Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/November 2005

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 Steve block talk 16:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AUTO

I'm proposing the deletion of this policy for several reasons.

1. I met David Mertz the other day, who edits both his own article and others exceptionally well as Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Roger Ebert edited his own article two quick times as Rebert Heck, even Jimbo, who said doing this was a faux pas, edited his own article sometimes with grammar touchups, sometimes with rewordings that could change the construence of the phrase, and sometimes with factual changes among others.

Whether anything is right or wrong with this is up for debate, but what isn't up for debate that this policy is being flatly ignored, because when Jimbo ignores it, you know the average Wikipedian isn't going to respect it. Yet, when there's been problems with people editing their own article, such as with Chip Berlet, this policy wasn't discussed once, but rather policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

1. This opinion piece on USA Today, causing Wikipedia some bad press. If not for this policy, Mr. Siegenthaler could have just fixed the problems if he didn't ignore the policy like the people above and more, but instead he used it as an excuse to make us look bad. The longer we don't allow areas of expertise to fix problems like that, the more problems we'll have.
2. If a policy is WP:IARed all the time, there's no purpose in having it at all.
3. When you click on the edit button, right there at the bottom...

If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it. With WP:AUTO, we'd have to change this to...

If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others except the person who this article is about if this article is about a person, do not submit it.karmafist 08:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I do not have a problem with editors correcting factual inaccuracies about themselves, however, editors should not be allowed to start articles about themselves. Notability should be determined by others. Edwardian 08:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Edwardian. Karmafist misses the point of the guideline. Ambi 08:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• The nominator is indeed missing the point, and indeed not realizing that this article an explanation of some of the non-neutrality, non-verifiability, and original research issues that autobiographies have, and how to avoid them. And far from not being discussed once, "What links here" tells us that this guideline has been referenced from all over the place. Keep. Uncle G 11:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Edwardian's argument. Furthermore, it provides an essential control against editors who attempt to seize control of an article and to bias it in violation of the NPOV rule. While we occasionally tolerate users editing their own article, that is very much the exception and those edits are generally scrutinized much more closely by other editors. WP:AUTO complements and elaborates on WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Rossami (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Seizing control of any article, whether it's about you or not, would be in violation of NPOV. Whether it's referenced all over the place is moot if it's ignored, and I concur about the starting of articles, but this distinction has never been solidified, it's only discouraged. Personally, I think the opposite should be the case -- creation=never, occasional assistance=ok, but this rule has been around so long that it's going to be hard to change now due its entrenchment in established wiki-thought.karmafist 22:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As mentioned in previous comments, any mischief caused by violation of this policy would also violate other, more fundamental policies (NPOV, original research, verifiability). Even starting one's own article should be reasonable if it meets those criteria. Perhaps a better tack would be to emphasize in the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy that one's own self-knowledge is not encyclopedic. Dystopos 01:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

addendum. ...and that one's own self-importance is a non-neutral point of view. Dystopos 03:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I love Karmafist, and I share strongly his distaste that this guideline is often IARed, but deleting it seems a bit like throwing the baby out with bath-water. It is a guideline (not policy) after all; one expects that circumstances both exceptional and non-controversial will arise in which it is not operative. Roger Ebert may correct the date of his birth, and Jimbo the spelling of his high school, without anyone thinking they are likely to abuse NPOV. AUTO does need to respected more, and I nominate any article begun by its subject when I see it. However, for mundane details and routine copyedits, I think AGF should shield the minor edits of subjects to their own articles. Xoloz 02:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have to vote to keep this because at least with the guideline in place, it adds to our credibility rather than takes away from it. Regardless of those editors that have made corrections or adjustments to articles about themselves, it is still a practice that should be frowned on. However, I also freely admit that I can sympathize with those that do have articles about themselves that are incorrect or just plain crummy and desperately need editing. If this were a policy, I would be more in favor of deletion, but since it is merely a guideline, then let it stay as a friendly reminder that autobiographical work is not something this Wiki endorses.--MONGO 03:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Uncle G. Stifle 13:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Robert McClenon 19:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but possibly it should be made more clear that this guideline is not by itself sufficient grounds for rejecting autobiographical material. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 22:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We should have guidelines for editing an article about yourself. Trödel|talk 23:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • as to (2) above - if he was genuine and following the guideline, he would have added it to the talk page - and it would have been corrected. In fact his complaint has proven that wikipedia works and how it works (on a speeded up time scale). With few edits before his complaint, there is now forming a respectable, mature article in a matter of days through the wikiway. Trödel|talk 23:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Whenever i've tried a similar non-afd non-unilateral thing by using a talk page, it plain just didn't work. Considering the Siegenthaler op piece, I figured that might have given this enough momentum to make some drastic changes here. karmafist 07:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed - talk page comments are sometimes ignored on pages watched by very few. I have used the deletion process to get immediate attention to a problem before - unfortunately it works better than leaving announcements all over the place, but it is not without risks if the article is borderline :). Trödel|talk 11:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I recommend familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia:Requests for comments, which is exactly the way of drawing more attention to a talk page discussion. Uncle G 19:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Article/Policy related rfcs do nothing from my experience, Uncle G. They'd be far more useful if they follwed the user rfc format, which I did lately with Ward Churchill karmafist 15:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is plainly good advice. -Splash^talk 21:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is not the place to take it if you have a complaint about how this policy is written, I'd be in favor of a rewrite on the policy but just deleting it is not the best way. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The policy is sensible in that anyone sufficiently popular to have an article should also have a significant number of friends who can help edit the article. It might include an exception for correcting factual inaccuracies (but even those are subject to interpretation and differences in recollection). I came to this page while crafting a comment on User_talk:82.108.78.107 regarding edits of Podcasting history by someone affiliated with Adam Curry [1] and thought it might be appropriate to mention the autobiography policy in my comment. We clearly need some kind of guideline like this to help keep the NPOV. -- ke4roh 03:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wales == canon. Ashibaka (tock) 04:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a guideline, not hard policy, and as others have said, the big issue is people _starting_ articles associated with themselves. ¦ Reisio 02:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. While it seems the momentum is to keep, I'd like to comment that I believe it needs substantial revision, as opposed to either being kept just as it is, or deleted entirely. The idea of discouraging entries created to aggrandize a person is a good one. However, as currently constituted, the formulated text seems to bar every self-correction by the subject of an article. The results are then handled by selective enforcement, where popular people are given a pass, while strict wording can be used against those less popular. Moreover, the implications can quickly become perverse, in favoring those with friends who are comfortable with Wikipedia - or perhaps those who are skilled at constructing sock-puppets. I suggest the material be revised with more nuanced discussion about self-editing, and explicitly permitting sourced self-correction of obvious factual errors in pre-existing articles. -- Seth Finkelstein 07:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful and necessary. Gamaliel 09:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just read it (never had a reason before, sadly) and it seems perfectly straightforward, sensible, and necessary. Nothing in it bars or discourages self-correction, merely encourages perspective and objectivity abut one's own view of the facts. --Calton | Talk 08:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note the statement "it is considered proper on Wikipedia to let others do the writing. Instead, contribute material or make suggestions on the article's talk page and let independent editors write it into the article itself.". While it's fine advice for ruminative material, it makes no distinction between general editing and correcting egregious fallacies. It certainly reads discouragingly with regard to self-correction. -- Seth Finkelstein 12:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Trödel|talk 14:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Edwardian's arguments, and because this "cure" would be worse than the disease it purports to fix. �' Ξxtreme Unction {^yak�,_blah} 15:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- Zora 14:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. I don't think their's anything wrong with writing an article about Yourself in the mainspace. -- Eddie 16:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you're noteworthy enough to be encyclopaedic, then chances are an article already exists on you. ¦ Reisio 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep even if I disagreed with it; all failed proposals should be archived and saved. If we don't agree with this anymore, it should have {{historical}} put on it, not be deleted. Blackcap (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Blackcap. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While it may be ignored, it is a nice general policy to have in place, i.e. don't self-aggrandize. Everything is taken on a case by case basis, but having this in place can be a useful sign post and good as a reminder for those cases with blatant violations. Xuanwu 08:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Hirst for a VERY good reason why this is a bad policy. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reference - I find the article to epitomize why this is good policy. First the article reads like an autobiography - the tone is unmistakeable. Secondly, there are questions of notablity which are not being directly addressed because the article is clear vanity. These questions would be more likely to be addressed if the quick vanity answer did not exist. Trödel|talk 18:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep even if this policy is rejected. All policies and proposals should be archived with {{historical}} or {{rejected}}, not be deleted. Blackcap (talk) ^{(vandalfighters, take a look)} 02:27, 11 December 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 Speedy, no content nor context. Radiant_>|< 01:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Stop

Delete. It's literally just a collection of images of things that mean "stop". It's basically a collage. Absolutely no reason for it. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Actually, I think it's supposed to read Stop! Hammer Time! see: MC Hammer. Funny, but probably needs to go ;] --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*)} 07:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as containing no content. Proto t c 14:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Though it made my day as absurdist humor, I don't think it belongs in BJAODN. Xoloz 16:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• It actually says "Stop, hammer time", and I think we should keep it because it's harmless and fun to point people to. silsor 19:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete not even funny enough for BJAODN - Pureblade | ^☼ 22:34, 29 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 Speedy deleted as nonsense by Lucky 6.9

[edit] Shawn (Mortal Kombat)

Never even heard of "Shawn" and niether has any search engine (Notorious4life 03:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC))

• Delete. Somehow this isn't a speedy? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like one to me. It's barely a sentence. - Lucky 6.9 21:24, 26 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. -Splash^talk 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Screenshot examples

Delete It's just a collection of "fair use" screenshots, most of wich have been deleted. Appears to have been a test, and whatever use it once had is likely long gone. Sherool (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nothing links here besides MfD and one talk page. Useless, half broken. Xoloz 07:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a forgotten page, last edited on June 24, 2005. Deco 04:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete forgotten, unused test. - Pureblade | ^☼ 22:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless page. *drew 08:36, 30 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. -Splash^talk 18:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Democracy

Un-maintained portal that is un-necessary in any case - made redundant by Portal:Politics. This Portal is the first of many that will be proposed for deletion, as we overhaul the portal project. cj | talk 14:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unmaintained, raison d'etre unclear to me. Xoloz 07:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree completely with Cyberjunkie and Xoloz. Worldtraveller 15:39, 30 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. Wow, what a lengthy discussion. Radiant_>|< 01:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Catholic Church of Wikipedia

I think this thing (project?) is a bad idea. In particular, I worry about sectarianism, and the inevitable coming of the Church of Jimbo Wales of the Latter-Day Saints et al. and myriad Protestant denominations. Yes, the study of theology is marvelous; yes, this "project" might facilitate it in a backhanded way, but (Roman) Catholic theology isn't the only doxy out there, and (if we have one), we'd have to allow all that anyone has the energy to work up, in the spirit of NPOV. I fail to see how multiple "model theology" workspaces furthers encyclopedia-building.

At the least, this needs community approval. I know the heirarchy here is powerful with WP as well, but a bad idea is still a bad idea. To be clear, I don't accuse the page of being offensive (although I sympathize with that view to a degree, and I'm no Catholic of any kind). I think it is unhelpful in the building of the 'pedia, and highly problematic as precedent for future, similar unhelpful projects.

