User talk:Dragonlance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Delete vandalism "Ameriphobia"

Then please discuss it here. Midster 18:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

When discussing a page, use the "discussion" link at the top. This goes for my user page as well, if you want me to see the "you have a message" box you need to edit my talk page. silsor 18:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion? What's that? LOL. I tried to discuss but it was all deleted. I discussed it on the Speedy Votes for Deletion page, and it was never answered. I wrote on your page, and you threaten me.
I wrote several arguments why the article should be restored. Unfortunately, i twas all erased without discussion. Could anyone restore the article so the arguments can be answered?????
The discussion took place here. As you can see, there were nine votes to delete and one vote to keep (presumably yours). Of course there is no more "discussion" if you want to just create the page again, it's already been deleted. You can't expect a new debate every time you copy and paste your words back in. If you want to argue for it to be undeleted, use Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. silsor 18:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


Firstly, calling other people who youu know nothing about "idiots" and "fascists" is not going to help your cause (consider this a last warning).
Secondly, why should we keep an article whose content is
Candidate for restoring all the material deleted without discussion!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, and I tried to discuss the issue. My arguments were NEVER ANSWERED!!!!!!!!!!!!
"If you do not think this article is deserving of a speedy delete please state your reasoning here." Nice -- I do, with again no answer, and then the page is simply deleted. What lying, cowardly bullshit. How sneaky.
There is absolutely nothing of remotely encyclopedic nature here. This can and should be deleted, and unless you can produce appropriate material, there is no reason you should expect another response from us. Rama 18:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, I didn't vote. I wasn't available for the original debate. So that means it is deleted for ever? Then I was asked to discuss it on the Speedy Delete Page. I did, again with no answer -- despite being asked to discuss it -- and it was deleted anyway.
Not encyclopedic? Unlike the 911 conspiracy pages and other crap that somehow is okay? Clearly the delete-vandalism is targeted for political reasons. But again, what can I say, I never expect anything else from the cult-like groupthink at Wikipedia. Never EVER would anyone actually be critical of other admins or their own irresponsible behavior. The outsider is always wrong no matter what.
I repeat, I was told: "If you do not think this article is deserving of a speedy delete please state your reasoning here." I was lied to. There was no discussion. It was simply deleted. What lying BS.
I deleted your "reasoning" on the talk page because it was the same text you were copying and pasting on everybody's user pages, talk pages, etc. I'm sorry if this offended you. It seems the original arguments on the talk page were deleted by User:Texture, so I've left a message on his talk page about it. silsor 18:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Please could you start discussing why the article is valid rather than copying and pasting a rant? Thanks. Midster 18:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Could someone please undelete all the arguments made on the original talk page, which was erased?

Please could you tell me how someone can have a phobia of an American or America itself? There is no such thing. There are articles that discuss Anti-Americanism and general Anti-American sentiment. Midster 18:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


How can someone have a phobia to Islam or France? If you delete this article, you have to delete the others. Otherwise it is a de facto POV, like deleting anti-abortion and keeping only pro-abortion articles. Furthermore, there is no rule of having a single article for every aspect of a debate. Otherwise a lot of material would have to be deleted, at least to avoid hypocrisy and double standards.

Here it is. silsor 18:37, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Why delete? I didn't see the discussion before, but I'd like to see the reason why it should be deleted. This term is common in college circles and among conservatives. It is a parallel to Islamophobia and Francophobia. IMHO Wikipedia excluding the term would be de facto POV, ie. excluding some kinds of discrimination but not others.

Google actually shows more results for variations of the term:

169 for Ameriphobia, 112 for Ameriphobic, 208 for Americanophobia, 333 for Americanophobe, 58 for Americanophobic, 914 for Americanphobia

That totals 1794, and that is just what google has in their cache (which is not even half of the entire internet by the way). Just checking Wikipedia's "most recent articles" page, one can easily find terms that show low Google counts:

679 for "Spanish Second Division"; 782 for "Extinct Australian animals"; 577 for "Vampire lifestyle"

Yet none of these are deleted, presumably because even if these terms themselves are not widely used, they may related to larger themes which are important or popular. I say the same goes for this article. The theme of Ameriphobia is extremely widespread and up for debate. Deletion of this article is obvious partisan and political. My guess is a lot of the Leftists who monopolize Wikipedia are intolerant of divergant political views being presented on Wikipedia, where only fringe stuff like "9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory", "9/11 conspiracy theories", and multiple pages of the like are permitted to be posted. Nice POV double standards.

You have based your arguments on the validity of this article on its Google count. Please note that Google is not the answer to anything, nor does it prove the validity of this article. Midster 18:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

good point. Yet Google was the sole reason it was put up for deletion and voted against.
Thanks for restoring my discussion.


