User talk:IrnBru001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello IrnBru001! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- LittleOldMe 15:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] Re: Bias

I nominate all sorts of non-notable websites and blogs for deletion, regardless of their political association. I would ask that you please assume good faith when dealing with other editors.--RWR8189 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your bias is clear. I assume good faith until you prove otherwise. In fact most of your edits are POV as has been pointed out by others. IrnBru001 19:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
That's nice. If you don't think an article should be deleted, explain why in the discussion and if your argument has any merit, the article will be kept. Thanks.--RWR8189 21:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
As I have. But please refrain from pushing you political bias with AfD. Others have pointed this out to you on your talk page, please heed their words. IrnBru001 15:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The whole purpose of an AfD is that an article should stand on its own. Even if you believe a nomination not to be of good faith, if the article meets the notability requirements set in WP:AFD, the community, not the editor who listed the article for deletion will come to a consensus over whether or not the article should be deleted.--RWR8189 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Two points. First none of that excused you using it as a tool for political bias. Second it is much better to raise these point in the discussion section of the article first so the editors of that article can try to provide the necessary information. The AfD process is NOT an appropriate first step. IrnBru001 15:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your deleting of pandagon

I strongly disagree with your decision to end that discussion. There were no arguments made to support deletion and no one responded to the arguments to keep it. How can this decision be over turned? I'm half temped to just create the article again. IrnBru001 15:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The AFD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pandagon was massively in favour of deletion. However, please do not recreate the article - go to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you believe the article to have been deleted unfairly. Proto::► 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
But this isn't a democracy. The delete crowd ignored the arguments in favor of keeping it, mostly because of political bias. IrnBru001 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, everyone is biased. I am one of the first admins to ignore numbers and take the arguments into account, and this time they really were in favour of deletion. If you do think this was wrong, please, go to deletion review. Proto::► 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you please then explain to me how the criteria was not met? I'm really at a loss. It seems clear that as the standard as written, criteria two was met 4 different ways. I'm a bit confused. IrnBru001 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)