Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/December 2005

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy, per the below and because it's linkspamming. Radiant_>|< 20:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fluterst

User was banned by Fred Bauder. Page exists only to spam the "class action" nonsense and to promote lawsuit threats against Wikipedia. Firebug 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Wikipedia is neither required nor expected to advertise a lawsuit against itself. Xoloz 20:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:NLT xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:37, 1 January 2006 (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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep Hiding talk 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Evidence/Annotated

A fork of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Evidence, created by User:Benjamin Gatti when he was asked to move his comments to their own area rather than interspersing them with the evidence given by other users. Firebug 19:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• So, he was requested to separate his comments, and he did... admittedly, some of his comments can be less than wise, but he needs a space to give his special view of the case in which he is involved. I don't understand this deletion request. Keep unless a fuller explanation is forthcoming. Xoloz 21:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • He was supposed to include his comments in a separate section of the Evidence page, not fork the page. Firebug 21:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd take that complaint to Arbcom. If they are satisfied with his arrangement, fine; if not, they can clarify their instructions. I don't comfortable considering an active Arbcom evidence page here. Xoloz 23:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No reason for him not to have a space to put his comments. Keep --Chazz88 21:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• He has a space to put his comments. Userfy. Radiant_>|< 20:24, 2 January 2006 (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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Hiding talk 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Farrellcurry

Vanity linkspam. User's only contribution not to this page was to list himself as a requested article. Be sure to zorch the image, too. —Cryptic (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete User vanity from (basically) a non-user. Xoloz 06:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, I have sent the image to IfD for aforementioned "zorch"ing. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:24, 31 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Hiding talk 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Red Virus

This was speedy userfied when Karl M. Schwartz was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl M. Schwartz, but it shouldn't have been. Wikipedia is not a free homepage service; user has zero contributions to the encyclopedia except for reposting Karl M. Schwartz several times. —Cryptic (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC) (ps, be sure to zorch the image, too. —Cryptic (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

• Strong Delete I would say BJAODN, but I suppose I shouldn't make light of the gentleman's biography. This is, however, the quintessential vanity page, and a prime example of "vanity" only serving to make its subject seem very sad. Xoloz 05:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• "His catchy slogan "Your Kids Can Shut Up Now" did not catch the eye of advertising agencies, however", rofl. Oh yeah, delete per Xoloz. «LordViD» 09:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:02, 1 January 2006 (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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Hiding talk 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident index

Effectively unmaintained. This has received exactly one non-trivial edit from a human since shortly after its creation in January, and I see no evidence that my attempt to resurrect it with my bot is used or useful. I see less harm in axing it than in fixing the problem that breaks formatting when an unsubsted template is used in a section header, which would entail either an extra two edits to this every day, an extra edit to each archive every day, changing the headers while they're on the live page (possibly incorrectly), or human maintenance (which I'm no longer willing to do). —Cryptic (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and it doesn't get updated when someone decides to archive the entire page at once, including discussions not quite half an hour old. —Cryptic (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that this is pretty pointless, and would not object to deleting it. Radiant_>|< 21:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral, this is specific to the AN, it's not hurting anything, but if a at least 3 sysops vote delete then count me as Delete. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the past is the past.--MONGO 13:36, 5 January 2006 (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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Hiding talk 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) It has been pointed out I should explain my reasoning, a point with which I agree. Although a simple adding of votes gives a 64% favouring of delete, one participant arguing for keep does so on a weak keep, and after reading points made during the debate and also taking into account the discussion and points made in the prior nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sheep vote I have used my discretion and closed as a delete. I have userfied the page at User:SebastianHelm/Sheep vote since I felt there was a strong enough argument for the page being kept either in user space or at meta. Hiding talk 11:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Sheep vote

Pointless page which is used to criticise other's votes. Serves no purpose. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is still here? Kill it. Strange that it survived the previous VFD, while most voters wanted it to be removed from Wikipedia one way or another. - Sikon 06:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The prior discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sheep vote. It was closed as "no consensus".
    • I know. For me, it was a clear consensus: not keep. - Sikon 12:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Baaaaaaa. --Carnildo 09:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you please clarify your vote? - Sikon 12:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It was formerly an attack page, but now it's a description of something that happens a lot. Radiant_>|< 10:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep/Rewrite People use the term, so there should be a page explaining it. I favor severe editorial pruning however. Xoloz 17:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So mention it in Wikipedia:Glossary. The Wikipedia namespace isn't a dictionary anymore than the main namespace is. Delete or possibly move to Meta. —Cryptic (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator provides no reason why this is nominated for a second time.
  I might consider revising this vote if the nominator had the courtesy to add a link to the first nomination and list some new facts. (Which might also help disperse the usual objections to recounts.) — Sebastian (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, someone else has added a link now. I've given my reasoning for why I think it should be deleted. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Page serves no purpose other than to smugly reinforce the prejudices of people who find themselves on the minority side of a given discussion. It encourages people to assume bad faith on the part of discussion participants who hold opposing views, and thus flies directly in the face of WP:AGF. WP:AGF is one of Wikipedia's core principles. Pages within non-article namespace which encourage the exact opposite should be kept only if there is an exceptionally pressing need for that page. As if that weren't enough (and you'd certainly think it would be), it also reinforces the idea that various consensus-seeking processes throughout Wikipedia are votes and not discussions. Overall, a non-trivial amount of harm committed for an absolutely trivial benefit. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Needless and bad criticism of user vote. CG 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Extreme Unction. --Metropolitan90 07:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Baaaa. Ashibaka tock 05:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a genuine problem on Wikipedia (eg Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NickBush24). Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2006 (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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as creator and only significant contributor has requested deletion. (WP:CSD case G7)Hiding talk 11:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Ignore the Arbitration Committee

