User talk:Freedomspeechman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Bush family conspiracy theory article was deleted following a community debate that you can review here. The community decided that the article was unsourced, unverifiable original research per Wikipedia's policies and should be deleted. I deleted the article as a result of this discussion. This is not an abuse of my admin tools, in fact it is one of the explicit duties that admins are asked to perform. The Bush family conspiracy theory article will not be reinstated. Before making rash accusations about abuse of power, please take a few minutes to understand the basic rules of Wikipedia. Thanks, Gwernol 01:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Gwernol thanks for your reply regarding Bush family conspiracy theory. Can I start out by informing you Sarcasm is neither useful or called for I have a legitimate question which I put it to you!
I have read the basic rules and I do not agree with the decision you made, and as per wikipedia guidelines I am putting it to you!
I also believe that there was an earlier attempt to delete the same topic (Bush family conspiracy theory) in which it was overwhelmingly decided to keep the above mentioned page. I might also point out that the earlier discussion and later determination (to keep) had far more participation than the one that has now been made.
I might point out to that simply stating anti-bush, pointless or the like are far from an intelligent review of the content and is not consistent with the rules of wikipedia. Did you ask the author/contributor whether or not they understood how a document should be formatted ? Did you offer to help ? Or did it simply not fit you political beliefs ? When I read it last, Friday 19 May 2006, 5:56:08 AM it seemed fine and was very informative as to the views of a certain amount of people as to what is, as was clearly stated a theory! From memory some of the items did contain information from books and from NBC’s meet the press.
Pythagoras once had a bold theory that the world wasn’t flat but in fact spherical shaped. Lucky you didn’t have the delete power then or history may not have noted it. May I ask if you attempted to edit the work as per guidelines ?
There seems to be a growing problem with editors deleting items that they don’t agree with or imposing there own views with regard to things like abortion by stating that the an abortion is the death of a baby rather than the termination of an embryo people have different opinions I think and they could quite easily both be include rather then deleted and then there veiw imposed on everyone. I think the same can be said with you deleting the above mentioned document it had be discussed already and the consensus was to keep, your much smaller group later getting together to delete seems to me, to be and abuse of power. One which I hope you will reverse. Wikipedia does not support censorship. And i wont use it if it does!
Can you please take a second look and get back to me thanks _free
Contents |
[edit] Your edit to User talk:Morton devonshire
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ([1]) --Guinnog 08:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] huh?
Hi Freedomspeechman -
You wrote this "Good to see this site works fine with the removal of the word death" on my talk page. I'm not sure what you mean. I can't see the word "death" in the edit you made, and I'm not sure what you mean. Care to elaborate? MidgleyDJ 11:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Another reply
Your wrote on my talk page:
- Gwernol thanks for your reply regarding Bush family conspiracy theory. Can I start out by informing you Sarcasm is neither useful or called for I have a legitimate question which I put it to you!
My reply on your talk page was in no way sarcastic, You made an error in accusing me of abuse of power, please do not mistake my response as insincere.
- I have read the basic rules and I do not agree with the decision you made, and as per wikipedia guidelines I am putting it to you!
Then you are wrong. Please read the [{WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]] policy (not guideline) particularly General criteria 4, which allows deletion of "Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process". Since the article in question had been deleted as a result of a legitimate AfD debate I was acting completely within policy when I deleted its recreation.
- I also believe that there was an earlier attempt to delete the same topic (Bush family conspiracy theory) in which it was overwhelmingly decided to keep the above mentioned page. I might also point out that the earlier discussion and later determination (to keep) had far more participation than the one that has now been made.
There was a first discussion, which you can review here. The debate ended as "no consensus" not, as you state, an overhewlming decicion to keep the page. Reading the first AfD debate I'd say you were lucky it wasn't deleted then. If you want an overwhelming decision see the second debate here which was nearly unanimous in its decision to delete.
- I might point out to that simply stating anti-bush, pointless or the like are far from an intelligent review of the content and is not consistent with the rules of wikipedia. Did you ask the author/contributor whether or not they understood how a document should be formatted ? Did you offer to help ? Or did it simply not fit you political beliefs ? When I read it last, Friday 19 May 2006, 5:56:08 AM it seemed fine and was very informative as to the views of a certain amount of people as to what is, as was clearly stated a theory! From memory some of the items did contain information from books and from NBC’s meet the press.
You fundamentally misunderstand the objections to the article. It was not deleted because it is anti-Bush. It was deleted because it was original research that did not cite [{WP:RS|reliable sources]] and so was unverifiable. It is true that it is also inherently biased but an equally biased pro-Busha rticle would be deleted on the same grounds. I have linked to the appropriate policies. Pleae read them if you are interested in why this article was actually deleted. The formatting of the document was never an issue, so that's an irrelevant question.
- Pythagoras once had a bold theory that the world wasn’t flat but in fact spherical shaped. Lucky you didn’t have the delete power then or history may not have noted it. May I ask if you attempted to edit the work as per guidelines ?
- There seems to be a growing problem with editors deleting items that they don’t agree with or imposing there own views with regard to things like abortion by stating that the an abortion is the death of a baby rather than the termination of an embryo people have different opinions I think and they could quite easily both be include rather then deleted and then there veiw imposed on everyone. I think the same can be said with you deleting the above mentioned document it had be discussed already and the consensus was to keep, your much smaller group later getting together to delete seems to me, to be and abuse of power. One which I hope you will reverse. Wikipedia does not support censorship. And i wont use it if it does!
As I pointed out, you are wrong that the first discussion ended in a keep decision; it ended with no consensus. When the community was asked a second time to reach consensus it overwhelimingly decided to delete the article. That is not an abuse of power. Calling this censorship is deluding yourself; if you had any interest in Wikipedia as an encyclopedia ytou would make an attempt to actually understand why this article was deleted instead of setting up strawmen and seeing conspiracy and bad intentions everywhere. Gwernol 11:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:3RR
Since you are interested in Wikipedia's policies, you should read WP:3RR which you have already violated on the Abortion page. Please do not continue to edit war on that, or any other page, or you may be blocked from editing. Thanks, Gwernol 12:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to Talk:Abortion. There has been *extensive* discussion on the lead-in text, and no one editor, however much he may believe he is correct, has the right to unilaterally overturn consensus. --BCSWowbagger 18:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The difference between vandalism and enforcing Wikipedia's policy
I would have thought the difference between vandalism and enforcing Wikipedia's policies would be fairly straightforward to understand. Vandalism is defined here. Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and original research are clear. The second Article for Deletion debate had multiple editors pointing out these problems with the article. The appropriate policies were quoted, as I have quoted them above. You are welcome to write about your perception of abuse of power, but I suspect your readers, whoever they might be, will be able to judge the evidence for themselves. If you don't like the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, you are welcome start your own copy of it with a different set of rules. However complaining about people enforcing the rules that the community has agreed to is counter-productive and fundamentally misunderstands the nature of Wikipedia. Good luck, Gwernol 16:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