1. This term is common in college circles and among conservatives. 2. Banning the term would be de facto POV, ie. excluding some kinds of discrimination but not others. 3. The main arguments against it were that it didn't have enough Google hits --which I proved was false, and that it was too POV. But POV topics are not forbidden on Wikipedia, just POV content. This article and any article can be presented in a NPOV way. 4. Why can't people who object to content for poliitical reasons simple edit the articles instead of automatically deleting everything??? 5. Why is crap like 911 conspiracy pages and the like 1) not considered "too POV" 2) not considered "unencyclopedic"? It's obvious that partisan political motives mean that anything that isn't anti-American enough will be banned.

[edit] Enough

I think you understand the deletion process now. Either take your arguments to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion or stop recreating Ameriphobia which was deleted by VFD. This is your last warning. silsor 19:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "enough" discussion. You ask me to repeat my arguments here, to discuss it, but actually you are not interested in discussing and neither is anyone else. Wikipedia is always right, no matter how stupid and irrational it acts.
LOL, now I'm supposed to take my arguments elsewhere, after being told by everyone to take them here! First it was the article's talk page, then the Speedy Delete page, then no one liked it on their User pages, so told to bring it here. Now I can take it to another page for non-discussion. What sneaky, lying BS.
I took the trouble to talk some other people out of blocking you so I could explain how the wiki works. I cleaned up your messes and directed you to the correct page, where, incidentally, you now have two responses from uninvolved users (is this the "non-discussion" you were talking about?) Now I'm "sneaky" and "lying", as is everybody else who tried to deal with you. Thanks a bunch! I'll think twice next time before spending half an hour on a newcomer who can't be bothered to read instructions for himself. silsor 20:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
You know, you and others could avoid a lot of conflict just by being more polite. Being lied to, have your contributions recklessly deleted, being threatened by wannabe bullies -- do not breed cooperation. I would include the arrogant command "Enough!" and "this is your last warning" as obnoxious, rude, vulgar behavior. Sadly, this type of sneering, rude, overbearing attitude is the rule on Wikipedia. So you want a cheery thank you for threats/warnings? And as for reading instructions, rude behavior towards newcomers is explicitly discouraged according to Wikipedia's own documentation. Just a tip.
Youu can sign your comments with four tilds, like this: ~~~~.
As for the rest, Wikipedia has a number of instruction pages for newcomers. While experienced users are usually willing to point to help pages, or give explanations themselves if needed, they are less so if the user acts in a revendicative way, or attempts to teach proper behaviour or etiquette which himself knows very little about.
silsor has been very patient with you, and I suggest that you stop provoking him and devote your time to more constructive activities. Thank you. Rama 09:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, cronies stick up for cronies, wrong or right. Can you tell me why threats and insults against newcomers are okay? Wikipedia says otherwise. But again, the WikiCabal mob is always right, the individual newcomer is outnumbered and thus always wrong. That's why I call this intellectual cowardice. Mob not arguments rule. Furthermore, you and him could have avoided a lot of hassle simply by being more polite. And I doubt I am the first person who has been treated like crap by the WikiMob!
These rules apply to people who behave politely, not to those who wander around removing other people's comments, write in capitals with half a dozen exclamation marks, and insult other people. Not the matter is settled, and youu can switch to doing something useful -- either here, or somewhere else. But please cut the "cronies stick up for cronies" talk, you can still be blocked, and have had ample warnings before. Rama 09:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This was in response to rude treatment. At the beginnng, if I was not lied to and threatened, overall it could have been a more cheery discussion. Cut the talk about how groupthink reigns here? Never. It's called free speech. However I wouldn't be surprised if, i na spirit of intellectual fascism, some angry admin tried to get me banned for being critical of their corruption.

[edit] Islamophobia

Hi Dragonlance,

Please sign all your comments (a template exists for this: simply put four tilda ('~') characters after your comments).

I'm not sure why Americophobia and Arab dictatorships were deleted as I was not personally involved in the VfD. I assume Americophobia was deleted because it was a non-notable neologism and Arab dictatorships because the more neutral term is Middle-east dictatorships (eg. Afganistan is not, I believe, a arabic country). What is more Arab is a race so the article title is itself racist... it would be like writing Black dictatorships. Please see NPOV for more information. I recommend you familiarise yourself with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia for further information.

If you find the Islamophobia article to be POV please join in the dicussion on the talk page citing sources and references to help resolve issues. Axon 10:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about signing. Neologism? It has been used by Front Page Magazine (FrontPageMagazine.com | December 17, 2001), appeared in a major American newspaper (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20041004-103823-3308r.htm) and even appeared in the venerable New yorker magazine in 2003(http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/030310fa_fact)! The New yorker = rightwing neologism? I'll have to write and tell them. As far as calling it racist, there is plenty of content that is openly racist, but people prevent deletion because they claim it's useage is a fact. (Again, double standards: arguments used for deleting one article are ignored to protect another. ) Dragonlance 11:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


If you know of any racist pages I recommend you put them up for VfD. I'm not sure what this makes your position on the Arab dictatorships... either it is racist and doesn't belong, or it isn't and does. I'm not sure if the existence of other racsit articles is an argument for keeping it.