Could this be userified? Exist as a webpage, or at meta? Technical reason for deletion is simply the unencyclopedic nature of the project. 205.188.116.139 16:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I was this anon while on (attempted) Wiki-break, and real life physical vacation away from my home machine. Pursuant to my new comments at the WP:CCW page, I feel I should confirm such here. Interested parties my find viewing my comments at the CCW talk page useful as well. Xoloz 20:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: This is pure bullshit parody. It doesn't belong on any serious encylopedia. Put it up on a humor site or something if you want to preserve it. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:15, 28 Nov, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Since there's plenty of humor in Wikispace, keep it. Radiant_>|< 19:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC), bishop, censor librorum and inquisitor.
• Keep: This wry article is too good to be consigned to the deletionist trash heap. Ombudsman 03:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, delete, burn, whatever, one way or another, it's enough for me to see my work here isn't appreciated. Way to run off another good Wikipedian. -- Essjay · Talk 00:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --HappyCamper 03:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Terenceong1992 06:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as the people who actually use it want it. IMO the blasphemy should be toned down - that equating Jimbo Wales with G-d is not funny at all - even humour has its limits. Izehar 20:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is not slowing the project down, or offending anyone. Johann Wolfgang 01:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: It could offend Muslims - According to Muslims associating G-d with something or someone else is the sin of shirk (association). Shirk is Islam's unforgivable sin (far error as it is put in the Koran). Now I'm not Muslim, so don't take this on my authority, but you may want to investigate this, and make such amendements as appear proper. Izehar 17:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Its in the user namespace - untouchable--Ewok Slayer 01:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: this is not in the user namespace, and neither is the user namespace untouchable. Radiant_>|< 16:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Question: Why? Izehar 17:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It began in Essjay's user space. However, it became so popular that I was moved. -- Psy guy ^Talk 23:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 02:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete- This article is completely unencyclopedic and is a model of pages that were put up for speedy deletion and deleted. Such as Anonymex. That article was a landslide deletion. There is no good reason to keep this article. All of the people that said to keep it are members of it and do not want their fun spoiled. Just because you attatched "Wikipedia:" to it doesn't make it good for Wikipedia. Those in favor asserted the positive, "This article should stay." I asserted the negative, now prove your positive. You can see on my User Page I am a Catholic. Don't let this interfere with my argument.--User:Anti-Anonymex2 20:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you have seen that it isn't an article? Titoxd^(?!?) 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. I would agree with Anti-Anonymex. This article is pure blasphemous dross and belongs in a catalogue of pseudo-humour rather than a popular Internet encyclopedia. To retain it would be offenseive to just conscience and to the licit purpose of this website.--Thomas Aquinas 21:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I feel this page is a ridiculous parody of the actual Roman Catholic Church. Whatever your stance on the Church, Wikipedia at least pretends to be objective. And anyone who hails Jimbo needs their head examined. GreatGatsby 21:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Although it's awfully silly, we have to remember that catholic does not have to always refer to the Roman Catholic Church; see [2]. BTW, I'm a WikiSecularist; Jimbo is purely my King and Commander-in-Chief. --Merovingian 22:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Woah! User:Neutrality named me Apostle of Alaska in the Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia?! --Merovingian 00:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic and offensive (and despite what some might say, it is illogical to say that it's not when others say it is). Str1977 22:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter, it's not part of the encyclopedia namespace. the wub "?!" 11:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Humor. It's not an article—it's in the Wikipedia namespace, not in the main namespace—so there is no need for it to be encyclopedic. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, it would appear that User:Thomas Aquinas has left messages for all users in Category:Roman Catholic Wikipedians asking to come vote to delete this page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, so what. What's your point? Dwain 04:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The deletion pages are intended to be more about discussion and less about votes. In fact, that is the main reason why Votes for deletion was recently renamed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: to try to remove the idea that one could recruit several friends to help swing the vote and such. In general, soliciting people to come vote in a certain manner is frowned upon at best and the votes discounted at worst. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I'm breaking my Wikibreak just to vote on this matter. Remember, just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean it is wrong or shouldn't exist. The intent of this was never to offend other religious groups. It was purely for humor. Acetic Acid 22:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong KeepI am a Roman Catholic Wikipedian and I see nothing blasphemous or heretical about this page. To be completely certain, I asked my parish priest for his opinion and he liked the idea of it. It is clearly listed in the Humor category. Catholicism is a perfect analogy for the structure of Wikipedia: Jimmy Wales created the site and certain people have been named to manage the site while he looks over the site. Furthermore, CCW is encyclopedic in the humorous sense. The Latin and English "prayers" are accurate. The page was never intended to offend any Catholics. If it has, I apologize. -- Psy guy ^Talk 23:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I wish to amend my earlier comments. I really think people are missing the point. CCW does not mock the Roman Catholic Church. It simply has adopted its structure and applied to Wikipedia. To say that CCW is "anti-Catholic" 1) to speak falsely and 2) to miss the point. Many of the contributors to CCW are practicing Catholics or, at least, has some (positive) interest in C/c-atholicism. Since we are familiar with the structure, it is easy to apply. Please tell me a better analogy for Wikipedia than a C/c-atholic struture: both are universal, both have a hierarchy, et cetera. The page does not try to do anything truely "religious" in nature. When people take it too far, they are halted. We do not actually worship Jimmy Wales. To imply so is ridiculous. Furthermore, criticizing our morals, our devotion to the true Chruch is what is offensive. I am a practicing Roman Catholic. I take my faith VERY seriously. I respect my pope and love my God. To imply or even flat out say otherwise is offensive and I will pray for you. Remove the plank from your own eye! Also, if anyone else sees a good analogy and want to start a Lutheran, Jewish, Hindu, or Ba'al version then more power to them. -- Psy guy ^Talk 18:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I accept your apology, but must address the points you made. True, to accuse the contributors to this article of a mortal sin requires knowledge God alone could have; however, it is not self-righteous to oppose the act itself. There is an analogy with a fornicator, for example; should one admonish him for pre-marital sex, he would not be declaring his motives but the objective evil of what he has done. Moreover, to apply Our Lord's command against hypocrisy to this situation is inappropriate, as we (i.e., the opponents of this "article") did not canonise ourselves as great Crusaders for the Faith opposing a mass of reprobates, but as concerned and offended- at least by the presence of such work in an encyclopedia. It was not claimed that the authors of this article sincerely practiced their pseudo-religion, but that they had committed an offence against the correct one. You claimed that the Catholic Church of Wikipedia has simply applied the principles of the Catholic religion as an analogy of its nature, but this could have been done in a far less offensive fashion, such as an introductory page to this website comparing the two. You also explained that the opponents of this article have "missed the point;" once again, judging itnent is reserved to the Great Judge, Jesus Christ, and once again I cannot purport to speak for Him. Nonetheless, the effects of the CCW have proven themselves to be evil. Finally, to see nothing blasphemous about a page that mocks God and His Things is quite absurd (forgive my bluntness). The sacred is inviolable and this is a self-evident truth. To reduce it to a source of humour is reprehensible. Forgive me if I have offended you, but I msut conclude that this is a detestable article and my vote stands as unchanged.--Thomas Aquinas 21:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This so-called article does not belong on Wikipedia. It is extremely offensive to practicing Catholics who take their religion seriously and it is totally unencyclopedic. I would also vote to delete any other pages that makes assaults on other religions and beliefs. It also breaks the NPOV rule. It is totally offensive to me is not funny! Dwain 23:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete As a practicing Catholic, I find this a mockery and highly offensive. Beyond that, I don't see in any way how it belongs at Wikipedia. Put on a different site. --Jakes18 23:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. I also do not think the texts and prayers are humorous, in fact they are too self-glorifying. *drew 23:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete this page is unencyclopedic. It's offensive, and it doesn't serve a purpose. Aside from that it may also confuse people looking for the Catholic Church. Chooserr
  • How so? It's in the Wikipedia namespace. the wub "?!" 11:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to something a little less confusing/controversial. Good thinking, Chooserr. --Merovingian 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This will only serve to a) rile controversy (understandably so) and b) lessen Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia and source of information. Not funny, either, IMHO. Paul 00:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Life's too short. No one will lose their faith because of this bit of humor. KHM03 00:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I am a Catholic, and I am not in the very least offended by this. It is a part of Wikipedia humor. For those who think it is an article: it isn't: Look at the page. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If anyone holds that this page should be deleted, let him be anathema! --TantalumTelluride 01:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If I may say so, that was a rather offensive quip itself, trivialising as it did a very grave pronouncement.--Thomas Aquinas 21:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and chill out folks - seriously if Catholicism can survive Dan Brown this won't shake it's foundations much. --Doc ^ask? 01:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Speedy Keep in fact, I'd close it myself if I wasn't the one who sent it to the wiki namespace. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As a Catholic, I find it offensive. I think it's so obviously offensive that I really doubt the sincerity of anyone who asks "what do you find offensive"? It doesn't matter if the participants in this Wikipedia "project" are Catholic or not. A Catholic respecting his or her own faith would not mock it. A person not of the Catholic faith who respects the religious beliefs of others and would likewise not mock it. A similar "project" based on mockery the Jewish faith or Muslim faith would not even be attempted because of the certainty of the public outcry against it. This is a double standard we are all familiar with. If the apologies for offending Catholics are genuine, then move the page off the Wikipedia. As a Wikipedia editor, I find it to be a liability for the Wikipedia to retain: this is a small safe harbor for making religious faith and in particular the Latin language prayers of the Catholic Church - silly (i.e. the alleged "hah hah" humor of the "project"). It says more about the Wikipedia and the original anonymous author of this "project" that it can possibly say about the Catholic Church. But if you think a keep it in the Wikipedia namespace vote is a big meaningful win for the first amendment, go for it. This is how the Wikipedia will choose to define itself and what subjects can find a home in the Wikipedia namespace. patsw 04:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP An an anon., I ain't eligible to vote here. Just want to point out that the word "Catholic" means "universal" or "for all", and it doesn't belong to the religious organization led by the Pope in Vatican City. And, Lighten Up ! --64.229.178.66 07:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I find it slightly amusing. Chill out religious people. AngryParsley ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The admonition "chill out" is unacceptable; holding something as sacred compels its defence uncompromisingly. And at least Catholics should be protected from a denigration of their Faith? Any member of a culture that provides laws ordering special protection for inverts and has painstakingly worked against Islam being "demonised" in the wake of recent terrorist attacks can allot just equality to Catholics.--Thomas Aquinas 21:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE. I agree with 205.188.116.139, Anti-Anonymex2, Thomas Aquinas, GreatGatsby, Str1977, Dwain (Pitchka), Chooserr, Paul (PaulHanson) and patsw. I understand that there is a sphere of inside humor about Wikipedia, but I think that there should be a limit to that humor in order to preserve Wikipedia's integrity as a resource to be seriously considered. This non-article stretches that humor FAR beyond the limit that I envision. Also, having relatives in the Church and now being Catholic, I'm well aware of the tendency of Catholic humor to mock God and/or the Church to a greater or lesser degree. This is the most heinous Catholic "joke" to which I have ever been exposed. Perhaps this non-article is tolerable by Wikipedia standards, but serious Catholics should cast STRONG DELETE votes in order to indicate to the supposedly-Catholic Tdxiang what blasphemy he has committed here (and what blasphemy his priest friend committed in echoing support for it). Beware, brothers and sisters in Christ, for heterodoxy abounds! John Rigali 09:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: With this issue as with any other, we have ask ourselves whether it is compatible with the primary goals of Wikipedia. I echo many statements made above:

1) Will this enterprise raise or lessen Wikipedia's standing as a credible, universal source of information?

2) Are we willing to have a plentitude of other churches, assemblies, synagogues and mosques in the name of Wikipedia? If the answer is "yes"—that we'd be willing to have a Lutheran Church - Wikipedia Synod, a Young Israel of Wikipedia, a Sangha of Wikipedia, etc. (in which, for each, certain people are equated with the deity, or with chief religious leaders such as the Chief Rabbi or Mufti or Dalai Lama, Archbishop of Canterbury, etc)—and that absolutely none of these could reasonably be predicted to offend more than a tiny minority of people, then we can allow this Catholic Church. But we have to think seriously as to whether we'd want a proliferation of these things, for if we were to allow one (i.e. this one), we would have to allow all of them in the spirit of NPOV.

Additionally, Muslims are by no means the only group which sees "associating" other deities with God as impermissible. In fact, this clearly violates a core tenet of Christianity and Judaism as well (e.g. 1st/2nd Commandments). Now, as to whether humor on this subject per se violates these principles is different, but in actuality it will without a shadow of a doubt give the appearance of impropriety to many users.

Those who wish to use/retain it could, alternatively, move it back to user space.

