rex: I couldn't have said it better myself. Your perceptions of the liberal bias on wiki and mine are the same. To those advocating deletion: Please...someone point out a personal attack on Rex's page! To Rex: They can't! (smirk) -- Lawyer2b 23:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I am tempted to stick with the principle that a user be allowed to do whatever they want with their user space, deleting something like this isn't unprecedented. In this case we have a known POV warrior previously sanctioned by ArbCom who has set up a personal "enemies list". This is especially problematic in the case of new users like User:Accountable 1135, who may be alienated into retaliatory behavior or run off of Wikipedia due to being listed as part of an imaginary cabal on a website they just started using. In the past Rex has run off new users with his behavior and we should not allow this to happen again. Gamaliel 08:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I object to Gamaliel's statement: "In the past Rex has run off new users with his behavior ". There has been no finding of fact regarding that. Rather my dealings with the ArbComm were principally as a consequence of my past over-wrought reactions to edit wars on certain political pages. Let me see, Gamaliel doesn't want me to exceed 3rr or he'll go after me at ArbComm (something he's done before). But when I do something as innocuous as keep an edits log on the wiki, in wiki format, so it will be ready should I need it (see JamesMLane above - already threatening me with ArbCom action), Gamaliel uses the rationale of a "new" user to justify hounding me over something that does not concern him, nor this "Accountable 1135". Please look at the edit history of "Anon editor", aka "Accountable 1135". His edit list does, in my assessment, resemble that of a sockpuppet. Oh and since Gamaliel want to stuff the past ArbComm issues in my face, let's not forget what one of the key ArbComm findings was "User Rex071404 and others including the complaining witnesses, Neutrality, Wolfman, and JamesMLane have in the heat of the US Presidential election focused on the article John Kerry and carried the issues of the campaign into the encyclopedia article in detail.". As it stands, there has to my knowledge never been any corrective edits done to tone down the nature of the edits that those three (among others) succeeded in putting into the John Kerry article when they won they edit war there against me (via the ArbComm case they initiated against me). Currently what is going on is that I am attempting to get a few minor edits into a few political pages and editors such as Gamaliel are blocking me at every turn. In fact Gamaliel has reverted me without edit summaries at more than one page see Killian documents and John Kerry for examples (perhaps also Stolen Honor). Suffice it to say, in my view, it's a hoot that Gamaliel calls me a "POV warrior", when clearly that shoe could be said to fit him - based on his reverts of me alone. anyway, this go round, I have been scrupulous to avoid 3rr issue and also avoid making personal attacks, the absence of which, makes it difficult for the loosely associated editors such as Gamaliel, JamesMLane and this new "Accountable 1135" to attack me on that basis. That's why they've searched high & low to find my personal scratch pages (which I did not tell anyone about). Since I have not transgressed on behavior (since my 10.18.05 return after 6 month hiatus), these various editors are left only to face the merits off my edits - a task which they have not shown much interest it. In my view, I think they prefer trying to push me around via Wiki "government" so to speak, rather that meet in the marketplace of ideas and develop sincere consensus with me at talk pages. Also, the fact that a supposed "newbie" editors (Accountable 1135) honed in exactly on me and my edits and already knew how to pursue this complaint against me, show I feel, more that he lets on. Suffice it to say, I do not feel it's unreasonable that I be able to keep a list of edits which I think are part of a large pattern of bias. However I do see how it's possible that the word "cabal" could offend. It's for this reason that as soon as I heard the 1st grumblings about that, I immediately took action and started a different page which does not have the word "cabal" in the title. Frankly, had "Accountable 1135" simply asked me to agree to rename that page, I would have readily agreed, The fact that he did not, but immediately leapt to adversarial action, backed up by long-time anti-Rex71404 stalwarts such as JamesMLane and Gamaliel, does I feel show that there is a core group of editors who are definitely opposed to my edits. And if I am a POV warrior (as Gamaliel claims) then certainly, I am not a politically Liberal one (look at my edits). Therefore, if I as a Conservative editor, am being blocked at every turn by a group of editors, is it reasonable to think that a) those "editors" are "liberal" and could rightly be characterized as a "cabal"? I think so, hence my having titled my own person scratch page that way. Having said all that, please note that not one of these complaining parties even asked me once to change the name (which is their only complaint that could possibly have merit). No, instead they want to prohibit me from keeping a list of evidence which shows their edit/revert actions in less than flattering light. Har! Contrary to the claims being made, there is not one personal attack on those pages (not any that I have edited - though I'd be sure to see the edit history before making conclusions). So then, what is this complaint all about, that certain editors do not like that I aggregate in one place a log which has links to the diffs of various edits? Why is that bad? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 16:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry you object to the truth, but a review of the relevant talk pages of a year ago will show several new users you have alienated who suddenly disappeared from Wikipedia, and I fear that Accountable 1135 may be next. Accountable 1135 may very well be a sockpuppet, but in the past you have accused almost everyone you oppose, including a member of ArbCom, of being or using sockpuppets. Give it a rest. Gamaliel 17:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel's opinion of the consequences of past disagreements is not the issue here. Rather, what is the issue is simple: Should my page, which is harming no one, end up being castigated this way, when a simple request to me would garner my agreement to rename that page? Please note: so far, I am still waiting to see if anyone will ask me "will you agree to change the title of the page?". That said, perhaps the name of the page is a mere straw dog, being pointed to by those who would seek to prevent me from keeping an innocuous diff(s) log. Is Gamaliel saying that he does not want me to be allowed to marshal evidence for the RfAr which JamesMLane has basically already said (see above) he intends to file against me? And regarding G's "give it a rest" jibe, I've done no such "acccusing" against 1135 - rather, what I have done, only during the context of defending myself against 1135 initiated complaints, is point out that his edit history resembles that of a sockpuppet - so far as I see it. Hmmm... it's an interesting tact G is taking here: Attack me for making patient, detailed and discreet explainations on administrative related pages, which point out my perspective on things. Would Gamaliel prefer that I stand mute against these allegations? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
This is far from an "innocuous diffs log". Gamaliel 18:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

