User talk:M0llusk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old messages for reference here: Old messages

[edit] Regarding Erection Index

Regarding this statement:

...might I suggest you hie thyself off to Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than simply recreate the article elsewhere? The latter action, unless you can really reword it and justify it, will get it set up for speedy deletion. from Dennis The TIger

Well, Dennis, thank you ever so very much. If you had been interested in the issue you might have noticed my comments are all over not only deletion review, but related pages, and many of the recent deletions for review. As typical of most deleters, your remarks are revealed upon investigation to be unfounded puffery. This indicates that while others are ready and willing to delete my contributions without correctly using the Wikipedia deletion process, I am at least attempting to use all Wikipeida processes for all edits.

What I have been implicitly, and now am explicitly suggesting, is that, time permitting, this page should be restored. Not in some other location, whatever the hell that might mean, but exactly as it was. It has been asserted that valid information occurs in books and on Google, and I find that view catastrophically ignorant. Unlike many Wikipedians who have lots of time for Wikipedia, my time is very restricted. Given the aggressive deletion of all new content and the lack of coherent review I am in no rush to make extra time available for Wikipedia. When I can present this page with more sources I will. One of the things I am considering is contacting the economics professors who introduced me to the term, though unfortunately some have since died.

Regarding statements of intent, to the extent that deleters show by their feedback a general lack of interest, a lack of comprehension of the page as written, or an inability to use cut and paste to correctly spell the name of the page, then I question the motives of the deleters. They may still be noble, but when you have chosen to rip out something someone else considered valuable it might be considered good form to at least read it, at least try to understand, and at least get the terms right. Anything else, whether it is or not, comes across as quite plainly sloppy and crude.

-- M0llusk 08:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll put it succinctly, since you seem to think that I'm out to indiscriminately delete stuff - and happened to notice this in my contributions page that I was no longer the last comment. One, the cabal exists only if you think it does. Two, I merely voted to delete, and it got deleted. I'm not solely responsible for the deletion. Chewing me out in any way shape or form doesn't change this, and sure won't win you any friends. Three, to reiterate and augment, if you wish this to be undeleted and have more to contribute for the article's notability, take it to deletion review and/or recreate the article with the appropriate requirements. Read here, here, and here for details. It boils down to this: even if I entirely abstain from voting to delete, if you don't follow those guidelines, it's liable to disappear. Finally, if you don't like the policies, then you might want to participate in the debates in re the policies here on Wikipedia. --Dennis The TIger 03:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have done and will continue to participate in policity debates. There is no cabal, only an emerging problem with poor judgement that might be addressed through change to policy or enforcement of policy. My complaint is that the policy failed and there are names of around a half dozen Wikipedians involved with that having stated a range of motivations in the deletion log. This isn't about you, this is about whether relevant articles with references should be deleted in this or other similar such cases. The existing rules say to delete rather freely, and I assert even these rules were not correctly followed. My rage at all of this has to do with this being one among many pages recently deleted. Deletion isn't just something that happend to one of my good pages, it is happening to much relevant material. My vision of what Wikipedia might be? Deleted and awaiting replacement. -- M0llusk 04:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)