Let's strive for a little more respect; we shouldn't sanction "chill out secular people" comments, either. --Dpr 09:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. I very much doubt if the contributors intended it to be offensive, because it's so common to make skits about Catholicism (without protest from Catholics), that people eventually stop realizing what they're doing. Just imagine if we took some Islamic prayers to Allah and rewrote them as prayers to Jimbo "for fun". Those who say that they're sorry if some people are offended, but that they intend to keep the page anyway, remind me a little of the Walrus, whom Alice originally liked better than the Carpenter because he cried while he was eating the oysters. But then she was told that he, in fact, ate more than the Carpenter. I will add that I have seen some of the other contributions from some of the members of the "Catholic Church of Wikipedia" in the last few months, and have been very impressed in some cases by the kindness and sensitivity that they showed towards Wikipedians who had personal problems or who were being attacked and humiliated. It makes me convinced that the article was not meant to be offensive, but it also makes me surprised that they can't see that it is. AnnH ^(talk) 09:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As an article that was obviously only meant as a source of humor, the only thing that is critizing is whoever decided to start an argument about this article. If you want to be insulted by something, look for it in the physical realm. --Phinnaeus • T+Σ 11:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Some people need to get a sense of humour. the wub "?!" 11:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete If you feel the need to produce parodies, create a website someplace else. Why use the name Catholic, because it fits in with an anti-Catholic notion of a monolithic medeval Church, that is unable to function in the modern world. We shouldn't be giving in to popular prejudice. Dominick [[User_talk:dominick|^(ŤαĿĶ)]] 12:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - learn what the word 'catholic' (small c) actually means. And I'd love to see some Islamic prayers to Allah rewritten in a comedic manner. That would be the shiznit. Proto t c 12:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Blasphemy Alert! Izehar 12:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Where's the small c catholic? I only see the big C. GreatGatsby 13:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't you get it? It's the catholic Church of Wikipedia, not the Catholic Church of Wikipedia. Izehar 16:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The correct title of this article is Wikipedia:catholic Church of Wikipedia. The initial letter is shown capitalized due to technical restrictions.

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_>|< 01:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kmweber/List of Everyone Who Has Ever Lived

Inappropriate use of Wikipedia User space. Kmweber is well known for his repeated contention that Wikipedia should have an article on everyone who has ever existed, and an article on every theory that has ever been uttered, even if only first uttered on Wikipedia. This is an extreme example of WP:POINT. Surely Kmweber can find another site for this list. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Wow. This defies all notions of WP:NOT. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, also as per WP:NOT. This might be an interesting project, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. Perhaps Kmweber might want to talk to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who are interested in this sort of project? -- The Anome 00:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • WikiTree is one place for editors interested in compiling the family forest of humankind. Uncle G 00:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A valiant project that is doomed to failure, and not one needed here - although with the rate Wikipedia is expanding, who knows what may happen one day? BTW, am I the only one who instantly thought of Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged? Grutness...wha? 00:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Free-content and potentially wp-article-linked list in user space; what policy does this violate? Surely it would be inappropriate as an article, but it seems like a fine private project, and is not 'disrupting Wikipedia' a la WP:POINT. +sj + 08:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ludicrous. Also very ironic that he is proud of having listed over a hundred people who have ever lived. Radiant_>|< 11:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC) On second thought, this page is pointless but hardly worth the discussion given its low visibility. Radiant_>|< 10:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is complete nonsense. --romanm (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep , was on AFD once already too with consensus to userfy, if memory serves. It's in userspace now too. Finally, concur with Sj. Kim Bruning 04:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Taking a break from a Wiki-break to voice support for this. Mr. Weber may be trying to make a point, but he isn't disrupting WP to do it -- he's using his user-space to test one possible model for what an encyclopedia could be. The woeful incompleteness of this page proves, to me, that an ultra-inclusive model is very flawed. Maintaining this page serves as an example of why such a standard is a bad idea, in my view; for Mr. Weber, it continues to serve as an example of what-could-be. Fine, but it is useful to us both. If this is deleted, someone else will one day, quite innocently, come up with the same idea. Mr. Weber was first -- let his serve as an experimental model for all WPians to see both the potential, and the myriad problems, presents by a catalog that might expand to six billion. My vote might be different if this were killing the servers, mind you, but this is a relatively short list. Xoloz 06:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This defies all notions of WP:NOT, and is complete nonsense. But it's in userspace. I believe that despite the idiosyncratic interpretation of what's "encyclopedic", this is a good faith page. Meaning that it doesn't intend to disrupt wikipedia, only that if it gets to .00001% of it's possible size, that it will disrupt wikipedia when the servers explode and the shards kill our only paid employee. But no reason to delete right now. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Userspace has permitted markedly weirder stuff. No one will consider his experiment offensive, only silly, and I don't believe even a naive Googler could mistake it for a serious article. Deco 04:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Despite my comments on the talk page, I see no problem with his attempted determination. ∴ here…♠ 08:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not going to vote either way, as this is in userspace, but it does seem that even Kmweber has lost interest in this. He has not edited this page since October 6, 2004. "Your Mom" has been added to the list, and no one has yet removed it, so I do not think this page will be very active in any case. - Pureblade | ^☼ 22:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - perfectly harmless. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 22:47, 29 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. Radiant_>|< 01:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:RyanWarawa

Attack page, created by a political opponent of Mr. Warawa. The last line seems to indicate that the information might also by a copyright violation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not a real user, all his other edits are vandalism or making some kind of political point, plausible copyvio, POV-pushing, et cetera. Radiant_>|< 10:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Radiant. Xoloz 04:53, 29 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. Radiant_>|< 01:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:List of disambiguation types

Folks, nobody will break down the dab, and that people removed most items from this list, because of that it is now a substub.

• Delete per neglegence to break down the disambiguation category. --Nintendude 22:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Not an article, so moved to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. BD2412 T 02:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• See this old version; several users have been trying to break down the dab. I personally think they're crazy but harmless, and have been doing my best to ignore them. A list of these templates should be kept around somewhere in case someone wants to make things sane again. Weak keep. —Cryptic (talk)
• Keep–This article clarifies Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The_disambig_notice, and makes it crystal clear exactly which dab templates are permitted, and that no others are permitted.—GraemeMcRae^talk 06:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even without saying that this article is an attempt to impose an unjustified restriction, it is redundant, since the "list" has only three items. No need for a separate page. mikka (t) 03:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary Instruction creep and redundant with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). older≠wiser 17:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete outdated. -- User:Docu

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 speedy; deleted at sole author's request. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ekevu/Annotation

I no longer use it, and it shouldn't be there in first place anyway... Ekevu (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then delete. just blank the page and and Admin will get rid of it. Eddie 05:40, 4 December 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 TRANSWIKI to hu:. -Splash^talk 21:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Segítség

Hungarian instruction page in Wikispace. Should we transwiki this to hu? Or translate? Or delete? Radiant_>|< 23:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki. They may delete it if they wish, but I'd imagine that the editor (if he added it today) would add it there, so we might as well honor that intent. Xoloz 18:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki per Xoloz - does not seem intended for en. space. BD2412 T 14:56, 30 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. Radiant_>|< 01:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western nobility)

Pointless duplication of an existing page with some changes, which already has a widely known and widely recognised name, to a new inaccurate name. The 'change' seems to have been done by cut and paste by one individual, losing the old edit history, on the basis of a supposed survey which most of the people who use the page were largely in the dark about.

• Speedy delete Inaccurate name (royalty and nobility and generally taken to be separate categories. The old page deliberately did not use either royal or noble in the title because it covered both). Needless duplication of an existing page, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Past edit history of the page where most of this 'new' page was actually written was lost in the cut and paste. Changes then were made to this 'new' page without a consensus and on the basis of minimal participation because everyone else was using the original page and did not know of this page's existence, with work continuing on old page.[3]. Bad work in every conceivable way and needs to be binned immediately to send a message that you cannot just cut and paste a page to a new location and rewrite it, dumping the edit history. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 23:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support Deletion for reasons stated above by Jtdirl. Generally better to organize and codify the rules in a single article. Concensus needed for such a change. --StanZegel (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete' for all the reasons above. PMA 00:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support deletion as stated by Jtdirl. Gene Nygaard 10:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I think, on the grounds that the new title is less helpful than the existing one. Deb 19:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although I think the title nomenclature here in the Wiki is a mess. --Ghirlandajo 12:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's a useful forum for discussing changes as long as it has a prominent notice that it is not policy, which it does. However, to do proper justice to the contributors of the source page and avoid any confusion, it should be deleted when its purpose is done. Say, 3 months without an edit. Alternatively, I wouldn't mind seeing this moved to userspace. Deco 04:41, 29 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!) 07:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Andrew O. Shadoura

Blatant advertising, vanity. This information was originally an article, listed for AfD. During the AfD vote, the AfD header was removed from the article, all of the AfD votes were blanked, and the AfD discussion was moved to an invalid page name. This certainly does not inspire faith in the article's author/the author of the software. The author has no other edits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Can you please provide links to the original title of the article and the AFD discussion? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BelAmp was the original article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BelAmp was the original AfD page, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/` was the page to which the original AfD page was moved by User:Andrew O. Shadoura. Note that Mr. Shadoura is both the original author of the BelAmp article as well as the creator of the "BelAmp" program (a WinAmp clone, and the subject of the BelAmp article). The original BelAmp article provided contact information for Mr. Shadoura. Mr. Shadoura is also the one who moved the original AfD page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/`. (The other vandalism mentioned above was performed by an anonymous IP, which may or may not have been Mr. Shadoura.) → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 11:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with Anger Wow... that's quite a campaign waged by this troll. Xoloz 13:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Huh? This user is no longer causing disruption (knock on wood). How will "punishing" him by deleting his user page make things better? If anything, take it to his talk page and tell him he can't be doing things like that. Personally I like userfying pages as an alternative to speedy deletion or Afd. It's quicker and easier and causes fewer problems. If we start deleting userfied pages, a handy conflict-avoidance mechanism has effectively gone away. Friday (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't normally advocate deleting userfied pages. I do lots of userfying, but I don't think we should award this vandal by giving him free advertising. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion for now, as this was apparently userfied by Friday in her admininstrative judgment, and not by the party in question. Really, just advise Andrew O. Shadoura to put something less spammy on his user page, and see how that works out. BD2412 T 04:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to guess that anyone who would go to the lengths undertaken by Mr. Shadoura to advertise his product in the main article space is unlikely to be interested in making their userpage less "spammy" if that turns out to be their only advertising venue within Wikipedia. But I fight spam for a living, so I am perhaps cynical and jaded in this regard. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 11:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising, not a real user. Radiant_>|< 22:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete User pages are supposed to be in furtherance of the construction of the encyclopedia. This is pure advertising, and an abuse of wikipedia. Moving this page to user space was an error, although i presume well-intentioned. This isn't even the classic vanity-bio, which is not unreasonable moved to user space, this is a pure product ad. wikipedia is not a free hosting service. DES ^(talk) 00:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This content belongs on a personal website and the edit history has nothing else in it. Once it's deleted, the user can if they wish create a new user page supplying information relevant to their role as an editor. I would normally give a "friendly reminder", but consider the means by which the content arrived here, it would be pointless. Deco 04:45, 29 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 Redirect. Xoloz 04:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:N degrees of separation

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N degrees of separation

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Max Pratt Game.

I know that I have submitted this for AfD in the past, but this time I see that there is a similar game that is older and far more popular than mine. Jaberwocky6669 16:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• why not just redirect to Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia? BL kiss the lizard 23:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Brilliant! Redirect Jaberwocky6669 21:09, 20 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. Radiant_>|< 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Response to the Guardian, Wikipedia:Response to The Register, Wikipedia:Response to the Mail & Guardian Online

These do not seem to have been successful. If there is no interest, it would be better to delete them.