How so? Please explain. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Scroll up. Gamaliel 18:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't give me that circular answer. Show me enough respect to answer my question: How is my diffs log not innocuous? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I won't be responding to every misstatement Rex makes, here or elsewhere, I will point out that I haven't stated an intention to file another RfAr against him. I said only that another such proceeding "seems inevitable". The reason is that, in his first few days back, Rex is already engaging in the sort of behavior that earned him his two previous long-term bans. JamesMLane 19:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
For the record: JamesMLane just made a 100% false statement, which was; "Rex is already engaging in the sort of behavior that earned him his two previous long-term bans". #1) I had one long term ban, not two (other action(s) were not of near same length and by comparison, not long). #2) I was on a 6 month hiatus which resulted from me edit warring (I am not doing that now), exceeding 3rr (I am not doing that now), making personal attacks (I am not doing that now) and failing to obey an Arbcomm ruling to its full extent (I am not doing that now). Another FYI, in a previous tiff with me, there was an ArbComm finding of fact that JamsMLane had indeed committed at least one violation (see link above). Rex071404 216.153.214.94 19:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
This whole exchange is, of course, quite outside the scope of the deletion debate. Nevertheless, because this page may be read by editors who aren't familiar with Rex's history here, I'll note that there were indeed two long-term bans already.
(1) The ArbCom ruling of November 13, 2004 included this remedy: "Rex071404 is banned for 4 months from editing Wikipedia articles which concern United States politics." Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404#Remedies
(2) The ArbCom ruling of April 23, 2005 included this remedy: "Official sanction is given to Rex071404's self-imposed ban, and as a result his account and his IP address (216.153.214.94), as well as whatever other accounts are associated with this user, shall be banned for a period of six months from 16:28 15 April 2005 (ending 16:28 15 October 2005)." Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 3#Ban for revert warring and disregard for Arbitration rulings
Throughout Rex's involvement with Wikipedia, he has demonstrated (to my satisaction, at least) that he is a POV warrior, intent on pressing his political views and unwilling to let Wikipedia norms stand in his way. He is still exhibitiing that "sort of behavior" (the phrase I used), even though he hasn't violated the 3RR. JamesMLane 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

As evidenced by JML's post above, I've had one long term ban, self imposed, with official sanction. The four month "ban" was limited to political articles and was not a ban from the wiki itself. Also, the "sort of behavior" which JML now clarifies above to be "pressing his political views" is not in and of itself, the cause of my past bans. Suffice it to say then, JML's initial statement remains false, though his follow-up does clarify. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 22:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep What possible justification is there for deleting this? There is no personal attack unless liberals consider being labeled liberal a personal attack. That this page is suggested for deletion just further strengthens non-liberals' (including libertarians like myself) belief that liberals are hypocritical. They fight for freedom of speech...so long a 'they' agree with what is spoken it. I got news for ya...deleting pages like this appears to others the way the conservatives' war on drugs appears to you -- worse than useless. -- Lawyer2b 23:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, sockpuppets and anons, don't get to vote, so go away, or come back when you have over a 100 edits, also, the right leaning liberatarian sockpuppet card has been way over played lately, try being a mime next time, way more origional, IMO, unless you think mimes are too french, then you could always try the Ima modern day cowboy sockpuppet, sure it's a bit less origional, but man, that one never gets old--172.164.81.152 03:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not a sock-puppet (although I play one on TV) and I apologize for my uncivil tone. I am hopefully correcting that as we speak. I still believe what I believe and to see where I stand politically (and hopefully evidence of non-sockpuppetry) please see my entry on User_talk:Karmafist. -- Lawyer2b 22:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


I'm also concerned at the sockpuppetry, partisanship and possible WP:U and WP:CIVIL/WP:WQT violations above: please people, keep your cool, or send anything past a reply to a reply onto the talk page and please keep the discussion to the content as much as possible. Karmafist 05:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] 2005-10-15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Radiant_>|< 23:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages

What an overgrown list! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.209.137.5 (talk • contribs).

  • Delete. It floods system resources, and is somewhat redundant to Category:Disambiguation. (unsigned comment from anon).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.209.137.5 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete. Floods the system and dosen't serve any real purpose. Dan M 21:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. StephenJMuir 22:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is not an article. it is in the Wikipedia namespace. as such, it should be being debated on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion not here. Take it there Grutness...wha? 05:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This is a most useful project page. It is meant to avoid having disambiguation pages cluttering Wikipedia:Orphaned Articles, since normally they are not linked from anywhere else. Without these pages Orphaned Articles would become almost useless. PLease read: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links_to_disambiguation_pages and Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages. Nabla 20:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. --Carnildo 04:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep useful project page. Rossami (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Nabla. Good thing I asked him. -- Kjkolb 07:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep concur with Nabla. slambo 13:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nabla. Xoloz 16:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above.  BD2412 talk 04:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I wish people would quit using "speedy keep". We have no such thing. --Woohookitty 04:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Nabla. Titoxd(?!?) 01:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nabla. It's definitely useful, "overgrown" isn't a deletion criteria the last time I checked. ;) --Andylkl (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] 2005-10-14

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC) speedy deleted. (Ambi deleted "Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion" (an organisation that openly seeks to push a POV has no basis on wikipedia)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion

This is a WikiProject that barely got off the ground, with no talk page, no practical description of what they do, and only two members. No activity for the past couple of months. Its goal seems rather hazy since all WikiProjects are about inclusion one way or the other. They're just more specific. Radiant_>|< 18:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License/temp

Apparent fork of Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. Or possibly a rewrite, since it doesn't have a talk page it's hard to tell. I don't think we should have variant duplicates of official policy pages, it's confusing. Radiant_>|< 10:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  • The original author's intent for this temp page is documented at Wikipedia talk:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License#my proposals. If he/she is still working on it, I'm inclined to give it the benefit of doubt. If it's now a dead page, well, it's still doing no harm and I'd prefer a redirect than a deletion. Has anyone contacted Ixfd64 yet? Rossami (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, I was unaware of that. But it's two months old and seems to not have been updated since. I would propose userfying it so that IXFD can continue to work. Radiant_>|< 13:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I saw the title and thought "of all the things to be a copyvio!". defer until Ixfd64 gets a say. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not working on it anymore. You can delete it if you want. --Ixfd64 03:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no vote recorded. - Mailer Diablo 17:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Copyrights/e