Either it's WP:POINT, or it's an attempted joke that fails at being funny. Delete. Radiant_>|< 17:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, an appeal to anarchy. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP WAS 4.250 18:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC) below is from that page's talk page:
  "This in the context of and a response to Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights. The reality the article reflects is that the ArbCom has no more power over you than you choose to let it. The reality the article reflects is that the POINT is to build an encyclopedia, not create a wiki-legal system. The reality the article reflects is that people kicked out DO come back under other names, and if they don't cause trouble NO ONE CARES." and
  "This is the only thing that has made me laugh today. Thanks."
  • Actually, the ArbCom can ban or block you regardless of whether you choose to let it. Radiant_>|< 18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Pray tell dear sir; what is the mechanism used to detect such a thing when for example an anonomous user corrects a spelling error? WAS 4.250 18:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Please see Wikipedia:Quick and dirty Checkuser policy. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I looked. What I saw has no relevance to the essay, this deletion vote on the essay or to my question; to the best of my knowledge. WAS 4.250 19:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
          • what is the mechanism used to detect such a thing when for example an anonomous user corrects a spelling error - the Check User process is the mechanism used to determine if an anonymous user is using the same or similar IP address as a blocked user. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Even if I am "not allowed to edit", my girlfriend Miss Notme IS allowed to edit. If one IP is blocked I can use an unblocked IP by any one of several means. The only EFFECTIVE block is a block on a type or style or viewpoint of editing that some idiot persists with even after being clearly and repeated told to cut it out. If that idiot then chooses to let his girlfried use his computer to make good and useful edits that are completely different than the type or style or viewpoint of editing that got him into trouble in the first place; then he, though his alternate persona (Miss Notme), can ignore the arbcom descion and edit Wikipedia. There not only is no mechanism to prevent this, there is no need for a mechanism to prevent this; since the rules exist to help us build an encyclopedia, not to mete out punishment. WAS 4.250 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Without question, Move to userspace. However, as a parody of WP:IAR, I find it not totally without merit.
• Keep in Userspace Xoloz 19:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN or Delete, which ever gets more votes here, if it's a tie then Neutral. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --HappyCamper 02:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously inappropriate, encourages attempts to evade bans. DES ^(talk) 06:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete nonsense --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN as very bad advice Ashibaka tock 04:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I wrote it. Can I call the vote over and I lost?

This was little more than a joke in the first place. I don't want it "in my space". I am not an admin or I'd just delete it myself. The actual and real issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin is what is at stake here. "Screw process" as the ArbCom member says to do or not. Your comments are welcome THERE. Somebody please delete this side joke here. Thank you. WAS 4.250 04:36, 2 January 2006 (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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page'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 as inappropriate nomination. Policy proposal is very new. Discuss potential problems there. Xoloz 06:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Root page

The same concept as signpost articles which were deleted in late November (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (signpost articles) and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 30#:Category:Signpost articles). Essentially duplicates the idea of disambiguation pages. Offers no benefits, but adds yet more complexity to the Wikipedia world - instruction creep and confusion creep! Also was not discussed. Thanks/wangi 19:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Your main reason for deletion is that this duplicates the idea of disambiguation. This couldn't be further from the truth: please read the explanation I put up more carefully. Wikipedia is full of articles duplicating each other's contents. Disambiguation is only for different meanings, not associated topics. If used as a means of tidying up a large page, disambiguation fragments the ideas, leaving no common explanation. This is about hierarchy. Without a Root page, editors fail to spot each other's articles with slightly different (and unexpected) names. The Root page is about coordinating page content, and minimising duplication of effort. It is also different from a Project, which is about cooperating over a body of entries.
  By the way, I didn't discuss here first because I felt that demonstrating (carefully and with the best of intentions) was the clearest way to provide a basis for discussion and bring in comments. I also understood that the articles talk page was a good place to discuss, and I asked for discussion there --Lindosland 22:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  Please think again about this, and leave time for others to consider it. Regards --Lindosland 21:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Root_page" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindosland (talk • contribs) 2005-12-30 22:24:44
• Speedy keep. Um, you're deleting a proposal before it can be discussed because it "was not discussed"? If you disagree with the proposal, add your comments to the talk page. This is a terrible misuse of MfD. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I don't care what it says. A proposed policy doesn't hurt anyone, and it was put up yesterday for crying out loud! Let people discuss it on the talk page. -- SCZenz 05:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep This is an improper nomination. Policy proposal pages still under active discussion, or recent enought that no one knows whether discussion is or will be active, should not be nominated for deletion. If you oppose the proposed policy, say so on its talk page. Most policy proposals don't get anywhere ner approval anyway. DES ^(talk) 05:52, 31 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfied by author, deleted from Wikipedia namespace. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Become a Sysop

A Wikiproject for sharing tips for becoming an admin. OK. Delete. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, unless their already is one. Not sure of nominator's approval when he said OK. -- Eddie 17:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  It was one of those sarcastic "OK"s, I'm afraid. I was rendered speechless by the inappropriateness of such a WikiProject. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not form a become-an-admin club. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - This will almost certainly descend into a group which campaigns to get each of their candidates through the RfA process. While I agree that RfA is broken, I don't agree that pushing people through it by diluting consensus is the way to fix it. If I may be so bold...the people that usually participate in these types of ventures are typically those who are unsuitable for adminship in some way, usually through a lack of understanding of how we do things. Rob Church ^Talk 17:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• :From the talk page: I think we need a place where Sysops can share there success stories so then people interested can follow the examples described on these stories
• :That settles it for me, even further than before. Rob Church ^Talk 19:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy for now. On second thoughts, I don't think anyone was acting out of bad faith here, and I would love to see a combined mentorship and preparation area for people who want to hold the reins. We've got to face that some new admins coming out of RfA are a bit too green. I think, with the right title and attitude, a holding area for resources on what we want in our admins, and what admins need to be able to do, plus a little informal mentorship for some new and eager users, would be infinitely more useful. Rob Church ^Talk 01:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pursuing adminship for its own sake is an almost certain guarantee that you won't get it. Radiant_>|< 18:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure nobody would pursue a promotion "for its own sake" at there job, but people who strive shouldn't have to wait until someone offers it. -- Eddie 20:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per Rob Church. WP is NOT a political venue (at least of the "politics for its own sake variety.) Xoloz 19:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Dan | talk 20:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to IRC CVU WP:GRFA I suppose not. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Rob. Sarah Ewart 23:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, per nom NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 00:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this cruft. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:25, Dec. 31, 2005
• Userfy This could have potential to be something helpful one day, perhaps as a pre-rfa area, but should be developed out of WP space. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  User:EddieSegoura/Ideas/Becoming a Sysop, sigh NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 01:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Sort of forkish, and admin-ship isn't a goal to such an extent that we need a project for it. WP:GRFA is even going a little too far in that direction. Rx StrangeLove 01:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --HappyCamper 06:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Write-off. I see a couple of Userfy votes and I have agreed to do that. I'm writing off the main page and expect it to be deleted soon. Sorry if it offended anyone. -- Eddie 00:17, 1 January 2006 (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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page'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 since it's been MfD'd three times in the past month. FireFox 15:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Essjay/Catholic Church of Wikipedia