• Delete. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 10:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Extremely misleading. --Tony Sidaway^t 11:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Can we userfy these? I do agree it's wrong to keep them in the spaces they're in. It's not like all of Wikipedia came together and authored these. Jacqui^★ 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Eequor started all three of them. HeShe is also the only significant editor to 2 of the three and she is now nominating them for deletion. Doesn't that qualify for speedy-deletion? Of the third (or all three if not speedied), I agree with hisher assessment, though I could also understand a redirect to Wikipedia:replies. I would not argue for a merge because I don't see any new material to add to that page. Rossami (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note the image in my signature — wrong pronoun. These aren't really speedy deletion candidates because other editors had some interest in them at one time, and deleting the articles outside WP:MFD wouldn't really be fair to them. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 17:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Apologies. The symbols do not render properly for me. I guessed (wrongly) based on your text username. Rossami (talk)
• Delete based on Rossami's points. Xoloz 16:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP articles are not discussion club. The time wasted on this would be better spent on improving articles. Within a month the whole discussion is forgotten forever. Pavel Vozenilek 04:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Generally speaking, as a community we're better off either taking criticism on board and addressing the problems, or ignoring it if it has no substance. If public repudiation is necessary, let someone like Jimbo take care of that. --Michael Snow 21:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete uneeded and unprofessional of us. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I would not like to comment on where exactly this belongs, but it seems to me an important debate worth continuing. The guardian argues to a large extent that wiki is insufficiently POV for a reputable encyclopedia, and no one managed to answer this criticism. I think they were correct, wiki has no editorial stance. Let the debate continue and see if it manages to produce a sensible response. Sandpiper 16:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• DFelete --Jpkoester1 22:55, 23 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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. -Splash 22:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Alternative outlets

Basically advertising, within Wikispace, for other Wikis that aren't Wikimedia sister projects (e.g. Everything2, Anarchopedia and Jnana). While I'm sure some of those deserve their article in mainspace, I don't see any point in this list in this namespace. Radiant_>|< 09:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, people should be able to find similar projects which might suit them better. Kappa
• keep seems useful, one could post a link to it on user pages of people who have articles VFD'd. --Tim Pope 17:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a damn good idea. =) Keep. Xaa 23:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds reasonable, but arguably that doesn't belong in Wikipedia namespace. And, please note that we already have the more comprehensive article List of wikis, as well as Category:Wiki communities. Radiant_>|< 07:27, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, very useful. —RaD Man (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - useful outlet for texts that are not relevant here but could be relevant elsewhere - Skysmith 10:10, 8 August 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_>|< 19:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Politics

• Delete. I created this after realising that an overall Politics WikiProject is too broad, and then realised that a narrower WikiProject still wouldn't work unless there is a significant gap in Wikipedia that can be best filled through collaborative effort. No such gap exists, so I intend on just running the Politics Portal without a corresponding WikiProject. --HighHopes ^{(T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E)⋅(P)} 09:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This project, on the other hand, has no activity except HighHopes, so if he wants it gone, it should go. Xoloz 05:07, 16 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_>|< 19:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics

• Delete. I created this myself, and after an extended absence realised that the Project covers a far too broad topic - successful projects seem to focus on a small area were WP was lacking; this is clearly not the case with this one. Have notified signed-up participants; others are more than welcome to keep it going if they want to! --HighHopes ^{(T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E)⋅(P)} 14:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep looks intresting other users may have a use for it, not a broad topic --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 22:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nothing wrong with it. Others use it. Private Butcher 23:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• They don't though, that's the thing - hence my vote to get rid of the wretched thing --HighHopes 23:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The Project title is broad, and it may be underutilized, but "politics" is a topic fairly central to any encyclopedic endeavor; if this were deleted, it would probably be re-created within a month, so allow it to remain. Xoloz 05:04, 16 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 Speedy keep, Stinkfoot (talk • contribs) is a sockpuppet made to attack Timecop, since his first edits involved getting TC's page deleted. Radiant_>|< 12:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Timecop

This page as no value beyond self agrandisment of its creator, the aiding and abetting of illegal activities and the propogation of a neo-nazi message. It contains highly offensive material and links to highly offensive material. A person who actively seeks to destroy and disrupt internet communities should not be publicised on a community such as Wikipedia. As in the second world war there comes a time where you cannot tolerate the activities of Nazi's any longer. Stinkfoot 10:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Slightly befuddled keep. You are allowed to self-aggrandize on your user page, and, well, it's not like it's a GNAA staging ground. As for the links, yeah, I think BREW is a terrible idea as it gives too much control over your phone to the cell provider, but it's hardly highly offensive. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:31, 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 Keep. Radiant_>|< 23:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/2005 questions

A useless list of questions that have been asked with no links or precise location of answers. CG 22:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Essentially useless. Xoloz 02:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Um... that's the point of the list. Wikipedia:Reference desk archive, to which it is an index, is a link to a set of pages; it saves the searcher having to load first the Jan-Feb page, then the Mar-Apr one, and so forth, to find one question they know was asked in 2005. Keep; no useful reason to delete it, since people do go looking in the archives for questions they know were asked. Shimgray | talk | 17:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep of course. --hydnjo talk 18:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --R.Koot 12:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --HappyCamper 01:21, 17 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 this debate duplicates one ongoing below at MfD, linked inside. Two vote pages can only confuse. Xoloz 02:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

completing incomplete vote for deletion. -- Zondor 19:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is this page linked to the notice? (preceding unsigned comment by Gbleem (talk • contribs) )

The real vote page is here: Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:Contingency Page For When The Main Wikipedia Server Is Down.

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_>|< 23:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia days and subpages

A small number of pages with semi-important landmarks in Wikipedia history. Redundant with Wikipedia:Announcements and several similar pages. The fact that the author was quick to insert his own birthday (Wikipedia:October 30) leads me to think this is mainly vanity. Radiant_>|< 13:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Mainly vanity, serves no useful purpose. —Cleared as filed. 17:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons stated above. CG 18:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant, practically useless. Xoloz 21:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The user may add his or her birthday to the Esperanza calendar, if they so choose. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{18:37, 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. AMIB is correct, see Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Portal:Sweden. Radiant_>|< 16:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Sweden

Last edit is from 5 July and since that time it looks more british than swedish. Visitors will not get much help. 80.135.25.238 12:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• My first instinct was to vote keep. But this duplicates the British Wikiportal and only has its header changed. At the moment it's completely misleading. Delete, unless someone wants to actually turn it into a Swedish portal before VFD ends. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Ditto. Unless the content has been changed to Swedish-relevant stuff by the end of the vfd period, then I recommend deletion -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment None of us Swedes knew about this. If someone is willing to put work into this then I'll vote keep. --Fred-Chess 16:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that it's been raised at the Swedish notice board I'm sure someone will put enough work into it so that it will be kept by the end of the vfd period. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• I found this orphaned deletion debate at a proposed location for "portals for deletion". Moving it here. Abstain. Radiant_>|< 12:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I could've SWORN that this was on VFD for a while, and the verdict was that the Swedish WPians would take it over. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:45, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Palestine series

"The Palestine series of Wikipedia articles has been in a state of perpetual flux. POV pushing and historical ignorance have combined to keep these articles a mess.", followed by a POV description of what exactly is wrong with it all. Also about a year outdated. Any point to this? Radiant_>|< 11:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Besides it's outdated, this page serves a purpose of making very controversial Palestinian-related articles NPOV. Why did you assume that it is POV pushing? CG 18:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • POV pushing is what this page calls the articles on Palestine; not my words. I fear that this page would be POV because it's all written by a single person, rather than by consensual discussion. Radiant_>|< 18:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, it states that there is articles that are POV pushing (which I believe it's true), and tries to put solutions to fix it. I don't find it is harmful. Plus, I've put a notice on the user that created this page talk page. CG 18:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Seems less than useful, POV, and unprofessional. Xoloz 21:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Overly specific, for a start. Superm401 | Talk 18:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, can be part of a Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine. Good background for contributors to Arab-Israeli conflict. Uncle Ed 17:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Del - outdated and POV. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:49, 24 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_>|< 23:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard

This page (WP:PAIN) was created over a month ago without discussion; it has not been used even once. In addition, it is contradictory to Wikipedia blocking policy, given that blocking may not be applied explictly due to personal attacks or other insults (several proposals attempting to introduce the new criteria have failed). In addition, this page promotes the image of a "cabal" - get someone else to block someone who you dislike. In any case, this page will ultimately do more good than harm and encourage the blocking of people without any attempt to resolve the issue first just for making personal attacks, contradicting policy. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 00:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• The first line in this article's talk page refers to where this was discussed.
• Unhealthy obsession with blocking, eh? The page says, "Do nothing, warn them again, or block the user in question as you think is required. Explain things carefully to the user who listed the attacker if you feel there's been a misunderstanding."
• The templates explicitly say that the block is being applied for disruption, which is per policy.
• Recent discussions on ANI show support for action of this type as well.
• A cabal would use an IRC channel. This is the opposite of that.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 01:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I see little discussion before it was created on October 7 — your post on September 30 recieved no input until today. In either case, I don't think that's relevant except to demonstrate that this has undergone little discussion and has not gained the appropriate community consensus to be implemented now, if ever.
  • The point of this page (which is copied from WP:AIV) seems pretty clear to me: to block users who have made personal attacks. I'm certainly not condoning people who say rude or offensive things or saying that blocks of these people are wrong; I'm saying that setting up a system to manage the blocking of users only for making personal attacks is, in my opinion, inappropriate, given that we do not have a criteria for blocking these users. Several proposals have failed in the past.
  • Pointing to the "disruption" clause doesn't make sense; if someone's disrupting something, then s/he's either a vandal or POV pusher. The vast majority, if not all, of personal attack-ersfall into one of the categories. We have other methods to take handle these things, including a dispute resolution process. It makes no sense to use a term meant to be applied generally to a specific part of a proposal that has failed several times.
  • The discussion shows that blocking users solely for personal attacks is extremely controversial. In the example cited, the block was warranted more for disruption rather than personal attacks. While personal attacks may constitute a part of disruption, personal attacks alone cannot (explicitly) warrant a block. In either case, we shouldn't be trying to apply a specific case to a generalization here.
  • What I'm saying is that this gives the very negative impression of admin abuse, encouraging people who are involved in some sort of dispute to take this here. We're asking involved parties to take further action against other parties.
  • Many thanks for listening to this long rant. :-) As always, I value and respect your opinions. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 01:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • May I just point out that blocks for personal attacks do happen, and have happened for quite some time? They're somewhat controversial, though. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks. That is also where to find the discussion that led to the creation of WP:PAIN. That said I am not sure this page is a good idea but would be happy to discuss that. And as with all serious but possibly flawed proposals, keep. Radiant_>|< 16:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If this page is poorly advertised, notify other editors in the usual places. If it is not grounded in policy or results in ill-advised admin action, use our usual mechanisms for admin misconduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per TenOfAllTrades. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete bad policy, overemphasies blocking people at the expense of cooperative dispute resolution. Klonimus 08:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that this isn't a policy page. We have WP:BP. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't agree with it but that isn't a good reason to delete the page. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If admins blocking editors they're having a dispute with is wrong, what's wrong with a place for outside opinions as to proper actions -- and allowing others to enact or reject said actions? Also, this is transparency in action compared to e-mails, IRC, or even user pages. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, but perhaps rename. While personal attacks are not a blockable offense by policy, the cited case is a clear incident of disruption, and disruption is somethng that merits blocking. As the recent case in WP:AN involving El C showed, it's better to leave blocking to a third-party admin. So, the incident is listed on WP:PAIN. Also, it's a safeguard: if the third-party admin does not believe that the reported user engaged in disruption of Wikipedia, he removes the listing, as non-vandalism is removed from WP:AIV. Besides, it is a serious proposal, we don't just delete these, folks! Titoxd^(?!?) 20:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Titoxd.--Sean|Black 05:52, 16 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. Radiant_>|< 23:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Working the system