Apparent fork of Wikipedia:Copyrights. Or possibly a rewrite, since it doesn't have a talk page it's hard to tell. I don't think we should have variant duplicates of official policy pages, it's confusing. Radiant_>|< 10:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Also created by Ixfd64 who briefly explained his/her reason at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Editable version. Abstain for now. Rossami (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out. IXFD claims that "This can be used to propose changes by non-admins". However, that is not a very good point imho since non-admins can always see the source of a permaprotected page, and should of course propose changes in some public place like the VP or AN. Radiant_>|< 13:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • As somebody new to WP reading up on policy, this page was confusing to me. Ixfd64's purpose is nowhere evident on the page, and as Radiant points out, there are other venues for discussion of policy. Just my $.02. Kiaparowits 20:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Supercession by events/redirect. Xoloz 05:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs/Sports

Overlooked when all the other stub message subpages were deletedredirected a couple of weeks back. Deleteredirected this one too. Grutness...wha? 06:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Xoloz 17:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Apparently superceded by events. Xoloz 05:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • please note change of vote, due to bad block in user memory. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] 2005-10-13

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 13:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Competence

Expectations for users are covered elsewhere, and all I can see coming of this page is someone calling someone else incompetent, which would be inappropriate. -- Reinyday, 14:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No one has said where these expectations are covered or what it's redundant with. I'm thinking of closing this with "no consensus". --Uncle Ed 11:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Note: I see no one clamoring to keep this page.  BD2412 talk 23:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] 2005-10-11

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as attack page. Gamaliel 22:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians with blood on their hands

This page seems to have been created specifically to attack one editor. And, in any case, I suspect that a "list of Wikipedians with blood on their hands" is not an approprate use of Wikipedia namespace. Delete. --Aquillion 22:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 03:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Directory

I created this page as sort of a handy directory to places of interest in wikipedia. I didn't know about the community portal at the time, and I guess that makes this page redundant. With a heavy heart I nominate WP:DIR for deletion Borisblue 20:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's a much less-dense listing than Wikipedia:Community Portal, and has its own focus. --Carnildo 03:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Carnildo. I appreciate circumspection, but don't be too hard on yourself, Borisblue. ;) Xoloz 05:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 23:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ingy dust

Someone who understands Romanian should check this, but this sure looks to me like an attack page disguised as a user account. User had contributed some short articles in Romanian, which have all since been speedy deleted. Googling for "ingy dust" turns up [1]. Ilmari Karonen 12:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I still haven't found a translation but I note that the user page has only been edited by anon users. The user's Talk page was indeed edited by user:Ingy dust but that is the user's only edit to Wikipedia. Since the user has not come back to edit at all, I'm willing to go out on a limb and agree that this can be deleted as a misuse of Wikipedia resources. Rossami (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 23:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Errors in Wikipedia that have been corrected in the Encyclopædia Britannica