Not funny, too controversial and divisive and doesn't help the project of writing the encyclopedia. Furthermore this could scare off or offend the newbies Brandonfarb 15:00, 30 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (copyright violation).

[edit] User:DoomsDayTalk

This is advertising, created by another user and not by the user using this User name. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's a copyvio from http://www.satansrapture.com/DoomsdayTalk.htm. I've removed the content --Nick123 ^(t/c) 17:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Now that it says nothing (except the vio notice, this page is doubly useless. Xoloz 19:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete empty page. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:39, 31 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page'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 the request of the author and only significant contributor (WP:CSD case G7). Rossami (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/Triumph of the Will

This page has been unused and is now irrelevant. Please remove it. Palm_Dogg 06:39, 29 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 06:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Assume bad faith

Moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assume bad faith. No vote. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 10:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Pointless page that doesn't belong in the Wikipedia namespace, nor on Wikipedia at all. - Andrew Northall 09:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The article has been around for several months, all the while pointing out that it is intended as humor and is supposed to be the OPPOSITE way in which Wikipedians should think. It is, admittedly, a very weak candidate for the Wikipedia namespace, and I do not throw my full support behind it, though I think it is a fun little Wikipedian Easter Egg. --Frag 09:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• comment: This nomination shouldn't be here - please take it to WP:MFD Grutness...wha? 09:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article is properly marked as a humor page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and list as BJAODN. If we were to have a parody for this guidline, then what'll stop us from parodying every other policy and guideline? Seems Uncyclopediac to me. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  Well, if they are written as accurate reflections of community consensus, as this page is, I don't think that would be such a bad idea. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 10:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, categorized as a joke. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 10:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Carbonite's law [1]. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:24, Dec. 29, 2005
• Keep as nice sarcasm. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - c'mon guys! It's funny! laugh :) Ta bu shi da yu 11:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a clear joke ... I see no reason this cant stay.  ALKIVAR™ 11:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, decent enough and funny page, linked from meta. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; don't take ourselves too seriously. *Dan T.* 13:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good satire of WP:AGF, it would a pity to lose it. --cesarb 14:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; it's well-justified humor, it's in the Wikipedia: namespace, and labelled as such. -- The Anome 14:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Frankly, the picture sealed my vote. :) Monkey... hehehe. Xoloz 17:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as it's marked as humor and is a decent parody. --Thephotoman 18:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm assuming this is a bad faith nomination. Radiant_>|< 21:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Very funny, though I see no real need for it. Keeping it would mean that we have nonsense where it's not supposed to be. Losing it would indeed by a waste. Therefore, BJAODN is the golden mean. -- SoothingR 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but definitely BJAODN. Keeping it could potentially confuse some users who aren't strong on Wiki policy, even if it is labelled as humour (never underestimate editor stupidity :). Grutness...wha? 23:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — It's mildly amusing and marked as such. No problem that I can see. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 00:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Triona 00:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It does a good job in showing editors how trivial edit wars and ad hominem attacks are, and the necessary disclaimer is there. --Idont Havaname 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN as a self described joke page, it shouldn't be in the main section. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Its funny! - iGod 13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --TantalumTelluride 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, marked as humour.--Sean|Black 00:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Kelly Martin (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oh please, what's the harm? It's clearly marked as not policy. Keep and maybe move to meta. Raul654 09:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep. totally keep; this hatuff has to be out in the open otherwise we're all taking ourselves way too seriously. --Marvin147 10:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, expand and BJAODN, there were some precedents of content that was not deleted appearing on BJAODN. - Sikon 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, funny joke. Neutrality^talk 22:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, humorous and useful. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:49, 5 January 2006 (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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page'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 by Darwinek. Xoloz 19:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Mini mosher

Talk page for deleted article Bjones 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under G8. -- SoothingR 22:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per SoothingR. «LordViD» 23:50, 29 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Portal:United Nations Hiding talk 08:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:UN

Seems to be a copy of the Portal:United Nations and it is in initial form. It should probably merge or be deleted. Eeee 08:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect (assuming redirects work in the portal namespace) - it's clearly a duplicate in purpose. There's little sense in merging portals. --- Charles Stewart 16:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirects work just fine, e.g. Portal:People. —Cryptic (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect if possible, otherwise delete.-- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 03:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per others. To me, it would work like a good shortcut. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:30, 31 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Hiding talk 09:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Skimall

• Speedy delete 1) pure advertisement, no significant content, Vanity. 2)Self-procalaimed dead page Grye 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Even the user sees it as folly, apparently. Xoloz 15:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 03:19, 29 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, because there's opinions all over the place- no consensus to delete.--Sean|Black 21:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria (all)