This page merely muddies the water for users of wikipedia. Its suggestions, esp. the first, would potentially make people who simply politely state that a person should familiarize themselves with wikipedia policy are in violation of it. See my post to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or the reaction of the user who created this page, User talk:NPOVenforcer to being asked to familiarize themselves with policies like NPA for an idea of what this could lead too. Kit 20:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Deceptive page apparently created to try to make some kind of point. --cesarb 21:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to WP:POINT. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete it is an example of a violation of WP:POINT, but I can hardly see how someone looking for it would type Wikipedia:Working the system. Just delete. Jules LT 22:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Can I call a Speedy on grounds of A6? Especially as the writer has been permablocked for disruption? Radiant_>|< 23:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Techically, he was blocked for his username, but Delete nonetheless.--Sean|Black 00:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• It has to be said that much of what this user has written on that page is true. Userify it. Pcb21| Pete 12:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:POINT. Xoloz 17:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userify it, either way.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userify -- Jmabel | Talk 21:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete userfying would be somewhat pointless since the user who created this has been indefinitely blocked. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete then redirect to Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, like Wikipedia:Gaming the system does. Thryduulf 12:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I think the kinds of things that are described happen to a very minor degree, and it is usually quite transparent. --Rogerd 04:38, 19 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. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Quite decent articles

A list of two articles that are 'quite decent', as in pretty good but not up to FAC level. I fail to see the point. Radiant_>|< 10:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Useless; inactive. Xoloz 18:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 00:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless we also create a Wikipedia:Candidates for Quite decent article status. —Cleared as filed. 17:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. CG 18:11, 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 DELETE, after copy to BJAODN. -Splash^talk 21:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Redrwan awards

The Wikipedia equivalent of a Razzy, thus basically a negative award. Hardly in use, but giving anti-awards sounds like an attack page to me. Radiant_>|< 10:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'd BJAODN this. That way, acquaintances can use it for gentle fun. Every field of human endeavor needs a Razzy/Darwin-type award. I proudly present this to myself! :) If it ever became a ill-spirited nuisance, it could trashed then. Xoloz 18:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• The only way I can recommend keeping these awards is if they are only given to those who have (in advance of the award) invited needling on their user pages. Now we need a template for use by those who feel they can take a ribbing. Chris the speller 04:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As I intended to suggest, I hope one would only use this with WPians one knows. Obviously, a pattern of abusive use would suggest deletion, but such pattern doesn't exist. Xoloz 04:40, 29 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 TRANSWIKI to hu:. -Splash^talk 21:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Segítség

Hungarian instruction page in Wikispace. Should we transwiki this to hu? Or translate? Or delete? Radiant_>|< 23:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki. They may delete it if they wish, but I'd imagine that the editor (if he added it today) would add it there, so we might as well honor that intent. Xoloz 18:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki per Xoloz - does not seem intended for en. space. BD2412 T 14:56, 30 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 waskeep Radiant_>|< 23:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Sound/list and Wikipedia:Sound/list/playlist

Outdated list of media files on WikiCommons. Any point in this? Radiant_>|< 23:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If it is out of date, perhaps someone would like to update it. I find the list useful, because the information cannot be queried, and cannot be culled from any index. It is my goal to have recordings of all historically important music available. To reach this goal, volunteer and student orchestras, other performing groups, and individual performers, must be persuaded that Wikipedia is a meaningfully serious outlet for musical works. Doing this requires some sort of list of the material we are publishing thus far. That is why we have the list. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not *that* out of date. A large number of recordings were deleted en mass a while back, and it has simply not been updated to reflect that. On the other hand, there exists no such list elsewhere on wikipedia, and compiling one from scratch would be a monumentally difficult task. →Raul654 20:03, 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 delete. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Terms of Use of images from PA Photos and Wikipedia:Pictures from PA Photos Ltd

This terms of use section directly violates our copyright policy, and indeed the pictures page says "do not use pictures from PA since they're copyvio". This is rather pointless, and at least the license should go as it's invalid. Radiant_>|< 22:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• We deleted all of these images and the template last month, and new ones can't be uploaded as they're unfree, so these pages can probably be deleted. JYolkowski // talk 23:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ugh. Obsolete image policy once allowed this, but now that it's done, this is dead. Xoloz 18:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete relics of an era where non-free images were still allowed. I have no idea why no one caught this back in October... Wcquidditch | Talk 00:24, 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. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Terms used in articles about Palestine

A bunch of POV definitions unused since 2004. Radiant_>|< 22:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Page is redundant with articles, and is more appropriately in articles. Xoloz 18:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Belongs with articles. CG 18:17, 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 delete. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:TinyURL

I'm not sure what to do with this... it feels a bit like a pointless guideline, and it feels a bit like linkspam. Rename? Generalize? Strip the link? Delete? Radiant_>|< 22:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's orphaned, and the policy is kind of obvious. Don't think it's necessary to have a guideline on this unless it starts becoming a big problem. —Cleared as filed. 17:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons. CG 18:12, 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 redirected to template space Radiant_>|< 23:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Template:NDegrees and Wikipedia:Template:Invalidtitle

These appear to be templates in Wikispace. Or is there something more to them? I'm not asking for them to be deleted but what exactly are they doing here? Radiant_>|< 22:57, 10 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. Radiant_>|< 16:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Homeworks The Homecenter

Advertising. Inappropriate use of User space. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure if AFD covers user pages; you may want to try Miscellany for deletion or one of the like. Clarification anyone? Deltabeignet 03:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Update: Yes, MiscFD covers User pages. There may be precedent for this kind of thing, so you may want to find an admin. Deltabeignet 03:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if/when this is moved to MiscFD. —Cleared as filed. 09:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Only submissions by this user were to this page. It's clearly abuse of Wikipedia. Delete whether it's on AFD or MFD, I don't care. Forcing to move this only feeds bureacracy. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• The layout suggests that it's a cut/paste job from some other site and a plausible copyvio. I've blanked it, you can look at the history to see what it was like. Anyway, delete as inappropriate user space. Radiant_>|< 14:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sneaky use of user space by what is essentially a non-user. Xoloz 16:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Agree with Xoloz, this is an attempt to mask a copyvio as a user page. You could say this is a misplaced article, too, being simply a copyvio. Wcquidditch | Talk 00:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though a Google search didn't turn up any copyvio matches; I suspect it's just an unconventional style. Either way, kill the page now. Deltabeignet 04:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 14:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement. *drew 01:07, 15 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 Redirect. Radiant_>|< 16:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikistalking

WP:POINT --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep —— Uncle Ed linked to this article, but didn't define it. Apparently Jpgordon didn't know this, or he would have realized that the issue had nothing to do with WP:POINT. Yet, if JP didn't know that Uncle Ed first talked about and referenced this article, how did JP learn of the existence of this article? Is Jpgordon a Wikistalker? Is his creation of this deletion request the ultimate irony? Are these really the people that we want running Wikipedia? --Zephram Stark 19:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Zephram Stark trolling. --JW1805 20:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It's the funniest of ironies that none of these people (except Jayjg) would know about this article on Wikistalking if they weren't Wikistalking me. Thanks for proving premise of the article guys —— LMAO. --Zephram Stark 20:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Not true, actually. Most admins keep watch on the new page creation lists, so that they can catch vandalism. This one would have been spotted as a new creation - and one that looked decidedly dodgy. There is no need to lurk around checking user contribs to catch deleteable pages like this. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite I have no idea who Z. Stark is, but this is a common term on WP. Of course, there is some worry about WP:BEANS, but I think the genie is out of the bottle here. Newbies need to know what Wikistalking is, and why it's bad form. Of course, rewrite to remove any POINT violations, of which I thought only the last section smacked. Xoloz 22:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Jtkiefer. Xoloz 01:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:POINT, like most of Zephram's life these days. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant and POV, replace with redirect to Wikipedia:Stalking I mean Wikipedia:Harassment, thanks JT. Radiant_>|< 23:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually it would have to be replaced with a redirect to Wikipedia:Harassment to prevent a double redirect. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikipedia:Harassment. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Jtkiefer. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Wikipedia:Harassment. It needs a reference to Wikipedia:Wikisuicide. --Zephram Stark 02:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• A search within Wikipedia for "wikistalking" returns a mere 143 hits, indicating to me that this is a relatively trivial neologism. Wikistalking (no "Wikipedia:") already redirects to Wikipedia:Harassment and has since that page's first creation. I'd prefer delete as a neologism but I'm comfortable with a redirect. Rossami (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Jtkiefer. BD2412 T 14:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep "Wikistalking" has come into use through arbitration cases and need a project page where it is defined and discussed, for at least as long as the term is in use. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fred Bauder (talk • contribs) 14:56, November 11, 2005.
• Redirect to WP:HA where it is already discussed -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rangerdude (talk • contribs) 18:46, November 11, 2005.
• Comment I just noticed that there was a previous article called Wikipedia:Stalking that was redirected to Wikipedia:Harassment in August 2005. --JW1805 19:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Change vote to Redirect to Wikipedia:Harassment. --JW1805 19:43, 11 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. Radiant_>|< 16:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikisuicide

WP:POINT --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not too far from patent nonsense. Stifle 15:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:POINT, yet more of Zephram Stark's trolling. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. To Polonius, the term "Ophelia Syndrome" would sound like a parody, but that is only because he cannot see the problem from the eyes of an unbiased observer. Ophelia commits suicide for the same reason that good editors are leaving and staying away from Wikipedia in droves. We can examine the issues, or we can pretend that they do not exist, and consequently be just as confused as Polonius when the thing he loved so much that he tried to control it dies. --Zephram Stark 18:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Zephram Stark trolling. --JW1805 20:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That makes two people who voted for deletion without reading the article. (Hint: you gave it away when you used the word "trolling")
  • JP, when using a term to accuse someone while not realizing that the term was made fun of in the very evidence cited for the accusation, thereby proving that the evidence was not read and the accusation was made under false pretenses, could that also be considered to be an example of irony? --Zephram Stark 21:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is ridiculous. I believe that if it were speedied, nobody would miss it. Radiant_>|< 23:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If we can learn to empathize with those whom we call vandals and trouble-makers, we might just find that we have the same goal: to create great articles. I urge you to reconsider your vote and allow this article to become the bridge to bringing many of our brothers and sisters back home. --Zephram Stark 00:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Please look into the history of Wik, PelicanShit or WOW before you claim that vandals and trouble-makers have goals even remotely resembling our community goal. Radiant_>|< 00:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • What do you think their goals are? --Zephram Stark 00:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC) image:LaughterTears.gif unlinked
        • Dammit Jim, I'm an admin, not a psychiatrist. Radiant_>|< 00:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete While this term is not unknown, it is not common; and this particular page is more an essay than a definition. Xoloz 01:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That's the best I could do on short notice, but I'm certainly open to help on a rewrite. Why not give it a whirl? --Zephram Stark 02:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• The article itself is an orphan. A search within Wikipedia turns up zero hits for use of the term. That finding is a bit odd since it at least should have found the article and this discussion. Maybe the search hasn't found it yet? Regardless, I think that's compelling evidence that the term is not in any significant use yet. As for the content itself, I've read it three times and can't figure out what the author is trying to say except that he/she doesn't like the way something (I'm not sure what) is done. The whole page comes across as a rant. If the author wants it on his/her userpage, move it there. Otherwise, delete. Rossami (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this pollution of the Wikispace. BD2412 T 14:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• I have rewritten it, but I doubt even such brilliant prose justifies the page Fred Bauder 15:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• It's more coherent now but it's still an orphan and still shows up blank on the internal google search. Finding no evidence that the term is in use, I still can't see a reason to keep a page which theoretically defines the term. Despite Fred's rewrite, I'm afraid I can't change my opinion. Rossami (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nobody uses this term, and, well, let's not encourage people. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:41, 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. I've moved it to User:Silverback/Alleged admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse. There seems minimal support for keeping this where it is, discarding the presumably irate anon. The fact is also that it wasn't certified, and such RfCs are routinely deleted. -Splash^talk 21:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alleged admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse

Obviously, a highly unusual AfD, but I think in this case an AfD is proper. This RfC was deleted because of improper use of RfC process and, as is in my opinion more fatal, failue to have a second certification within the requisite 48 hours. I don't think it can/should be revived by a second certification showing up subsequently (quite a bit past the deadline); rather, it should be deleted. If Silverback wants to redo it, it should be redone from step 1 properly this time. Delete. --Nlu 16:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment this RfC was speedied by User:Radiant and cut-and-paste recreated by User:Silverback. As the edit history was no restored, it currently violates the GFDL. --Doc ^ask? 17:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• (After edit conflict with Doc) In addition, this was created by copy-and-paste; the odd format of the RfC will make it difficult to determine who said what without a history. This should be deleted without prejudice against a new properly filed and formatted user-conduct RfC, preferably without the unnecessarily long name. Now that the GFDL issues have been resolved, this should be Userfied without prejudice against a properly-formatted user-conduct RfC. android79 00:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• WHBT WHL WSHAND. Radiant_>|< 17:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC) I retract this remark as inappropriate. Radiant_>|< 15:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • thread after this moved to talk page ... apologies for distracting Courtland 18:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I've looked back at the history of this page. It looks like User:Radiant! deleted two days of input by a number of people on strictly adminstrative grounds. I think that violates the spirit if not the letter of Wikipedia Guidelines and Policy. The better course of action would have been to say "ok, this really isn't an RFC, so please move it into your user space (or move to XXXX)" rather than wiping out the input provided up to the point of deletion (101 edits at that point). It is understandable if admins scoff at the notion that there is anything remotely resembling abuse in their own culture, but this type of conduct merely fans the flames rather than helping to address concerns. Courtland 17:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've restored the history. Please note that the majority of edits were to disagree with the RFC, or to accuse its originator of trolling. Radiant_>|< 17:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks; appreciated. Courtland 18:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't thank Radiant! too quickly, he may have mislead you. Several of the posts/endorsements admitted some validity, and a couple were apologetic and understanding. So there it is not just work of one user you are considering destroying. Furthermore, if the history has been restored, is this page really still in violation of GFDL?--Silverback 23:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
        • User:Silverback, you do not advance your position by making personal attacks. Courtland 00:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Silverback, you should definitely read up on our licenses before blindly accusing me of anything. Radiant_>|< 00:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Radiant! You are off target. I was criticizing your simplistic characterization of the article as the majority of the edits were to disagree. Courtland appeared to be relying upon that. On the license issue, if anything I was relying on you, not disagreeing with you. You stated you restored the history. I thought the GFDL problem was because my cut and paste did not preserve the history. Therefore my question, "is this page really still in violation of GFDL?", was asking whether or not your restoration cleared up that issue. It sounded to me like you had fixed it. So if I was "blindly accusing" you of something license related, I was accusing you of having repaired my damage. I hope you can live with that accusation.--Silverback 00:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Okay, fair enough. And no, it's no longer in violation of GFDL. As to the majority issue, I was referring to the 17 endorsements to the views that disagree with you. Radiant_>|< 00:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes, but 8 of those 17, were admitting I had a valid point, and suggesting I go about it differently. The other 9 were definitely negative, except that one of those 9 was me. I didn't say you lied. A too brief summary of a complex situation can be "misleading", although, I admit I could have phrased it in a less accusatory way. Apologies.--Silverback 00:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Malformed RFC, linked to from ArbCom evidence. --cesarb 19:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'm tempted to say "BJAODN", but it's not really the right sort of bad joke. --Carnildo 20:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete The page is clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by virtue of all the fights the author has provoked on the page. 172 | Talk 23:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Given the nature of this particular RfC, a speedy delete would look like a cover up, and since it is in evidence, would also make that process more difficult, especially for non-admins. It becomes in effect "secret" evidence. To quote one of the defenders of Kelly Martin, nothing "inexcusable" has really occurred here. Keep if it can be done without violating GFDL (apologies about that).--Silverback 23:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Given that you recreated it after it was deleted, I don't think you have standing to raise this claim. --Nlu 09:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, if you read the talk page from before the 48 hour deletion, you would have seen that there was some question of whether this RfC fell into the RfC/user category, and that even assuming that it did, that a possible second certifier had been identified, but just not active at the time. I think Courtland makes the point about the quick adminstrative delete of a lot of user efforts up above. I've seen other RfCs go far beyond 48 hours without a second cert, so that increases the appearance of a coverup.--Silverback 10:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I've seen other RfCs go far beyond 48 hours without a second cert – only because no one got around to delisting/deleting them. It's not like there's a bot that handles that particular janitorial task. A 48-hour-old uncertified RfC is no longer a valid RfC, whether it's still visible or not. android79 13:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
          • The bot mustn't be sophisticated enough then, because look at [4], and only csloat and bishonen have signed attempts to resolve the dispute, and they are not the same dispute as required.--Silverback 14:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Re-read what I wrote. A bot able to handle such a task would be a great leap forward in artificial intelligence. android79 14:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
              • I agree that artificial intelligence is not capable of that. But I also communicated with humans that were unable to properly analyze the situation, and the RfC stayed around. The 48 hour limit is enforced unevenly.--Silverback 14:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and encourage salient bits to be spun off into constructive suggestions as to new policies, guidelines and/or procedures; constructive output can of course come from the hottest of arguments, but only after those arguments have cooled a bit (not necessarily been resolved or forgotten, merely cooled). Courtland 00:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy. Improperly certified RFC, past the 48-hour deadline. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy I have serious concerns whether this RFC was ever properly certified and if that's the case then it should be delisted as soon as possible. I'd be in support of userfication though since A) we don't want accusations of a coverup, and B) personal rants and essays have always had a home in people's userspaces. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it is true, !
  • —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.35.197.181 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 9 November 2005.
• Keep Sam Spade 18:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy per Jtkiefer. KillerChihuahua 15:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• I do believe userfy seems best. I should point out that some of the alleged abuse is the fact that a certain admin did not block a certain user over a 3RR (of course, neither did any other admin, so by that logic...) Radiant_>|< 17:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It was a peculiar complaint, anyway -- I'm surprised it's still bothering Silverback so much. Silverback walked into the middle of a battle against a dedicated sockpuppet team (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy; the reversions in question were against sockpuppets of the "fatboy anon". A 3RR block was in effect on the primary IP of the fatboy anon; I summarily reversed the sockpuppet's repeated insertions (including edit comments including personal attacks). Silverback had no familiarity with the context of events. I thought the issue was all over in August. Oh well. I don't care hat happens to this one or another. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep If its invalid, this is the wrong way to get rid of it. It currently has two certifiers, so may as well stand. Lawyering over the exact rules is Wrong. That said, I've signed up to This is absurd on the RFC. William M. Connolley 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC).
• Keep, per WMC.--Sean|Black 01:39, 16 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_>|< 23:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:General complaints

The "General Complaints" page is apparently not widely monitored (or even known about), and it seems to duplicate the function of the pages at the "Village Pump". It is confusing for new users to have so many different places to provide feedback about how Wikipedia works. I therefore propose that this page should be deleted (or should redirect to the "Village Pump") on the grounds that it serves no useful purpose. Matt 12:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC).

I forgot to mention... if the page is deleted then the link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents (which is what originally led me to it) should also be deleted - Matt.

Keep. I regualrly momitor this page and respond to commetns there, as do several other users. in many ways it functions far more like the Help Desk/Reference desk than like the village pump, as sustained discussion threads are rare. It needs to be archived -- I will try to see about doing this shortly. But it serves a useful purpose and should not be deelted, IMO. DES ^(talk) 19:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I understand that this deletion request emerges from the continuing "too many places to ask for software changes" and I can sympathize with the nominator. However, eliminating one of those places without a contingency for handling where the input to it will go is not a responsible way forward. Consider that the entries on General Complaints fall into several categories on Village Pump and a simple redirect would not be the answer; further, as User:DESiegel points out, the page has some functions that are not redundant with those of the Village Pump pages. Courtland 22:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It is my understanding that input by anonymous users in terms of opinions placed in favor or against deletion of pages is ignored as a matter of course. I predict that someone will or will suggest that this AFD entry be deleted on the basis that the nominator is anonymous. I think such action would be unfortunate, but it would also be understandable. Courtland 22:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Since no checks made when you register, and anyone can register under any name, and register and re-register multiple times, I do not see that there is any substantive difference between you signing yourself Courtland and me signing myself "Matt". A policy such as you describe therefore seems ludicrous. In answer to the comments that the content of "General Complaints" has some functions which are not covered by Village Pump, may I suggest that, if the decision is made to keep the page, the distinction is explained both on the page itself and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents (I would do it myself but I do not understand what the difference is). Matt 23:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#AfD_etiquette, in particular the passage that states "Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." If you think this is ludicrous, take your words to Wikipedia:Deletion reform. Courtland 23:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I did not appreciate that the account must have existed when the nomination was made. That makes more sense to me. Matt 01:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC).
• Comment if it is deleted, it will be necessary to fix up quite a few Help type references as it is described as the place for reporting software defects and requesting enhancements. As a new user I found the overlap a bit confusing, but the General complaints wording was sufficiently explicit that I concluded it was the right place for platform, rather than content or policy comments.

At the moemnt, its main problem is that it seems to be where people get to when they want to complain about content. They use the normal web site process of looking for "Contact Us", and see General complaints as an option. They don't read the tag line and they don't read the intro to the page. I suspect many of them are in fire and forget mode, as that is how you generally have to treat a complaint to a commercial web site, so never see the message telling them to fix the page themselves. --David Woolley 23:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, some people do not appear to read the "not for discussing content" instructions. This is unsurprising. People do not generally tend to read instructions. My remedy for that problem would be to put a big red "STOP" sign on each affected page, such that no-one could possibly miss it, with accompanying text "STOP. Before you post a comment here... etc." However, this is not the reason that I recommended "General Complaints" for deletion. I am talking about non-content-related proposals. I do not understand what criteria one should use to decide whether to post a non-content-related comment, proposal, whinge etc to "General Complaints" or to "Village Pump". Looking at the content of the various pages there is no obvious difference that I can see. Matt 01:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC).

• • comment That is a problem, and it is one at the help desk, too. But soem people do fix vandalism reported in each spot, even when the reporting person does not. DES ^(talk) 23:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Procedural comment On AfD the geernal rule is that votes by users who are not logged in, or who are logged in but have few edits, may be discounted, but anon nominations are not discounted. Thisis mostly to deal with the question of sockpuppets and "meatpuppets" and to a lesser extent to deal with people who have not been around long enough to be reasoanble representatives of the community consensus. I would presume that the same rules apply here. Note that this is always a matter of judgement by the closer. If a non-logged-in (IP) user has a long list of edits that indicate a single consistant user of that IP, then IMO the closer should treat thst user like a logged-in user. DES ^(talk) 23:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• I created this article... and I don't think it's working. This is something I mentioned in the article; see point #99. The things people complain about are either things they can fix themselves and should get up and do, or are the things (like the search engine) that only the highest level programmers can deal with. This article isn't doing anything, and if there's no way to make it useful, then delete it. -Litefantastic 01:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it is doing something, perhaps not as much as or what you hoped. in many cases we can point people at where or how to do somethign themselves, or where/how to suggest to the developers that soemthing be changed. And in many other cases it serves as a form of vandalism alert. Yes people should lern to fix that themselves, but I'd rather have them reprot it soemwhere where aoemone else might notice and fix it than do nothing. DES ^(talk) 01:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per DES. Xoloz 01:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, because I think some people still use the page, though I wouldn't recommend it. However, I assure you that the nomination is in good faith. I have looked at this anons edits, and participated in discussion with him. What I said may have in encouraged him to make the nomination, in fact. Though I disagree with that step, I don't have any doubt about his motives. Superm401 | Talk 03:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've given this some thought. WP:GC has several weaknesses; fortunately, only two pages point to it: Wikipedia:Contact us and Help:Contents. So there's room for improvement:

1. First of all, [[Wikipedia:Specific Complaints]] seems obligatory yet it's missing. Where do I put my specific complaints?  :) Joking aside though, the title itself is bad - to a reader's eye a catch-all for any gripe because WP is not best thing since sliced bread.
2. It seems resolved complaints eventually go to WP:GC(resolved). This design means that the page becomes top heavy with unresolved complaints. Can this design be improved?
3. Each wiki page already has a built-in complaints desk, its talk page. (NOTE: I've edited Help:Contents#Asking_questions to send people to Talk pages. Can someone improve the text I wrote, please? Maybe somehow invite the reader to fix the page herself?)
4. Wikipedia:Contact us says, "If you would like to suggest improvements to the site's design or to the encyclopedia, you can leave a comment at the General Complaints page." See the conflict? My vote is to Rename to Wikipedia:General Comments. One bonus of this is that comments, by definition, require no replies.
5. An anecdote: What do you do, DES? Oh I regularly monitor this website's General Complaints page. That must be tough. How much do you get paid for it? Oh I volunteered for it. Huh, but at least do you get to suggest changes or improvements to the website? For the developer-side stuff, no. Actually for typos and such, I make the changes myself. Oh, they let you do that, that must be cool. The thing is, EVERYBODY can fix the typos themselves. Yeah, but of course, they'd rather file a complaint than to learn how. Right. :)
6. Final comment: IMO, anything on any website that says "Help:Contact Us:General <whatever>" or "Help:Ask a Question:General <whatever>" becomes the default webmaster@domainname.com, that is, the default bucket for all site-related communications. And when you show a "click here to leave a <whatever>" on this page — no matter how enormous the red READ THIS FIRST or READ THE FAQ FIRST stop signs put there — it's the same thing. Let's face it.