Not encyclopedic; puts us in a bad light. Opus33 18:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. BJAODN. 1) Opus33, you say it's "not encyclopedic". OK, sure, but that's not a very fair criticism for something that's not claiming to be an encyclopedia article — it's in the "Wikipedia:" mainspace rather than the main article space. 2) You also say it "puts us in a bad light"? How? The point of the page is part-humour, and part to illustrate how the idea of a public "list of mistakes" is very natural for Britannica, but almost nonsensical for Wikipedia. The aim is to put Wikipedia in a good light. 3) This survived a vote for deletion a couple of months ago: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Errors in Wikipedia that have been corrected in the Encyclopædia Britannica. — Matt Crypto 18:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now (on WP:MD, where it should have been in the first place). No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • weak keep Changed my mind. WP is filled with jokes; this seems to be part of WP's culture. Sometimes they are so numerous that they annoy me, but this is hardly the worst of them. :) Xoloz 15:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Previous AfD was three months ago, so renomination is fine. An eternally empty page is not useful. I support deletion on a rationale of "no content; never will have content". Xoloz 15:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if anyone finds an error in wikipedia, sofixit!Borisblue 20:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, indeed, that's actually the half-serious point the page is trying to make — it prompts the realisation that Wikipedia is a better model than Britannica because you can fix mistakes yourself instantly (well, depending on the servers...); Britannica has a huge list of mistakes, but such a list doesn't even make sense for Wikipedia. I wouldn't mind so much if this page ends up deleted on the grounds that it's crappy humour or an inappropriate way to make this point, but to get deleted because people miss the point would be disappointing ;-) — Matt Crypto 21:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - although it does smack vaguely of WP:POINT. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Cute, but ineffective. Article claims to have been created "out of a spirit of fairness", when in reality, according to Matt Crypto, it's a subtle attempt at self-praise and pro-Wikipedia propaganda. If it's to be kept, the description should certainly be changed to minimize the page's blatant dishonesty, and to cause less confusion (most peole looking at the page will just think it's depopulated because we're too lazy to populate it, not because there's nothing to populate it with; thus not only its stated agenda, but also its hidden agenda, fails, as it makes us look incompetent or boorish more than anything). However, the easiest thing to do would probably be to simply explain on Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia why we don't have an article for the reverse topic: because any well-known error on Wikipedia is almost always immediately fixed. Simply stating that clearly on the "Errors in Encyclopedia Britannica" page is much more honest and clear, and less confusing and circuitous, than creating a whole project page just to make a point. If this page is intended purely as humor, it should be made a more explicit parody so that it will actually be amusing, and it should be moved to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (assuming it's even worthy of that section), just as has been done to other joke pages on the Wikipedia namespace. But I'm really doubting whether it's amusing or interesting enough for that.. Not only is it useless, misleading, and redundant, but, worst of all, it's also not funny. It's sort of like a somewhat clever pun that needs to be explained to be gotten: it might make you nod your head in gratified understanding when you're told or figure out the meaning, but you've still just wasted minutes of your life hearing a cheap pun. -Silence 22:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm getting the vibe that you don't like the page ;-) Ah well, I can't really defend the page against charges of bad humour. — Matt Crypto 05:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, no, I don't really mind the page one way or the other. I'd be perfectly fine with it staying where it is on a personal level (though I would like the dishonest "out of a spirit of fairness" stuff corrected, if it's not to be an obvious humor article). But as a Wikipedia editor, I feel obligated to vote for the method that will confuse and annoy the least people with a rather pointless page, and that seems consistent with how similar pages have been treated. That's how I see it, anyway. -Silence 06:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page is empty, and ought to remain so except for periods of a few seconds. It can serve no purpose for this project. NatusRoma 22:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand or else Delete. Hell's bells, I never heard of an article, namespace or not, that was empty and meant to stay that way. Unless someone is willing to make the article much lengthier, including many errors in wikipedia that have been corrected in the EB, I suggest its movement to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. That's where it would belong, eh? D. G. 02:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand or Delete. I agree, an article that is meant to stay empty doesn't seem useful at all, unless it records all past changes. Perhaps having dates and how quickly errors were corrected would be informative, but otherwise this doesn't even seem too entertaining, nonetheless informative. Comic 02:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you and D.G. miss the point; the article can't be expanded because its title is Wikipedia:Errors in Wikipedia that have been corrected in the Encyclopædia Britannica and Britannica has never corrected an error in Wikipedia; it's corrected errors period, but it's never said "this version of the Encyclopedia was corrected in X way even though Wikipedia got it wrong", like we do with the "Errors in Britannica corrected by Wikipedia" article. It sounds like you're proposing the creation of a whole new article, not suggesting that this article is salvagable just by adding stuff to it; its current title renders it inherently useless until Britannica itself starts to specifically direct its new edition's fixes at Wikipedia mistakes, like we do for them. Since it doesn't, we can't write about them doing it no matter what. What we could have is an article about past mistakes in Wikipedia that have been pointed out (rather than directly fixed) by various important external sources, like newspaper articles and such (though this would be kind of redundant with the many "Criticisms of Wikipedia" pages, unless we could find a lot of stuff to fill it with), or long-standing Wikipedia mistakes that were fixed by referencing an encyclopedia (though the latter would be just about impossible to fill in any meaningful way), but whether we make a new article like that or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether this article should be preserved or not. We can easily delete it and then make a different article that does the "comparing-Wikipedia-to-encyclopedias" idea much better, if this delete goes through. If it doesn't, we're back at square one. -Silence 03:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, gloating, not useful to any human being. silsor 03:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Not encyclopediac.prashanthns
  • To use a phrase that goes around AfD a lot, which I am attempting to use in a humorous manner, "Delete as unmaintainable listcruft." Because of the nature of Wikipedia, we always have quite a few articles around the edges that have not been updated/are not highly used/are therefore probably of dubious quality and verifiability. That doesn't mean we should abandon what Wikipedia is trying to do, and we should improve such articles we see so long as we think the subject is of encyclopedic merit, but this list, if properly updated, would be quite long. Jacqui ★ 17:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] 2005-10-09

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL, by Curps. -Splashtalk 03:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alexandrou et alia

  • User:Alexandrou
  • User:Lord Marshal
  • User:Iron Man
  • User:The Five Star General

These are all redirects for user pages where there is no actual user account, created by Decius (talk • contribs) but redirecting to User:Alexandru. (User:Decius also created a similar redirect at User:Spider-Man, but that is a real user account.) Uncle G 04:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all User pages are for real users, not fake users. Xoloz 13:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all including user:Spider-Man so the real user again has a clean page if/when he ever wants to create it. If Decius wants to change his username, he needs to create a new account (at a name that isn't already taken) and start logging in and editing from that account. If he just wants to change his signature, that's best done through the Preferences section. Rossami (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] 2005-10-08

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 03:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gelgs

attack page --Trovatore 19:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Userfied by RHaworth. Still looks like an insult page to me. Possibly Gelgs actually is Josh McElgunn; in that case I suppose it's OK, but he should have to prove it; otherwise people could post libel simply by claiming to be its target. --Trovatore 19:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Close call, because the attacks are mired in much nonsense. Still, the last sentence of the page is a clear attack, IMO. Xoloz 22:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEPT, by someone else. -Splashtalk 03:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mel Etitis

Rfc's existance is a clear-cut case of WP:POINT. -- that's right i'm anon 18:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. This Request for Comment was made in good faith. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Deletion at this point in this forum would be horribly out-of-process. Xoloz 22:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] 2005-10-07

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was that it be speedy-deleted. James F. (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor2

This arbitration case has not been accepted or reopened by the arbitration comittee, so the page should never have been made in the first place. I can't understand why it is still here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • fine, let it go then, you may as well speedy the thing, I don't the think the creator will fight you on it, I didn't know that there was an arbcom when I first made it, and obviously didn't bother to finsih it, once I found out that there was--Bah' 20:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] 2005-10-05

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was that it be deleted. Warofdreams talk 10:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Checking If an Article Needs to be Speedied

An advice page that was nominated for speedying. It's redundant with the policy page, and most of it is common sense. Ingoolemo talk 04:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Please move this nomination to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion —Wahoofive (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No, just delete it. Molotov (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obsolete with WP:CSD. This is more of tips on how to find page creation vandalism, on which we've also got an entry. Besides, saying to "just delete" without any policy basis is a bad idea. - Mgm|(talk) 08:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
That last comment refers to a line on the page in question, NOT to what Molotov said. - Mgm|(talk) 08:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Moving to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion --Doc (?) 09:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme delete. ~~ N (t/c) 00:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005-10-04

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was that it be deleted. Warofdreams talk 10:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:MMORPG research