From what I read on the history this page was created from nostalgia, and since transclusion is a drain on the server, is this page entirely necessary, given it was split in two in the first place? I would argue if it was necessary it would not have been split. Hiding talk 22:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep; while I don't see the point of this page, transclusion like that is also used for MFD, AFD, CFD, FAC, RFC and some other processes. Radiant_>|< 23:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep delete. It's mainly of historic interest now. Wouldn't be too disappointed to see the back of it, but it does have a purpose as there are still a lot of people who don't know the way that WP:WSS has been split. BL kiss the lizard 00:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  i got confused too - it was the other page i was thinking of. BL kiss the lizard 23:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Save anyone coming on there any potential confusion. karmafist 00:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Mild Keep. Has some historic info, might be useful for someone with a high bandwith connection. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep but prune. I don't think it needs to have the transclusion of both the proposal and discovery pages any more (though both need to be strongly linked in to it). There is historical information there worth keeping, though, on a severely reduced page. Grutness...wha? 03:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Whoops, yes - how embarrassing. I was getting it confused with Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria. Mild delete. Grutness...wha? 22:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for historical purposes, and the sake of an accurate record. Xoloz 15:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete Doesn't present anything original, even as an historical pageCirceus 17:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• don't care leaning towards weak delete, it was intended as a transition to a new page hierarchy, and I guess noone uses it anymore (if anyone ever used it at all). Note to all people considering keeping this for historical reasons: Are you confusing this with Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria with its illustrious history? This page's history has all of three edits, one of them the MFD nomination and another one a minor edit for category sorting. Any information on here is also on WP:WSS/C. The "server drain" argument, however, is pretty bogus when looking at how far out of the way this page is (this nomination probably gave it the most visitors it ever had) and that it only transcludes two (admittedly huge) pages. I suspect our wonderful world of *FD is a worse drain by several hundred orders of magnitude. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:05, 31 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete--Sean|Black 21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lwestlie

Userfied after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Westlie, however do we want vanity in the user space? Hiding talk 22:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy, not a real user. Since the user has no edits other than to this page, it shouldn't have been userfied. Radiant_>|< 23:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per Radiant. No real contributions for 6 months now. «LordViD» 03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete User (actually, effectively a non-user) vanity. Xoloz 15:33, 28 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete--Sean|Black 21:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:PENorwood

Probably userfied vanity. Am merely completing of mfd listing after notice placed by UncleG to replace afd notice. Hiding talk 22:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy, not a real user. User has no contribs other than to this page, so page should not have been userfied. Radiant_>|< 00:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sneaky userpage. Actually, the prohibition on anon page-creation may cause a flood of these, since determined clueless users and vandals will need to create an account, and they'll be tempted to do something clueless with their resulting userspace. Xoloz 15:31, 28 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, user seems to have indicated he wishes page kept by removal of notice. Aware that I am closing a debate I nominally started, but am exercising WP:IAR, as listing was only completion of a prcess begun by user. Hiding talk 10:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jubeanation

Probably a userfied vanity page. Merely finishing mfd listing after UncleG replaced afd template with mfd one. Hiding talk 22:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, not a very active user but I don't see anything against their userpage. Radiant_>|< 00:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Even a casual user is free to stick a single quotation on his userpage. Xoloz 15:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Having looked at the first four edits in the page history, it looks like the user listed it themselves, so I've asked them to comment. Hiding talk 16:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That was in August... perhaps the user was testing something? In any event, user has returned recently. I suggest we conclude this with a note to the user that, if he wants his page deleted, he can mark it db|G7. Xoloz 16:38, 28 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete Hiding talk 08:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Accountable 1135/MfD

Completing mfd listing after page created by the placing of mfd notice Hiding talk 22:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete because author requests it? Speedy delete because it's userspace and the user requests it? Or am I missing something? Radiant_>|< 23:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mainly that I was tired and wanted to go to bed and hoped someone else would help tidy up. :) Hiding talk 08:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete and just flagged it as such, as per all of Radiant!'s comments. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:03, 28 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Hiding talk 10:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Paris Streets

While a noble idea... this project violates WP:NOT, specifically "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and previous precedents that we don't keep articles on all streets that aren't numbered or notable (Please see recent discussions on British B roads for examples.) Gateman1997 19:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete is my vote if not clear.Gateman1997 19:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, B-roads in Britain are nn, but this is a wikiproject for (presumably major) Paris streets. Xoloz 21:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Actually their stated goal is for a "short article on every street" in Paris.Gateman1997 21:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• • OK, that needs to change. Where, as here, the Project has a good use not expressed properly in its guideline, the solution is to edit the guideline, not delete the Project. Xoloz 21:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I have so edited, inserting the word "notable". The Project is now within guidelines. Xoloz 21:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - This will be no "list of streets", rather a collection of real articles, and I think we can safely assume that the most notable of Paris' streets will appear first. I for one will not be "dumping stubs" and this is not the intention of this project - its project page makes this pretty clear I think. PS: It would be kind of you to indicate what part of WP:NOT this article violates - this would make your argument clearer. Thanks. ThePromenader 20:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Some Paris streets are obviously notable, and we have similar articles for streets in London and NYC. Xoloz 21:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing wrong with streetcruft. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep major streets of a Global city seem clearly a valid target for a project. Dlyons493 Talk 13:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to again clarify, when this was AFDed the projects focus was not major streets, but all streets in Paris from alleys to blvds... Xoloz has since changed the criteron of the project to protect if from deletion.Gateman1997 20:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, doesn't violate WP:NOT. If you don't like the focus of a project, the solution is not to delete the project but rather to join it and help to form consensus on the project's direction, per Xoloz (good job, Xoloz). JYolkowski // talk 01:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since it explicitly states that the aim is to create articles about notable streets. Paris is hardly far enough off the beaten track to qualify as countering systemic bias, but the aim seems to me both benign and encyclopaedic (and I speak as one who abhors cruft in all its forms). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Xoloz.--Sean|Black 00:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- Rob 08:12, 2 January 2006 (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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasThe result of the debate was Speedied as disruptive/trolling - creator is new account also impersonating an admin. --Doc ^ask? 12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for banning