Thank you for listening. -- Perfecto  03:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It's also used in Template:HD header and therefore on the Wikipedia:Help desk page. --David Woolley 11:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

See, each page pointing to it describes GC differently. -- Perfecto  17:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Coincidently I noticed that WP:GC wasn't getting enough attention and put this notice in the Help desk talk, even before this MfD. The Village pump (with its abstract name and specific sections) is too daunting for new users (I can elaborate if needed), so they find themselves at General complaints. I have helped a confused, frustrated user who was inadvently blocked. I have explained why there are so many US places pop up when you use the random article feature. I have directed people to talk pages or the Reference desk. General complaints is useful for new users and so should remain.--Commander Keane 16:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with soem of User:Perfecto's comments on how GC, if kept, needs to be improved. We need an "old but unresolved" archive page, for example. The wording and position of the links to GC probaly also need improments. However I have been alerted to situations in need of attention throgh GC, and i have (I think) been able to help some people become useful contributors here via GC. People who leave fire&forget comemtns about basic policies clearly can't be helped much. DES ^(talk) 23:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, seems useful. Needs to be advertized better, with some modifications to how it's run, etc., per above. -- SCZenz 01:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, it seems only to be generating issues that belong somewhere else, and/or a place for people to post nonsense. Stifle 15:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The new headers directing people to specific locations for specific comments will hopefully make a difference. What will really make a difference is if it is better known about by regulars - I only found it by chance in an anon-user's contributions list, whereas it seems very easy to find for people with a gripe. Perhaps a link from wp:an and the admin reading list would help? If in a couple of months the headers haven't made a difference and its still mostly people syaing "somebody posted a rude word in an article, but I'm not going to tell you which one" then we can revisit the issue and come up with an alternative. Thryduulf 01:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. While I do not regularly monitor the page, I do respond sometimes to people when I see it pop up on Recent Changes. I think it is a useful page; possibly it could be advertised better, as another post above notes. Antandrus (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Should be kept once it is easier to access the page. Many newbies to Wikipedia still put their complaints, showing the importance of this page. DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 05:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• RENAME General Complaints gives an impression to new users that you complain about anything here. A better name would be Suggestions for Improving Wikipedia DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 00:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It is redundant with Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), and it appears to be some sort of troll magnet.  Denelson83  07:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not independently viable. Overlap with many other pages. JFW | T@lk 19:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant. Radiant_>|< 11:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The page is a mess, with nobody reading the message at the top of the page. Very few of the entries even belong the page. Most are vandalism reports and content issues. Evil Monkey - Hello 19:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Some people want to log their reactions quckly without having to navigate Village Pump. The "general complaints" or "suggestion box" concept could be a valuable communication tool for people who might not want to enter Village Pump for whatever reasons. For example, I found a bug in wikipedia. Why not drop it in "general complaints?" Rtdrury (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Because apparently nobody who is ever going to do anything about it looks at that page. They only look at that "Bugzilla" thing, or so I'm led to believe... Matt 01:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC).
    • The developers do not msotly monitor the GC page, no. But they do want a point to a discussion of an issue on the wiki to make sure that ther is more than one or two people intersted in a change. I have on more than one occasion logged a bugzilla entry based on issues that I saw rasied on the GC page, or started a longer discussion at the pump, or both. DES ^(talk) 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair point, but we already have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bug_report for this. Matt 21:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

• Comment. I've just replaced GC's notice to read It is not intended for reporting errors inside specific articles. I believe I found the reason we continue to receive vandalism reports and content issues to GC. It's back at Wikipedia:Contact Us, a protected page. It says, For suggesting an improvement to the encyclopedia or site design, see General Complaints. A user finds a vandalism or bad content, clicks "Contact Us" on the left, reads (only) the topmost section of Wikipedia:Contact Us and clicks immediately to the GC page. I hope my edit improves the situation, though will someone please rephrase the Contact Us page? -- Perfecto  05:23, 19 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 kept for lack of consensus. Radiant_>|< 16:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Unusual requests

Dont Bite the newbies! This page is really rude about newcomers who don't understand our Encyclo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4836.03 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC).

• Moved from an orphaned afd. This is probably tilting at windmills, but I agree with 4836.03; delete. Unlike BJAODN, most of the entries here seem to be good-faith queries from highly confused people, and there's no reason to humiliate them behind their backs. —Cryptic (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete BJAODN isn't supposed to be mean. Ashibaka (tock) 18:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 01:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Cryptic. Xoloz 16:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's just harmless comic relief! Stifle 15:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ridiculing people making a minor mistake is one thing, but mistaking Wikipedia for a game or car manufacturer, a place to buy Hutterite mukluks, or a potential customer for 500 tons of petroleum jelly is quite another. PeteVerdon 16:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I seriously doubt people this confused would even find this list, and if I myself ended up on it, I would probably be quite amused, once the situation was explained to me. -- Beland 05:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. the wub "?!" 13:39, 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 Merge/redirect to meta. Many people on both sides are voting on the principle, rather than on the page. The simple fact is that this Wikiproject had all of 26 edits total since its conception over half a year ago. There is ample precedent for closing down Wikiprojects that don't actually do anything. Radiant_>|< 11:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion

This was put up for deletion a week ago, but was kept when no one knew the vote was happening. It can hardly be considered that there is consensus to do something when no one was informed of the dispute in the first place; something which can be seen in the tiny number of votes and their unrepresentative nature. With this in mind, I speedy deleted it, but there was a consensus to undelete in the circumstances. I'm putting it back here for a fair vote - should it get kept this time, I'll have no issue with accepting any result.

Firstly, I put this here as someone who votes keep far more often than they vote delete these days. I object to this project, not because it promotes inclusionism, but because it openly aims to pervert the consensus operation of Wikipedia. If you want something done on Wikipedia, you make a case for it and convince people that it should or should not be done. You do not get a small, unrepresentative group to stack the vote out and have your way, views of the community be damned. Where the SchoolWatch project aimed to win consensus to keep something by improving the articles, this is just an exercise in vote stacking; something fundamentally anti-wiki. Both sides of the deletion-inclusion debate have been guilty of this at times (something which seems to be getting worse recently); a deletionist version of this project would be equally heinous. With this in mind, I ask that this be nipped in the bud now. For the record, here is a link to the prior vote of which I dispute the validity. Ambi 10:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• I object to your objection, respectfully. (See my vote below). Are we previous voters a "nobody"? A deletion can be reconsidered if enough people didn't notice (and have new info.) For a keep you didn't notice, you wait and renominate. Horribly out-of-process. And I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist mind you, just one who respects consensus. Xoloz 18:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• • "A deletion can be considered if enough people didn't notice." The last MD was so bad in this respect as to be grossly unrepresentative; to anyone who doubts this, compare the voting populations. There appears to be a genuine no consensus this time, which I'll absolutely respect, although I'm very disappointed to see that this has largely split along factional lines. I had hoped that both sides would put aside their goals for a few minutes and look at whether factionalism is helpful to Wikipedia, but it appears I was overly optimistic. I'm getting very sick of having to argue with one side that articles on perfectly notable topics should be kept and written, and sick of having to try to convince the other not to treat deletion issues like the Great War of Wikipedia. It's wrecking the community and making Wikipedia a cruddy place to be working. Ambi 23:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Again, with respect, I find it hard to believe that you felt the immediate renomination of a keep -- not a "deletion", and they are different for the reason I outlined -- would help restore comity to WP. It seems to me, as neither a deletionist nor inclusionist, that an out-of-process speedy, followed by a out-of-process renomination has (and could only be intended to) make more people upset. I trust your good faith, but if renewing this debate by stomping on process is something you feel likely to lead to greater amicability around here, I strongly urge you to reconsider your view. Xoloz 01:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Again, it was only a keep because barely anyone knew the vote was happening. Look at the difference between the two votes, and tell me seriously that something was not awry with the first one. Process is important, but there are times when it's not necessarily helpful to working together and building and encyclopedia. The speedy was done on the basis of WP:IAR and I did not object when it was undeleted. I did, however, put it back here so it could receive a fair vote, which it has. Having done this, it is quite apparent at this point that there is no consensus either way, which I'm disappointed about, but will of course respect. Ambi 04:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I tell you seriously that nothing was awry with first one (as its result is essentially confirmed), that nothing has been gained for the cause of its deletion (your cause) by an out-of-process revote, and that much has been lost for your cause, since now deletionists and inclusionists are more inflamed, and those of us who are dedicated to process are also miffed. I will certainly support the preservation of this project for at least six months, since it has now survived two MDs in a week and a half. I now have sympathy for it, where before there was none. Xoloz 05:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant with m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There's only one "association", "group", or "organization" in Wikipedia, and it's name is Wikipedia (sorry to be sappy). --rob 10:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no substantial arguments David D. (Talk) 10:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• d, nn. Whatever next, we'll have encyclopedic articles? Join the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD! Alphax ^τεχ 10:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep no evidence that this project will merely "vote stack" and not attempt to "win consensus to keep something by improving the articles". I think the schoolwatch project added to the sum of knowledge on the wikipedia - this project could provide the means to do so too.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 10:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The charges laid out above are spurious. "anit-wiki"??? I am sorry, but these charges that persist that somehow informing or networking to inform interested parties about ongoing votes is somehow immoral are nonsensical. The notion that voting on AfD should be left up to those who randomly happen across articles, or actively troll the AfD lists on a daily basis is "anti-wiki". There is a fundamental difference between inclusionists and deletionists in that inclusionists wish to keep and improve articles. I don't know how a project which exists for the purposes of improving and keeping articles can be "wnti-wiki". Also, the claim that "it openly aims to pervert the consensus operation of Wikipedia" seems to me to be little more than an unevidenced opinion.--Nicodemus75 10:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant with m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, and only 2 members compared with AIW's hundred+. Both members of this are also members of AIW anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no persuasive reason given by nominator, and I can't put meta projects on my watchlist. Kappa 12:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Things like this only serve to polarize, to divide, make sure that the community does not scale. Can the camps of people who want to split us into camps please stop? - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I like stuff to be kept also, but a whole society pushing this? Get real! We've got over half a million articles on here... shouldn't we be working on existing articles? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no reason for deletion. I can't imagine this is really going to do all that much damage with two members. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's keep AIW and ADW in Meta only. jni 14:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Project passed MD process too recently for reconsideration. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep nn cruft --SPUI (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I knew there was a vote here, thanks, so I object to Ambi's objection, and my vote intensifies from a weak to a strong. Not knowing about a debate is reason to reconsider deletion; if you don't know about a keep, you wait three months like everyone else. I think this debate is partisan to no cause and ill-considered. Both the "inclusionists" and the "deletionists" are entitled to a few fora/playgrounds. Xoloz 18:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This project was noted. The AIW's main page metitioned it, so if any other Wikipedians wanted to delete it, they would just go to the article, see the vote, and vote delete. This page was just created. It's function, to stop selective bias, was also stated. I view that this project needs time to grow. When given time, it will be a terrific project. Canadianism 19:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Polarizing, redundant. android79 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedians should be free to form whatever projects they feel are helpful to the overall project, as long as they are good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia. I see no evidence of bad faith; you're free to ignore 'em if you don't like 'em. This project has a different scope than the one on Meta; that's why there are two. Unfocused 21:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete, because this project has redundant scopes with Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias, both projects with considerable memberships. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sure, it duplicates another organization. Yes, it doesn't seem to have a point beyond vote stacking. Who cares?! Ashibaka (tock) 01:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless, irrelevant, a waste of time. Bin a.s.a.p. FearÉIREANN(caint) 18:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete divisive and factionalist wikiprojects. The approprate way to get things done on a Wiki is to seek consensus, not to try and abuse already-broken voting systems. --Aquillion 04:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So why try to destroy this project by abusing an already broken system rather than attempting to seek consensus? Kappa 14:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thelb⁴ 10:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with Rob and Aaron. The Wikipedia namespace is not to be used to promote partisanship, but (surprisingly) actually to promote community and encyclopedia-writing. Dmcdevit·t 09:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obsolete with existing associations and doesn't focus on creating an encyclopedia or promoting Wikilove. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As long as the AFD process remains as broken as it is now, this project should remain. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-6 19:04
• Question: I admit I don't pay much attention to these sorts of things, but doesn;t this really belong in meta? And won't keeping this allow the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians as well as their inclusionist/mergest/etc brethren to move into to WP namespace? -R. fiend 19:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WikiProject Inclusion. How ironic! Inclusionists should be allowed to form an organization to try to encourage other Wikipedians to keep articles, but the group already exists at m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. There is no need for this "local chapter." --TantalumTelluride 05:34, 7 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. Not funny enough for BJAODN. Radiant_>|< 13:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Association of Wikipedian semi-nerds who pride themselves in doing absolutely nothing with any sort of meaning or logic whatsoever, despite popular belief