This is not a proper user page - there is no User with that name. It is a page created by User:Highbreed. By its own admission it is original research (OR) but since it is in user space that may not be sufficient grounds for deletion. But since it is OR we can propose deletion on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. See also discussion of a clone of this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highbreed. -- RHaworth 03:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I DID NOT ASK THAT MY PAGE BE DELETED I gave away my username and password away so that they can either disambiguate or split my article but It seems they've used it to go to protected restricted areas of my page to vandalize what I have said and now it has been deleted. /sob /sob GOODBYE TO MY HARDWORK AND LABOUR OF GATHERING THAT VALUABLE INFORMATION All the hardwork and sacrifice gone in a flash! I guess it can't be retrieve again. Bye bye to wikipedia. So long. It's been nice meeting yah all. Say hi to all the Cambridge professors for me okay. Bye Oyasumi Nasai

    • Like I stated before, we don't need your password in order to be able to edit the page; anyone is already able to edit, split or disambiguate your page. Also, if the user MMORPG doesn't exist, then I believe we should indeed delete this userpage. Also, Wikipedia is not a battleground, so please remain civil. -- SoothingR 13:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. Also, says it was sourced from a website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete User pages are for real users, not fake users. Xoloz 22:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahehe I copied this page already and transfered it to a hard drive. No need to worry. Ahehehehe BYE BYE WIKIPEDIA. This is my last message.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy merge content with attribution, and delete -- BD2412 talk 11:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk talk:List of solar system objects by radius

Not an article. Apparent mistake, perhaps from a broken merge template; there is no "talk talk" namespace. This article is in the main namespace with the title "Talk talk:List of...", which is clearly undesirable. — brighterorange (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Strange. This was obviously never intended to be an article. I doubt the author would have any problem with my recommendation to Delete. --CastAStone 01:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As you said, obviously this was not intentially posted as an article. will381796 01:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Right, therefore I'm moving this to MfD. -- BD2412 talk 01:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Really? This is in the article namespace, so shouldn't it be deleted at AfD? — brighterorange (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not an attempt to make an article, tho - it's an attempt to make a talk page - why have it in article space if the criteria for discussing articles won't apply? -- BD2412 talk
      • Actually, it's pretty clear that the editor who made this intended to post something to Talk:List of Solar system objects by radius - this should be a speedy merge of content/edit history and deletion of the resulting redirect. -- BD2412 talk 01:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • ...and now I've moved what was on this page to the intended destination, dropping a note attributing the content to the original author (as a redundant courtesy, as he had signed it already). This can be speedied. -- BD2412 talk 01:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] 2005-10-01