Wikipedia already has a dispute resolution procedure in place. This page, which was created by an account in its first day, is neither accepted by the community nor useful at all. Hexagonal 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NeoJustin 04:13, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what the policy on deleting Wikipedia namespace pages is, but I think that this should be deleted if there's no big objection. James James 04:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari 04:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Curps' revelation on the creator's user page- User:Thangilikon Trees- this is nothing more than trolling. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, trolling. feydey 04:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. As this is not an article I would say Speedy Keep, but I do think it should go, and have listed it at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Requests_for_banning for deletion. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - this is already being debated here, it is not appropriate to have a second debate in another venue. What happens if there is a divergence of consensus? Endomion 05:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If there were a divergence of consensus, MfD would govern, as AfD has no purview over Wikispace. However, one should have enough faith that both forums can detect junk like this for what it is. Xoloz 05:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Xaosflux created a second discussion instead of simply renaming the existing one. I've fixed the mess. The only contributions lost were from Naconkantari (duplicating the above comment), CanadianCaesar (echoing xyr above comment), and Endomion (duplicating the above comment), and can be found in the edit history of this discussion. Uncle G 05:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and nominate the author for banning, LOL--152.163.100.131 05:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete At best, this confusion creep; at worst, trolling. Xoloz 05:34, 27 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, already transwikied. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Segítség

Just like any page in the article namespace, it has received two weeks to get translated. Even more. I don't believe that we should grant an exception for pages in the Wikipedia namespace that were not written in English. SoothingR^(pour) 17:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This was here before, I think, and the decision was to transwiki. Xoloz 19:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is the Hungarian version of Help:Contents, copied verbatim from hu:Segítség:Tartalom. There's no need to transwiki. - ulayiti (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Already available at Hu, so this is useless. Xoloz 04:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. The Help page already links to "help in other languages". - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:57, 28 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:List of Wikipedian punk rockers

I'm all in favor of user pages and whatnot, but this is a little non-enyclopedic. I say delete and make it a category instead. --D-Day 17:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I moved this to MfD, since this involves a page outside of the article namespace. -- SoothingR^(pour) 19:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and no category. Considering we delete good lists on a daily basis, this must be some kind of joke. Where is the verification? Where is the notability? This may be speediable under the new critiera. The vanity displayed is simply shocking- the ultimate in cruftiness (the only time I will ever use that non-word)-- JJay 18:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and no category. Misconceived and unverifiable. Chris the speller 19:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 20:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if you didn't notice, it's in Wikipedia namespace. It doesn't have to be encyclopedic. It is however highly verifiable because people listed there added their usernames themselves.  Grue  20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedians who are punk rockers should make their own userboxes. Endomion 22:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and create userboxes and categories and whatever. - ulayiti (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia namespace -- making categories for these types of lists is a bad idea both because of the greater server load of categories and the lack of an equivalent to the namespace. siafu 03:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but I wouldn't mind a category. Radiant_>|< 10:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ulayiti. -- SoothingR^(pour) 12:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in favor of a similar category. Xoloz 21:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari 21:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, categorify, or transwiki to Meta, in no particular order. 65.87.191.214 02:00, 29 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was early closure. Do not list official policy pages for deletion - see first item here. Dan100 (Talk) 11:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Profanity

This page directly conflicts with WP:NOT censored for minors. Instead of ignoring it like most people seem to do with policies lately, we might as well get rid of it altogether. karmafist 03:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors nor should it ever be. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; this isn't censorship, it's editorial taste and judgment. —Kirill Lokshin 06:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with Kirill Lokshin completely. «LordViD» 09:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This helps keep me for inserting inappropriate langauge into the article of every <expletive removed by self> Republican politician; good reminder. ;) However, we should all be careful the policy is never overstated: a picture of autofellatio belongs in autofellatio, for goodness' sake. Xoloz 17:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, we need a guidelines on profanity just like other editorial stuff. If you don't like what it says, rewrite it. JYolkowski // talk 18:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a reasonable policy since it allows the use of profanity where it would be appropriate to include it; see Harry Frankfurt for an example where it is appropriate, and this edit for an example where it was not. Note, however, that this is policy (not just a guideline now), and any changes to it should reflect consensus. --Metropolitan90 19:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if only for historical interest (since I don't agree with it). Bad 'policies' shouldn't be deleted, they should be discussed. - ulayiti (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I must be dumb; I'm not seeing the conflict with WP:NOT censored for minors. It's common sense. If you can avoid offending sensitive people and not lose information, don't offend sensitive people. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep -This is currently listed as a policy, but even it it was listed as a guidline, changes or decomisioning should be discussed on it's Talk Page, or perhaps on WP:VPP, not backdoor'ed via MFD. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Like it or not, it's currently listed as official policy, so it shouldn't be deleted through this process; it can be discussed regarding amending or repealing it as a policy in its own talk page. *Dan T.* 05:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Policies get changed with discussion, not deletion, and see Kirill Lokshin's comment for my take on the censorship issue. Also note that the're are numerous time when profanity is appropriate- discussing the "shit" scene in Transformers: The Movie, or the contents of Resevoir Dogs, The Big Lebowski, or Scarface, but the majority of encyclopediac language is not profane.--Sean|Black 05:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this is a good guideline for how to deal with articles that are about profane terms and also about quoting stuff that use profanity. Of course, some will not like it, but remember, what is profane to you might not be profane to me and vice verse. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 08:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - per Kirill Lokshin and stop using MFD to disagree with policies. Discussion, not deletion, is how policy changes here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is the internet. People will be able to see far worse things than the f-word. KI 16:34, 26 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I am closing this MfD early due to overwhelming consensus to delete, and because I can't see any substantative debate other than mostly pile-on delete votes. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This project/organization is an attempt to fix the content of wikipedia along the lines of the religious pov's of the participants. This is an attempt to disrupt consensus finding by deliberately targetting specific deletion votes, in the hope that possible opponents will simply be outnumbered. This attempt at voter canvassing has already happened in two afd's (of Student LifeNet and Gay rights in Iraq) and a cfd (Pro-choice and pro-life celebrities) prior to the creation of this alliance. In all three cases, outsiders were canvassed in order to cast a desired vote. In the case of the cfd, this has worked: the vote was turned from an overwhelming delete to no consensus. Wikipedia has no religion, and the content of wikipedia should never be subject to what a group of followers of a certain religion deem permissible in the eyes of their religion. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 01:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Further consideration: Shanedidona has described the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia to user:Darthgriz98 as "a CAtholic organization for the preservation of conservative values, basically, CAoW is a redily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened. ... Vote Pro-Life!" [2] Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as the nominator. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 01:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep You should give this group a chance, for it has just started. --Shanedidona 01:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I, Chooserr, Agree with the above statement by Shanedidona. Chooserr 01:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per user and Aecis. Deckiller 01:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs) at (09:18, 27 December 2005)