I would like consistency. If the policy is no POV articles, then delete all of them. Or if we keep POV articles, then keep them all. Dragonlance 11:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Would't we all :) Axon 12:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would still maintain that Americophobia is a non-notable neoligism, given that a google test returns 118k hits on a search for islamophobia[1] and only 80 hits on Americophobia[2]. Usage in those publications would not seem to be definitive and rather the creation of temporary neologisms for the purposes of making a point within the articles. There is no evidence of regular usage of this term. Axon 11:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Variants, which I explained at length on the Undelete page, come to 1800 pages. (Americanophobia, Americanophobe, Ameriphobe, etc.) Furthermore, the issue is important today. Thousands of people have been killed because of hatred of America.
Second, racist terms are impossible for me to put up for VfD, since the VfD gets deleted immediately by the pages keepers. This is the Wiki way. And I'm sure any complaints about such users would be ignored. Such is the irrational mob-rule at wikipedia, where logic doesn't matter if you have power and numbers. Dragonlance 11:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if you can just add up the various "variants" like that. How many of the 1800 you quote are double hits? Do the variants haev the same usage and context? And even if the above is accurate, 1800 is still not notable enough compared to the 118K from islamophobia.
Which racist terms are you talking about? I'm not convinced that a truly racist term would be dismissed for VfD. Also, remember, ifyou keep putting a lot of pages up for VfD you may be considered a nuisance. Axon 12:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I meant dismissed as in the VfD tag is removed. Are people allowed to remove VfD tags at will? If someone does that, is there a place to bring it for discussion?? Dragonlance 12:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you feel a VfD notice has been unfairly removed you can report it a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - just post a new section at the bottom of the page with a link to the diff for the change and an admin will get back to you. If you mean the VfD notice taken down from Islamophobia then this was fairly taken down by an administrator at the completiong of the VfD . Axon 12:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Dragonlance 12:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In any case, this "Americanophobia" totally overlaps Anti-Americanism, which already exists. Redirects are made or this sort of things. Rama 12:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Someone on the original VfD suggested a redirect, but that was ignored. (And note that Anti-Americanism itself redirects. I guess it couldn't survive the systematic anti-US bias. Dragonlance 12:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Anti-Americanism redirects to the more formal synonym of "Anti-American sentiment". Are you suggesting that we keep seperated all instances of articles about the very same subject ? Furthermore, have you taken some time to compare the quality of the best version of "Americanophobia" with "Anti-American sentiment" ?
If you want to restore "Americanophobia" as a redirect to "Anti-American sentiment", you will very probably have no comment from anyone, and you might even avoid losing your time by directly contributing to Anti-American sentiment. Rama 13:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


1) That would be nice (the redirect) but I'm sure it would be deleted immediately, as both the original article were and subsequent rewriting was. It's called blacklisting and harrassment. I'm 100% certain that any attempt to recreate the article with a redirect would result in yet more harrassment, threats, banning etc. (as all of the admins kindly informed me previously) 2) the redirect of Anti-Americanism (which is the most common term) was because of political bias against the term. No equivalent formal title exists for the Islamophobia article, btw, yet Islamofasiscm was also deleted and redirected. See a pattern here. 3) There was no time to develop and improve the Ameriphobia article. It was VfDed immediately. I'm not sure what the hurry to censor this page was.
1) I have now created the redirect. I am quite confident that it will not be a source of problems now.
If you happen to have more to say about the term itself (like "Americanophobia was at term designating Anti-Americanism, coined by XXX in YYY and occuring in ZZZ"), you can always change the redirect into a full article (However, it makes no sense to duplicate the Anti-Americanism article).
2) Naming articles can sometimes lead to discussions; however, there is very little that a redirect cannot fix. And again, duplication of information is a waste of time. "Islamofasiscm" is very probably only a propaganda term (I cannot think of a possible way to conciliate fascist and islamist ideologies).
3) The "Ameriphobia" was duplicating the Anti-Americanism article, it was hence pointless.
4) If youu want to have aby sort of chance to be taken seriously, stop braging about "a pattern here", "hurry to censor" and such name-callings. It doesn't anger people, it just makes you look like a fool and might get you banned for reasons of form (not of content). If you think that your point of view is interesting for other people, formulate it in a way that gives it a chance to be featured somewhere. Rama 14:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not sure you should've created the redirect, Rama: the vote was for Delete, not Redirect or Merge. You may find this redirect gets deleted by an admin. Axon 15:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let us call that an experiment. I have created much worse redirects in the past, like common spelling mistakes, which have never been questioned. Rama 15:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Axon, the redirect article has a different title than the Vfd article. Technically, Rama has done nothing wrong. Americanophobia vs. Ameriphobia. We'll see if it survives. If I had done it, I am certain it would immediately be deleted. Thanks to Rama, and for the points listed above. I am certainly not the first to point out bias, blacklisting and "watching" of "problem users" on Wikipedia. I wish criticism could be thought about instead of just shooting the messenger. It's called groupthink. If they want to ban me because they don't like criticism, then it will just be another sorry example of a failed experiment. But thanks for your viewpoint nonetheless.