[edit] User:Cool Cat/Wiki-politics

This page has been deleted per my request. This vote is kind of pointless as the page is no longer there. --Cool Cat Talk 20:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have asked Coolcat to delete that page, he refused to do so. User pages are part of Wikipedia, and it is both immature and irresponsible to have such target lists, even more, when the information there has been indicated to be erroneous. Fadix 22:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Our userspace it there for content that somehow benefit the Wikipedia project. It is not there to provide space for useless mud throwing rants about named wikipedians. -- Karl Meier 22:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • None of the material presented there is made up. There are diffs avalible for each and every "accusation" I make, I am too lazy to do that. I do not quite understand why blankfaze will leave wikipedia if I become an admin, I had no dispute with that person as fasr as I know. How does it help wikipedia when some people complain about stuff that relates to me for no good reason such as here [2] or remove a post of mine with a "stupid" title with no comment towards it [3]. All 5 people pictured on that page have been asked to leave me alone/explain self. If blankfaze bothers me again I will recall that not because I hold grudge (I dont) but because I really have no idea whats up with the threats or stalking. --Cool Cat Talk 08:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • There you go again Cool Cat. However, this is not an appropiate place for you rants against other Wikipedias eighter... Seriously Cool Cat, why don't you just end your childish behavior and give an apology to the editors that you have attacked and offended with you hit-list? Another thing is that a member of the ArbCom has already criticized that you are constantly calling in your chit-chat-team, so why don't you just stop doing that also? -- Karl Meier 17:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep not covered. --Cool Cat Talk 22:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion_policy Userpage included. Fadix 22:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
This isnt over yet. That coment was for VfD. --Cool Cat Talk 23:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this one and other "hit lists." [4] says that if user's request the user page or user subpage to be removed, it must be removed. But if it does not, it can be removed by AFD. However, I think this falls under Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, but no matter what the case it, hit lists should be strongly discouraged. Zach (Sound Off) 23:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not a hitlist. It is a list of peoples actions. --Cool Cat Talk 23:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The so-called Elders of Wikipedia "list" too, was allegedly based on peoples action. Besides, it has already been indicated what is the worth of the content. Fadix 23:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
        • The list that Stormfront created? Zach (Sound Off) 23:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
          • The worth of the content, is, about the content of Coolcat pages. Was that what you asked? The first list I was talking about, yes, it was about that. Fadix 23:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
            • That was how I saw the list. Zach (Sound Off) 23:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
          • I do not care about other lists, if I am forbid to record harrasment I recieve this will only make things worse. --Cool Cat Talk 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
          • WP:RFC. You can post evidence there, also at WP:RFAr. Zach (Sound Off) 23:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
            • It is not an evidence page. So it tells you on it. --Cool Cat Talk 00:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Re-list at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, per policy. Jkelly 23:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - if it is a "notes to self" page, then why should it be readable by anyone other than Cool Cat. I don't particularly see why anyone should object to it, but also, I don't see why a "notes to self" page should be on the wiki if anyone does disagree with it. The whole issue seems blown way out of propotion to it's importance. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Cool Cat tells me that he has no easy place to keep it privately, so, as per my view that this is a non-issue, I'm changing my vote to keep. Now, to the people mentioned on the page - it's already obvious to most people that you all and Cool Cat are fighting, having this page isn't going to change much, either way. Drop it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think, you will vote keep, if you were included in such a list, more so, when the content was shown to be not accurate, in the current Arbcom cases, [5] I don't like to be associated with the CIA, neither be accused of POV pushing, when I have spent a considerable amount of time in the project, and even fought against my own personal positions in various occasions. He is free to take a host, and tell how some members hate him. I have tried to kindly ask him to delete that thing, when he already has now, over three mentors to report. And he refused. Fadix 23:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I do not have agree to everything you order me. Mentors ment to monitor my edits, I DONT report to them. This isnt the army boy. --Cool Cat Talk 00:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per JesseW, the juggling janitor. *SIGH* --Phroziac(talk) 00:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Why am I not surprised? Perhaps, I shall start a list myself and lie about other members. And dare voting against. Oh, guess what, maybe I should include you also. Fadix 00:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Why are we not suprised we are seeing you here, Fadix? I dare you to rant here. --Cool Cat Talk 00:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • And if Cool Cat put it up for deletion, I would vote keep on it. --Phroziac(talk) 00:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Sure, dude, you claimed that what Coolcat has done was far from what I and others have done. Since the day Coolcat was the one that presented your RfA, you support him, whenever you find the occasions. And your claim here, is contrary to your answers to the ArbCom. But this is entirly another story. Fadix
  • Comment I think this discussion belongs in the Dispute Resolution Process, not AfD. Coolcat and Fadix have a long standing rivalry springing from Armenian Genocide, and this just seems to be a continuation of it; Fadix's comments may or may not have merit(i'm fairly neutral), but the rivalry clouds that potential merit. They need to continue talking in the various Dispute Resolution procedures from what little i've seen. If I can help, please let me know. I knew a professor in Holocaust studies back at my alma mater who could look into the accuracy of the article.Karmafist 00:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You are mistaken, this is a simple cases, in which a member uses his user page to slander others. I am not the only involved, he also has two administrators and two other members. Fadix 00:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Fadix, most of the page on the chopping block looked like opinion, which cannot be Slander, and besides, the stuff on there that is factual(not the common perception of the term, but something that can be proven or disproven) would be libelous rather than slanderous since this is written down ;-)
However, like I said before, because of the current feud between you two, it'll be difficult to gain consensus since some of the people who are on the fence will see this as a tit for tat rather than an actual problem that needs to be resolved. The real problem isn't the page, but the seeming animosity between Cool Cat and everyone on that page. However, from looking at this deletion page, i'm guessing the Palestinians and the Israelis have a better chance of burying the hatchet. Karmafist 04:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, it is more simple than you put it. An Arbcom cases was opened, during it, Coolcat opened this page, which is not his evidence page. He brought evidences against me, Davenbelle and Karl, not on this page, but another one. He was not able to support his claims that are in this page. Now, the Arbcom cases is at its end, and I have waited before presenting that page to deletion, for him to support his attacks. Yesterday or a day before, I have asked him to delete the page, he refused. So I presented this here. This is really a problem that need to be resolved, you bring things that have nothing to do, since this is more simple than you put it. The rivality you are speaking about, has nothing to do with it.(not to mention, that he was found to be disruptive in his edits in the Armenian Genocide page, not me). I is true, that some will not vote in all impartiality, I have not voted, while Coolcat has voted for his own page. And Coolcat, using the IRC was able to make someone change his vote, and I wonèt be surprised if he had used to get more supports. Have you any other alternative? If you have any alternative better than a deletion vote, please make it known. Fadix
I've said the alternative before a few times: more mediation. From what i've heard, if this is deleted, Coolcat is just going to make it again, and I assume you'll ask to delete that one, and the cycle will continue ad infinitum. The only positive thing that can happen here is you two ending this feud regardless of what's happened in the past and moving on with more constructive attitudes figuring out ways to diffuse situations such as these. Also, openly lobbying for votes may often be frowned upon here on Wikipedia, but the entire point of pages where consensus is needed is to try and sway other users through your opinions in order to get a satisfactory conclusion for all. Karmafist 17:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