Comment, "...outsiders were canvassed in order to cast a desired vote." I never told any of them which way to vote, indeed a few even voted against me on the matter. So with informing any user you must be prepared to be shot down. And it isn't and shouldn't be against wikipedia policy to ask fellow wikipedians to be involved in a dispute. Especially since they might have an opinion that couldn't be expressed if they were unaware that it had been nominated for deletion. Chooserr 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You have indeed been quite neutral in informing outside users of the afd's. My main beef in this is with Pitchka, who requested 57 users to stop "abortion zealots" who "don't want anyone to think that any celebrity is actually pro-life." This is a clear and blatant request to vote to keep the nominated categories. But although you have been quite neutral in your messages, the behaviour of you, Pitchka and Shanedidona shows a concerted effort to outnumber other voices and fix wikipedia content along pov lines. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm Catholic and pro-life but this should be under the Meta-Wiki system. Endomion 01:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This is no different than some Web forum up for deletion calling on its members to try to swamp the discusssion. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 01:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There are ways in which this could work, but an organization "for rallying votes" specifically violates WP:NOT a democracy. Also, a WP:POINT problem. This is needless partisanship. Xoloz 02:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per the nominator. JeremyA 01:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Xoloz. And I'm Catholic too.--SarekOfVulcan 03:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The group just started. I believe that it is unacceptable that it was nominated for deletion shortly after is materialisation. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment, I already voted, but let me just say that this is an NPOV wiki. Sure, there should be balanced information, but I'm afraid that this group will add POV without seeing it at first. Normally I would NEVER vote for deletion on something like this, but I just feel that there is no need for this one. Deckiller 03:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete blatant POV pushing organization that also is trying to undermine AFD and push their own overall POV. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Move or Keep Would a wikiproject be of more use? Look guys, don't WP:BITE. We don't have that many people knowledgable about specialized groups like Catholics, and there is a serious gap here in people ready and willing to work on articles of this nature. I can count a few who work now, but new blood to help clean up Catholic articles is needed. I can't say we need people here to block LGBT or whomever from speaking, but, we do need people who can work on the many stubs we have in Catholic topics. As far as a faith based group, it doesn't require a Vatican ID card to join and help. Anyone interested would be welcome, unlike some other groups here. Dominick ^(TALK) 03:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If this is simply about adding information to articles relating to catholicism, why is this "a pro-life ... organization for the purpose of rallying voting on articles about topics such as abortion"??? Why is this "a redily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened"??? After all, rallying votes on afd's has nothing to do with what you described above. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I am a pro-life catholic, but I'm going to have to say delete, because it's too biased. There are sites for this kind of view and I encourage you to check them out, but this is an encyclopedia, not a government bill. If celebrities want to say they are prolife, they can get a wiki and get some userboxes that say they are. Although I encourage Catholics to get involved on wiki and start cleaning up articals about the reilgion and make sure nobody puts utter crap in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthgriz98 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per Xoloz. Since this is a discussion, not a vote, I hope the closing admin notes the vagueness and poor relevance of Shanedidona's (the creator of the page) argument "You should give this group a chance, for it has just started", which is the only "keep" reason I see above— Chooserr and Hollow Wilerding merely repeat it. "It has just started" doesn't say anything about the merits of this specific page, but seems to suggest that any new "alliance" page in the Wikipedia space should be kept because it's new, irrespective of merit or harmfulness. Really..? (Edit conflict: Dominick actually argues for the page, I see, though I don't understand why he thinks this "alliance" is anything to do with working on Catholic articles or expanding stubs. Its stated, single, purpose is to votestuff on AFD.) --Bishonen | talk 03:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV pushing collective. Consensus votes every are already tenuous, this basically just makes them more likely to become an organized ochlocracy. karmafist 04:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment, you have totally misunderstood the reason for the creation of this article; We can easily rally votes without it. As for an "organized ochlocracy" I think you might not know what an ochlocracy is. An ochlocracy is a government by the Mob. A mob is never organized. One person attempts to tip the car & everyone starts attempting to tip the car. They don't count heads and vote if the car should be tipped. Chooserr 04:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment, so have you.

The Catholic Alliance of wikipedia is an organization for the purpose of rallying voting on articles about topics such as abortion. This is a pro-life group. [3]

That is the reason for its creation.--SarekOfVulcan 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

So they should start an "Association of Pro-life Wikipedians" on Wikipedia:Meta, that's what its for. Endomion 04:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• I havn't looked into this group enough to vote, but I will note for those who suggest that it become a WikiProject, there is already the WikiProject Catholicism 101. Gentgeen 04:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment,

No you have. That was reverted as VANDALISM, by the creator of this page, and to the best of my knowledge was made by a USER WHO WASN'T LOGGED IN. Chooserr 05:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. Use the page history, please.--SarekOfVulcan 05:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not wrong on all counts just on the part about the user, who turned out to be SPUI (not a Catholic), not being logged in. I came here to change it. So SarekOfVulcan, unless you know what you are talking of please don't. Chooserr 05:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Quote from page history, "(cur) (last) 23:42, 24 December 2005 Shanedidona (rv vandalism)" Chooserr 05:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Chooserr, you're the one that's wrong, please stop with the guessing and actually use the page history (=click on the links called "last" and look at who wrote what). The only thing SPUI added, and Shanediona reverted, was a link. All the text on the page was by Shanediona, including, in fact, practically consisting of, the sentence you call "vandalism", until you recently started editing it yourself. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I Chooserr, have moved a keep comment by glenncando from the articles page where it was placed by accident. This is Glenncando's opinion, and is quoted in full. "I am voting not to delete this organization. glenncando, catholic wikipedian."
  • Not that it matters much, but I have struck this vote. Proxy voting is not allowed on WP -- Chooserr cannot vote on behalf Glenncando. If Glenncando wishes to vote, he must do so properly here himself, complete with proper signature as well. Xoloz 19:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - It would be nice to properly link to Glenncando (talk · contribs), since he didn't sign properly. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Though I'm sure this was created in good faith, the simple fact is that a group named with POV terms is going to be a breeding ground for POV pushers. --InShaneee 05:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if the group is trying to POV-push. --King of All the Franks 07:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Let's give it a try. Everybody has right for his own views. Maltesedog 09:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. - This is has nothing to do with any right to hold or express viewpoints, it has to do with an attempt to overwhelm the AfD process in support of a particular point of view. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Happy holidays to everyone =P Deckiller 12:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - POV AFD ballot-box stuffing should be discouraged in the strongest manner possible. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's early days. Avalon 13:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• The comment below was originally posted on the talk page. I have copied it over to the main vote because I feel it is extremely relevant. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• The keep votes so far:

1. Chooserr - asked to do so by Shanedidona
2. Hollow Wilerding - asked to do so by Shanedidona
3. Dominick - asked to do so by Shanedidona
4. Glenncando - asked to do so by 65.188.159.140
5. Maltesedog - asked to do so by Shanedidona
6. Avalon - asked to do so by Shanedidona
7. Activision45 - asked to do so by Shanedidona
8. Pitchka - received no notice of this mfd

Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the pattern is obvious here. Wikipedia is not a place that should have factions like this, that require recruitment of members after the group is set up. Deckiller 13:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Deckiller, speak not what you know naught of.

I will quote verbatim what I was told, "Sorry to double-post... but anyway: Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. --Shanedidona 01:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)". So as anyone can see I was not "asked to do so by Shanedidona" I was merely informed that it was up for deletion, and asked to vote. I could as easily have voted "delete" as "keep". I'm not sure if you have it in your babel, but there is one template saying "this user believes it's everyone's duty to vote". Well, I was informed of my duty...not as to say yea or nay. Chooserr 00:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - So, you are saying that Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. was not asking you to vote Keep? -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - I highly doubt that it is telling people to keep, or even inspiring them to vote keep. Yes the sender seems to have a POV, but it is informing the user of the current vote first and foremost. Chooserr 01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - You were circumspect in the wording of your messages to Category:Roman Catholic Wikipedians asking them to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay rights in Iraq. I interpret Shanedidona's messages as clearly asking for Roman Catholic Wikipedians to support keeping this page. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

An example would be Darthgriz98's vote. Asked to vote, I believe, by one of the Catholic users. He voted. Chooserr 00:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Darthgriz98 was indeed asked by Shanedidona to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. When (s)he voted to delete the CAoW, (s)he was almost immediately asked by Shanedidona to "please reread the CAoW page and reconsider your vote." If a delete voter is asked to reconsider his/her vote, all the messages Shanedidona left can mean only one thing: please vote to keep this organization. They are not requests to simply join in the discussion, they are requests to vote keep. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 09:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have deleted this as "Not remotely compatible with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've undeleted this until consensus can be reached here. Tony's action was disrpectful to the opinions of all who have come here, and on his behalf, I apologize. While I agree with him on the lack of neutrality in this project, you don't use your administrative powers to push a content POV. karmafist 15:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