• I'm not sure what to do with this. BJAODN? Transwiki to Uncyclopedia? Delete? In any case, this can't be kept. This could be construed as speediable under CSD G1 and G3, and depending on view, this may be breaking a few policies WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:WQT depending on the view point. Karmafist 07:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not funny enough for BJAODN. — JIP | Talk 12:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to /dev/null. Radiant_>|< 12:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete into the abyss per JIP. Unfunny, useless. Xoloz 17:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unfunny, which is too bad - the title has such potential. --Carnildo 00:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reviewing the history, this was mildly funny back when it was first created (late March). It fell into disuse after about 2 weeks and sat neglected. On 26 Oct, it was found by anon users who have ... Well, I'm not sure that you can use the word "vandalized" on this page, but they sure didn't add to it's clarity. Or it's humor. If this were a current joke page being maintained by reputable editors, I might give it the benefit of doubt. As it is, delete as a no-longer-relevant joke that's become vandal-bait. Rossami (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing funny here. It borders on patent nonsense. --Idont Havaname 03:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN this revision of the article, then delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What he said. ~~ N (t/c) 00:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, could be offensive for some Wikipedians. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Me: you guys are a bunch of wankers. That's what. Learn to apperciate life and its randomness, for christ's sakes. - unsigned comment by anon user: 64.180.240.190
• Delete as vandalism. This is Wikipedia, not MAD Magazine! B.Wind 21:06, 6 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_>|< 13:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts

League tables of Wikipedians are a bad idea- this is a collaborative not a competitive project. And although there is a disclaimer on this page, it encourages the tendency to think that adminship is a reward for a certain number of edits. What other purpose can this serve? Doc (?) 02:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment/ Why didn't you put a Vfd on this article Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits as well, another competitive league table that encourages the deadly disorder countititis?

• Delete - I was going to vote to keep, but Doc's arguments are convincing, and it can be (AFAIK) easily recreated when and if needed - I thought the original use, to find people to nominate who had somehow been missed, is useful, but it should be recreated when needed, not kept around to encourage Template:User want admin type of stuff. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That makes very little sense. You admit there is a use for it (and it was that original use that I intended, that nobody would ever "slip through the cracks"), but you say that the list should only be recreated as necessary.... I don't understand this at all. You're saying the list should not exist, but that it should exist when it becomes necessary for it to exist. Also, as the creator of the list, I can say that it was not as easy as you imagine to create the list, for 3 reasons: I was not that familiar with regular expression manipulation, I now know that the program I was using sucked, and the various lists that already exist on Wikipedia, which were used to create this list, are not all properly formatted to make it a simple one-step comparison. The List of Admins, for example, is all over the place in terms of formatting. Something is only ever simple if you assume that you won't be the one that has to "recreate it as necessary" in the future... — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-2 15:20
• Neutral, leaning keep. I'm totally anti-editcountitus, but I don't really think this page is harmful. Why not kill off WP:1000? :-/ Redwolf24 (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - We don't generally delete reports just because they haven't been updated recently. I think lists like this are good because they help identify experienced contributors who are too humble to self-nominate. Those are exactly the kind of editors I think should become admins. Just because not everyone on this list should be promoted doesn't mean it's not useful. If this encourages people to make more edits, as long as they are improving Wikipedia, I can't really complain. -- Beland 02:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Dan | Talk 02:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• I don't really like it either, for those reasons. It's not what belongs in the Wikipedia namespace, IMO. But as a personal thing it's not that objectionable if someone wants to use it for their own, (silly) purposes. I would say userfy to the originator (or whoever wants it). Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not about competing; it's about creating a sense of comradery among those who chose not to become admins (as well as a few who tried and failed). Lists like this promote a sense of community. Let's keep this, and add some new interesting ones! Owen× ☎ 02:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no harm in having this. I agree with the above support arguments. As for promoting compettion, I would disagree (there are other pages out there which are far more guilty of this e.g. WP:1000). Enochlau 03:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even if we get a backup to kate's tool, what's wrong with this? -Greg Asche (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless --JAranda | watz sup 03:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Not only harmless, but very useful. Sure, editcountitis is a problem, and hopefully by now everyone realises that it is not the only criterion when administration is being considered. But it is extraordinarily useful to have a list of those who, by dint of their high edit counts, everyone thinks automatically is an admin. How many times at RFA do you see "I could have sworn he/she was an admin!"? This list presents some of the more obvious names that aren't admins, using a simple and straightforward criterion, and is a gentle nudge to everyone that some of these names perhaps should be nominated. Grutness...wha? 03:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Good clean fun. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the list is useful and does no harm by itself. It can be misused, as any other list in the Wikipedia namespace, but then, the problem is with those who misuse it, not with the list itself. Edit count is not the only factor in the determination of admin status, but the list can help find editors to analyze and scrutinize with the intent of a possible RFA. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The current version is descended from user:Rick Block/WP600 not admins which I started for the purpose of drawing attention to several hundred editors with high edit counts who aren't admins and allowing them to indicate whether they're even interested in becoming admins. There are enough folks around here that it is entirely possible to slip through the cracks and become a well known, well respected editor that virtually everyone assumes is an admin but isn't (I believe I was in this class until a few months ago). Could I or anyone on this list self-nom? Sure. But, I didn't. AlistairMcMillan didn't. Beland didn't. Bluemoose didn't. DanielCD, Darwinek, Denelson83, Edcolins, didn't. Need I go on (there are about 30 more)? I certainly won't claim this list is the only thing that instigated all these rfas. However, I suspect it was a contributing factor in at least some of them. The list can be nearly automatically generated from WP:1000 and WP:LA, except for the part about "do you have any interest in becoming an admin". I vehemently reject SlimVirgin's assertion (elsewhere) that nominating people from this list is irresponsible. IMO what's irresponsible is not to examine the contributions of folks on this list who've indicated an interest and not to nominate those who look suitable. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I see no grounds for this to be deleted other than someone who dislikes those of us who use edit counts as a factor in voting.  ALKIVAR™ 04:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There are tons of non-competitive, non-RfA wiki-nerd reasons for this (is there any heavy editor I don't know? I'll send them wiki-flowers!) It's a community tool, and like all tools, can be used for good or ill... but that's no reason to kill it. Xoloz 04:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; I find this list somewhat useful. It doesn't really do any harm. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seems useful Klonimus 06:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JesseW.-- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 06:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It looks like this is going to make it, but I wanted to throw my vote in here anyway. This is immensely interesting, and there's no real reason to get rid of it other than immature users who want to create castes where there are none. Karmafist 07:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have to disagree with the nominator of the article because it is proof enough that you can remain a non-admin despite a huge edit count. Of the list, only a few have shown interest in becoming admins - a further pointer that while admin status may help improve productivity, a lack of the status is no deterrent to doing good quantity/quality of work. --Gurubrahma 07:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Quite useful. --Pamri • Talk 08:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a useful list for finding possible RfA candidates. — JIP | Talk 08:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep eminently useful list. Marskell 08:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning mildly towards delete. If keeping, edit to make it much clearer that users should not be nominated for adminship on the basis of number of edits without very careful checks of their suitability. Or create a page for Wikipedians with high edit counts (if it doesn't already exist), and merge, putting "admin" after the names of those who are admins. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 09:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- I see no downside to allowing the circulation of accurate information that doesn't hurt anyone. Let's revise the intro to clarify that number of edits does not correlate to adminship. BrandonYusufToropov 11:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Useful list. I've nominated an editor (Edcolins) from this list that I did not have previous interactions with. His only apparent mention of desiring to be an admin was on this list. Nobody nominated him. As a result of this list, I did. He cleared 27-1. --Durin 15:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the list serves the useful purpose of alerting us to the fact that some of those folks who fit cliche #1 (I thought he was already an admin) are not, and might like to be. BD2412 T 01:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Useful information but I am unsure that it belongs in the Wikipedia space. I still would prefer pages such as this and my User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records on user sub-pages. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I started the list, and while I do not believe we should focus entirely on edit counts, this list serves to prevent anyone from ever "slipping through the cracks", so that people who aren't actively spamming "Delete per ASDF" or "Keep per ASDF" on AFD pages, but are actively and continuously editing Wikipedia in other productive, but less noticeable, ways are not missed. This list only serves as a starting point, not the final determination. I thought I laid that out pretty clearly in the intro text, but if it's not that clear, anyone can always change that. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-2 15:10

• Strong Keep. Interesting list. The campaign against countedititis (which has never been diagnosed as a disease or psychotic condition) is getting both boring and duisturbing. Deleting this article would be a bit like the 2 spam notices at Kate's counter, the moral minority in lecture mode. The anti countedititis tendency needs strongly opposing, SqueakBox 16:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It's an interesting list, and it serves as a great starting point for those who are looking for editors to nominate in RfA. (It needs to be updated too... ;-) ) --Idont Havaname 03:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It gives us a chance to see who should be nominated at RFA without hassle (although of course that's not all that is checked for). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I'd rather see someone's userpage than a number. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 05:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And this list is stopping you from seeing people's user pages? This makes no sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-5 15:01
• Keep, a good reference for RfA nominations. feydey 12:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete edit counts are not an indicator of adminship suitability. Most of the users with higher counts have either declined or are likely to be opposed. NSR (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahh yes, because if some people don't want to be admins, they all must not want to be admins. At least this list lets you know which people have declined, so that they aren't constantly being bugged with requests for nomination. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-5 15:01
  • Some of them have declined, some haven't. Do you know which ones have without checking? And what's the easiest way of checking? This list... Grutness...wha? 22:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per RickBlock. Bjelleklang - talk 00:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful for cross-referencing nominations at RfA. --Andylkl ^(talk) 15:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's interesting and useful. -- DS1953 ^talk 07:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep getcrunk juice 21:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep While I am generally a deletionist, this doesn't seem to actually meet any of the criteria for deletion of which I am presently aware, unless "protect people against editcountitis" has been added to a list I overlooked. --Kgf0 02:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This list has helped me identify several successful candidates for adminship. On what grounds should this document be deleted? It is unclear to me what the basis is for this nomination. Hall Monitor 18:24, 9 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.