If Coolcat does reestablish the page, it won't be the first time he does such a thing. Why should he even listen to others. I still think, you don't understand very well what is happening. I am TIRED. We've passed on the Arbcom, issues and problems have been addressed, a mentorship will be the way it will work. Since now, he will have mentors, and that the cases is at its end, I thought he will have no problem deleting it, so I have asked him this. How can you proposed mediation, for a page, that should even not exist in the first place? Is it not logical, that AFTER an Arbcom, people should forget past problems and move on? Like I said, I could myself build a page, on him, I will fill thousands of words, but I left the cases in the hand of the Arbcom, and as I said, since the cases its at its end, I won't participate in it anymore and move on working on articles,(something I was doing before that thing ate my time) and this is why I thought Coolcat will have no problem to delete that thing. HE REFUSED. I have no time runing after mediation, arbitrations, just for a page, THAT SHOULD EVEN NOT EXIST. Do you imagine if every members were to build pages about others, just because nthey dislike them? More so, when the information was shown to be not accurate? I just want him, to delete those lies about me, either he present his claims to the Arbcom, or shut the $#%% of, and I already told him this, he was not able to support them, but still keep them, and will be keeping them after the Arbcom cases, and he even announce that he will bring that page back again, if it is decided that it should be deleted. Fadix 18:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I suppose I don't understand then. I suppose i'm naive for believing that all Wikipedians can get along with each other, despite their disagreements. I'm beginning to believe that in real life too. However, can you answer me something -- what has this hostility between you two accomplished? Just listen to the anger in your voice in that reply. What's the point in being angry about this? When all else fails, just Ignore All Rules and continue on until the situation is resolved. I apologize if i've made it sound like this your(Fadix's) fault, from what i've seen so far, it's 50/50, and both sides need to step outside of themselves and understand this. Karmafist 02:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I will repeat this for the last time. Ignore what you think about Coolcat and my situation, ignore all the crap you heard at IRC. This is a simple cases I submit, the page Coolcat has that I submitted for deletion. It is as simple as that. I gave him the occasion to support what is in it, to the Arbcom, the cases is nearly over, he he was not able to support what he claim on this page. I asked him, to delete that thing, he refused. He will place it there even after being deleted. Think, just of this, my anger is irrelevant, what happened at the Armenian Genocide article is irrelevant, what is relevant, is that there is a page which contain a hit list, 5 members and not only me, and I have asked him to delete it and he refused. Can you just think about that, and only that? That was the only thing I asked, since it appears that members only understand and start thinking when it happens to them. Fadix 20:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll respond here since the colons were getting out of control. This conversation has swung me towards Weak Keep. I don't particularly like Cool Cat's politics page, but there is precedent for keeping similiar pages in the cases of Sam Spade 1 and Klonimus 2, a precedent that shouldn't change unless they try to make an actual "hit list"(with physical violence or legal threats) similiar to the Mr. Treason or Ashida Kim 3. Like i've said before, this deletion effort is worthless regardless of the result, the only way I see this being resolved is Fadix just reverting everything POV he sees from Coolcat, finding some friends to assist in the effort or making minor alterations to avoid a 3RR situation, and letting Coolcat's negative karma towards others from his user page come to fruition, because in the end, it always does. Trust me on that one. In my opinion, Coolcat won't get rid of that user subpage until it isn't worthwhile to either side. Fadix is obviously concerned with it regardless of how others percieve it. Karmafist 15:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Hold on a second, I find it rather offensive that you compare Coolcat pages with Sam page. I am aware of those pages, and I don’t believe I need any memory refresh. But that you compare Coolcats hitlist with those is certainly beyond understanding. Sam Spade page is everything but a hitlist, if you pay attention, it has a clear goal, and evidences were also collected to be presented also to arbitration committee. While, Coolcat doesn’t restrict himself to evidences, but to slander and make accusations which were unsupported. Sam has a section for resolved arbitration cases, now the cases with Coolcat has been resolved, the material in Coolcat pages has nothing to do with collecting evidences, but everything to do with what he believes about members he dislike, and he even has a tag, which says that he himself question the accuracy of the material he has placed there. Coolcat act is an attempt to the credibility of the members he dislikes. In fact, you judge this cases not based on Wikipedia policies, but on other bases. First, I don’t remember having any exchanges with you before I placed Coolcat pages to deletion. Second, you come here and knows what happened in the Armenian genocide article, while you have even not participated there. You even claimed a guilt 50-50, while, not only I had problems with Coolcat, but Thoth, Raffi were even more harsh than I, when Coolcat was disrupting the pages. Davenbelle, including Streotek were also present, the pages was followed for a year at the Lithuanian Wikipedia, and a report of the Armenian genocide article talk page situation is now on a members page [6], and is listed among the must reads on Wikipedia:Help. [7]
If you find there is nothing with Coolcat behaviour, that is fine for me, but to justify it, as if you understand what he is trying to do, that I think, I can’t tolerate, you can’t understand until it happens to you. But again, it always help sometimes to post such cases to deletion, to see whom here are ready to support other members when there is an attempt against their reputation, by cheap tricks, lies etc. And this time, it is the last time I answer, not only to you, but this whole pages. I am not interested to read the justifications that Coolcat was able to getter on IRC, neither why a pages slandering me should be kept there, when I will not tolerate as a member in the community, any such childishtic immature act, even if, it was build against Coolcat.
Ah, a last thing, maybe we should abolish the Arbcom also, why the need, since there are members that will tolerate members making justice themselves. Or, maybe I should also victimize myself on IRC, and threaten to leave everytime there is something I don’t like. It seems such things always pay, and that wrongdoings are even excused… it was probably a mistake to have though that I, as a member, could have asked to obtain, the deletion of a libellous pages, and even saying that I could edit POV from that page, when according to Wikipedia policies, it should even NOT EXIST. Here, I “end” my rant. Truly yours. Fadix 19:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, they are the agressive side. --Cool Cat Talk 00:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • While I am ignoring your empy talks, and concentrating on the legitimity of the page, you are justifying and self victimizing yourself. As you probably did when you used IRC once more, to get a member change his vote. Get a life. Fadix 00:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Get a life. eh? go read WP:NPA. Based on which deletion policy is his vote? --Cool Cat Talk 00:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Are you serious Cool Cat? You have called me an idiot and asked me to go screw myself, and now you feel offended that Fadix ask you to go get a life? You can't be serious! -- Karl Meier 17:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Karl Meier. --fvw* 00:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I really think there is no harm in me creating a page recodring objectionable activity by users relating to me. I got people threatening to leave wikipedia if I become an admin, I do not quite know why and they arent telling. --Cool Cat Talk 00:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • And you ranting about it is going to make it all better? If they did anything you consider unacceptable, first discuss it with them and if you remain at odds over the matter, RfC them. --fvw* 00:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I tried that, Dmn refused to answer and Blankfaze deleted the comment and declared it "stupid" [8]. I am not ranting, just reminding self what people said. --Cool Cat Talk 00:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Then you need to decide whether you want to learn to live with it or find it such a slight that you feel it requires an RfC to resolve once and for all. --fvw* 00:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Oh, I forgot an important step: Try mediation: Either formally through the medcom, or perhaps more appropriately, ask a friend who agrees with your position to try and discuss the matter with the people you're having trouble with. --fvw* 00:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
              • I lost complete respect/belief to dispute resolution after my ArbCom case. --Cool Cat Talk 00:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
                • Then you should give up and leave or fork. --fvw* 01:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
                  • I have a "no tolerance" policy towards bullies who stalk me. I am about to bail out of wikipedia completely. I am frankly tired of this nonsense. --Cool Cat Talk 01:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Keep list offsite until it s content becomes relevant to use on Wikipedia (i.e. Arbitration case, etc.). El_C 00:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Karl and Fadix; delete personal attacks and libel. User:Cool Cat can keep this shite on a piece of paper if he doesn't have offline storage space for it. nb: This is in arbitration. — Davenbelle 04:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    Alway. I criticized the material, not the source of it. Please note that User:Cool Cat has a pseudo-disputed notice on the page that reads The neutrality and factual accuracy of this material is disputed at least by its creator. The point appears to be disruption. — Davenbelle 06:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah yeah every edit I made has been a disruption. Even me recieving a barnstar was a disruption[9], that very statement verifies the need of the page. --Cool Cat Talk 08:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep While the motives of keeping this page may not be clear, it is clear from reading it that no threats are being made and no misbehavior is being planned (here, in any case). Userpages have always had a little protection from the more rigorous requirements articles must meet; I see no reason to hold this page to different expectations. Denni☯ 04:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • This is becoming rather ridiculous, what sort if arguments are those? His slanders and accusations have not been supported to the Arbcom. I ask anyone that vote keep, to think a little longer, than so-called user page. Think as if, a member is lying about you, on his user page. It is like someone presenting his cases on court, and the judges deciding that the evidences are lacking, and after the sentence, continuing with the same accusation. It is defamation. I should have even not presented this to be voted, but rather to a speedy delete. Sounds that some don't even understand the situation, but still vote, when the question is about having a page, lynig about members he dislike. Believe me whe I say, that I could fill thousads of words about Coolcat, but I accept that there is a limit to decency, and could, and will not, engage in such childish stupidies. Fadix 05:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't believe this material helps Wikipedia to become a better encyclopedia; rather, it serves to create ill will in the community. Keep up your good contributions, Cool Cat; I don't believe you'll need this page to carry on. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It helps me keep a track of my disputes with people. Two of the disputes are for reasons I have not made aware of. If people are stalking me or opposing my RfA with threats to leave wikipedia it is imperative I keep track of this. --Cool Cat Talk 08:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I understand that it helps you, but I don't believe it furthers our goal of making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. There is no need to keep this information on Wikipedia. You are welcome to track it using your own resources. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        • It certainly does not help wikipedia when one deals with nonsense like this:[10] --Cool Cat Talk 09:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • One single incident with people does not warrant an RFC. The parties declined to comment on their threats to leave wikipeda (dmn and blankfaze). The other three.... well two are before an arbitration hearing with me (requested by Tony Sideaway). Notice the personal attack(s) by User:Fadix here. --Cool Cat Talk 08:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed this reply from Blankfaze: No threats here. A simple statement of [f]act is all. I believe you to be wildly, wildly, wildly unsuitable for adminship. You have lied about things, namely copyright statuses, on a number of occasions, one of which caused a very, very good Wikipedian to leave the project. We should not reward such conduct with the tools and aura of trustworthiness of adminship. [11] — Davenbelle 08:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I dont recall asking you for that. Blankfaze needs to explain himself. He is accusing me of forcing a wikipedian leave a project. I dont see wtf is up with that. --Cool Cat Talk 08:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
See: Blocking users by article pondered after block triggers admin's departure. — Davenbelle 09:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
No one can hold me resposible of RickK's departure. He just overreacted to a revert war and a 3rr block which I was not a part of. --Cool Cat Talk 09:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
To whom do you think RickK was referring to in his final statement on his user page? — Davenbelle 09:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; not NPOV, and user space is not beyond VFD jurisdiction. Erwin
  • Keep The thing is, to me anyway, the list seems almost indescipherable to anyone who isn't CoolCat. It makes it clear he doesn't like those listed, but his "points" are so bare that they don't seem to be intended for outside viewers. For this reason, I don't think it constitutes defamation; it's almost in code. Xoloz 12:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm on that list, he is lying about me, using wikipedia. I have given the chance for him, to support those claims to the Arbcom, this is the reason why I have waited before placing it to be deleted and this, after I asked him to delete it. He was not able to support his claims. I repeat, I am on that list, the information he previde was shown to be not accurate, but he still want to keep it in Wikipedia servers. It is always amazing, how people that easily vote keep. Users like you are making it much more difficult, since it is obvious that I will do everything to get those lies about me deleted, as I am sure that any users here would do, if they were concerned, to those that vote keep, I just wish you were in the same situation, and had to get an unanimous vote, and were unable to do so. This is one of those examples, that democracy doesn't always work in Wikipedia. Fadix
      • I'm sympathetic, Fadix, but you didn't really address my point, which is: other than your name (and the general impression that CoolCat doesn't like you), I can't understand anything CoolCat says at all. The page makes very little sense, so I can't judge whether it defames you. And, since you suggested it, I wouldn't really be bothered if someone called me names on a page that looks like it was autogenerated by a bad translation program. The state of the page doesn't make the accusations look credible in any case; of course, CoolCat says this is deliberate, and that the checklist is for his use only. Xoloz 18:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in userspace. These issues are better worked out on RFC in any case. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    This has already gone all the way to Arbitration, and it is now listed at RFC. — Davenbelle 09:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am against hitlists and am only voting keep because this is outside the scope of afd. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 20:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC) Vote withdrawn. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 20:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Jtkiefer, while the original page was at WP:AFD, there was a request to move it to WP:MD, or misc. deletion. This is usually reserved for Wikiprojects and for Userpages. While it is my fault for not changing the links at the various locations, I will be happy to properly relist the page at WP:MD at a later date. Zach (Sound Off) 20:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, violation of Wikiquette. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Christopher Parham. --Apyule 08:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    This has already gone all the way to Arbitration, and it is now listed at RFC. — Davenbelle 09:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the best course of action, then, would be to request a temporary injuction from them? Xoloz 11:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. My experience with CoolCat - pretty much exclusively on the Armenian Genocide issue - is that he is "contributing" for the sole purpose of pushing a hidden agenda - and this agenda - in the AG case and seemingly here - is to create as much disruption and ill will as possible - to prevent any real progress on article(s) he finds personally offensive or that he diagrees with. I think this is exactly what he is doing here as well and I find such uncalled for slander to be inappropriate here. --THOTH 02:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. How is this different from the Black books episode? He who must be obeyed weighed in on that one to say it wasn't a good idea. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zoe. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any evidential content in that document should have been copied by its author to the evidence page of his arbitration case; I assume that he has already done so. The arbitration case was closed a few hours ago. Let us draw a line under this affair and move on. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per Tony Sidaway. DES (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Tony Sidaway. Steven 23:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/s/Wikipedia%7EMiscellany_for_deletion_Archived_debates_October_2005_bee1.html"