  Hear hear! Let's have deliberations, not unilateralism. Particularly, the "not remotely neutral" would be invoked for all the other pages I mentioned below, too. We do not short-circuit debates that are ongoing, and we ought not even when a candidate is an unambiguous speedy delete candidate (which this one was not): once people deliberate, let them form consensus. Geogre 16:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  Well done and well said, Karmafist. - Tεxτurε 18:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom, Tony Sidaway. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This serves only to promote factionalism Pilatus 16:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Tony Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The purpose of their group, as stated, threatens NPOV, and I cannot see a positive use to the project. It would be one thing if they were solely interested in improving information about the catholic church and related topics, but this is instead about pushing values in the decisionmaking process on Wikipedia. This runs directly counter to the project goals of Wikipedia, and regardless of the result of this vote, should be deleted for those reasons. As a sidenote, wikipedia should've probably been capitalised. --Improv 17:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Tony. That being said, I do think we should let vote finish, and the more deletes we accumulate the stronger the message that the community as a whole thinks this is rubbish. But WP:NPOV is quite non-negotiable. -- SCZenz 17:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A Catholic Alliance should be dedicated to well written articles about catholicism, not about maintaing POV forks on Abortion. Serves no clear purpose focused on Accuracy or Neutrality, and can easly damage both.--Tznkai 18:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Divisive, operates against WP:NPOV, and most of the other reasons people have given above. FreplySpang (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I have serious NPOV questions about this page. Ral315 (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 20:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. the wub "?!" 20:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Everyone is entitled to thier own views. It wont hurt to have this page. --Activision45 21:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In everyday life, everyone is indeed entitled to their own views. But on wikipedia, only the neutral point of view counts. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The implementation is poor, but the sentiment is there to provide a way to talk about what needs work, part of that is rendering opinions in AfD discussions. I was not told HOW to vote, and my vote was not a simple keep. I know for a fact every human being has a PoV, nobody is born with NPoV. It is dishonest to think that a person has pure motives all the time. That being said, if it is NPoV to group together as lesbians, drug interested people, and other groups then these guys have a right to start. My suggestion was to merge not keep, and people who are Catholic often ask or solicit opinions of others, since Catholic theology is a specialized subject. Dominick ^(TALK) 21:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
      • "Rendering opinions in AfD discussions" is not part of this alliance, it is this alliance. That is it's only goal, and that's why the alliance is explicitly described as "a readily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened." That means that this alliance has only one mission: articles about pro-life groups should not be deleted, we will make sure that they won't be deleted, and we will do so by swamping deletion discussions in an attempt to outnumber others. You said that you have not been told how to vote. Yet Shanedidone asked you "to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia." Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I also want to note that by using NPOV, Wikipedia is not suggesting that it does not make one "pure" to have religious or political meanings. In many parts of life, these are a good thing -- personally I think that people who live life without some kind of value system are missing out on a big part of what it means to be human. Pure motives have nothing to do with it -- it's rather that on Wikipedia, in order to produce a good encyclopedia, we have a policy of NPOV that helps keep articles looking as they should and keeps our community as inclusive as we can expect to be. Our insistance on NPOV is not meant to be a sneer on people with a viewpoint, because, being human, most of us have viewpoints on these things too. It's just something we must insist on for the good of the project. --Improv 04:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While there is nothing wrong with people getting together and co-ordinating work, this group is an example of what WikiProjects should avoid doing. The original wording that was used to describe the group sounded like POV pushing and that should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• CommentOk, have we achieved consensus here? I think Tony was stretching, thus giving reasoning for those who voted Keep to feel they were shafted and they would be justified in recreating, but he's right, this should be deleted. karmafist 22:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The current "score" is 26 33 deletes (when counting Tony's act of deleting as a delete vote) against 7 keeps. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Kill it with fire. Ambi 23:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Karmafist, unless you can see unquestionable grounds for speedying it, you'd better let it run the full course, so they can't claim they didn't have time to properly defend the entry.--SarekOfVulcan 00:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Poxes on all houses: Let me explain. I am 100% against the deletionist page, the inclusionist page, the mergist page, Schoolwatch, and all other hitlist pages. I do not agree with busing voters, but there is something far more important here than that. Once an issue-oriented vote group forms, it becomes necessary to find things to vote on. Points are awarded for finding anti-Catholic sentiment. I.e. it is programmed from the start to find the issue, and if there is no issue, it will still be found. Further, it works to discourage independent thinking, and, most of all, its members are encouraged to not read the articles, not read the deliberations, not consider the arguments, but rather to save time by following the helpful link and astroturf a vote. This is the way to destroy Wikipedia. So, delete this, delete Schoolwatch, delete m:inclusionists, delete all instavote pages everywhere. I know it's tough, but people are just going to have to think for themselves and consider articles on a case by case basis. Geogre 01:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say this is worse than inclusionists or deletionists. Both groups have an agenda about how to format the encyclopedia, which they think would improve it. This page has a real-world agenda, which they want to impose on Wikipedia. Big difference! -- SCZenz 03:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's worse because it's issue oriented, and issue oriented "projects" find the issue in ever more unlikely places. (The countering systemic bias has fallen victim to that to some degree.) It's worse than the run of the mill issue oriented project, too, because it's an issue that isn't present but which they seek to impose. It's worse still because it's about only one part of one issue (abortion). So I agree that this is an extremely deletable page. I was just saying that, even if none of those things had been true, I would have been in favor of deleting on the basis of astroturf (US term for "false grassroots organizing"). Geogre 12:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • While I vote delete below, I disagree that the associations on Meta should also be deleted. Unlike this group, Inclusionism/Mergism/Deletionism have no real world POV that they are trying to push, they are views on how best to build an encyclopedia (why we all are here after all), nothing more. ++Lar 14:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I can come up with any sane justification for the project in anything like it's current form.Geni 03:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all POV-pushers. Oh, we can't delete the people? OK, delete the page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promotes divisions into factions. There ought not to be a catholic alliance of wikipedia nor a protestant alliance of wikipedia nor a muslim alliance of wikipedia nor anything else of this sort. --Pierremenard 03:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre's reasoning. --Carnildo 08:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Locke Cole 10:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all groups that aim to push a specific POV through vote-stacking. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or transform into a proper wikiproject. (For the record, I find it very disturbing that people think it is wrong to notify potentially interested parties that a vote is going on. The notice on my talk page was simple and did not contain any incorrect characterization of this vote. Notices to demolish the Earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass should be not posted only in the basement of the planning office on Alfa Centauri, nor should people only be informed in dolphin-speak.) With apolgies to Douglas Adams — Eoghanacht ^talk 13:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment it is clear that this is a vote rally by Shanedidona is going on; on Christmas Eve, the user was placing CAoW tags on about two or three users per minute for a total of a 50-60 users. Deckiller 14:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bogdan 14:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as a Catholic m'self. Wikipedia is factionalised enough as it is (and probably doomed to become more so). Deliberate efforts to speed up the process are not welcome. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain but Comment. I have no interest in keeping or deleting this project. However, I think it was quite inappropriate to delete it while the voting was taking place, and I commend Karmafist for undeleting it (presumably only temporarily). I don't particularly like getting messages from people I don't know asking me to vote on something I've never heard of, though it doesn't send me into convulsions of fury either. But if canvassing for votes is condemned, then sending a request for help to an administrator who has previously shown himself to share one's views on such issues is perhaps a bit "iffy" as well. The validity of votes should depend on whether or not the voters are established members of the community, not on whether or not they found this page by themselves. I'm not going to vote to keep this alliance, but if I did, I would expect my vote to be treated as being absolutely as valid as anyone else's AnnH ^(talk) 15:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • • • Ann, I share your dislike of the premature deletion. I'll add, though, one point where we might disagree. Since deletion on WP is by consensus, not vote-counting, I believe the closing admin would be within his/her discretion to inquire whether a organized voting-lobby, admittedly built simply to influence these deletion debates, improperly affected the outcome. Discounting some "votes" by members of such a lobby might be in order as sound consensus-seeking process. Xoloz 19:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP The user who put this up for deletion has made anti-Christian statements on Wikipedia and has lied about me to other users. He also eavesdrops on other users talk pages and follows users around. The fact that this user is the one who nominated this section speaks volumes. Dwain 18:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't see how the nominator's behavior is relevant to the merits of deleting this page. If the nominator has acted in bad faith, there are other channels for dealing with that. Making these accusations here looks to me like an attempt to obscure the issues under discussion. And by the way, how do you figure that it's improper to read other user's talk pages? There is no expectation of privacy in Wikipedia. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 19:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Off-topic, but out of curiosity: where have I made anti-christian statements? (Since this is unrelated to this mfd, could you answer at my talk page?)Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 20:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - If you are Catholic and you wasted their time by voting to delete you get a nastygram on your user page. Endomion 22:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete.--Sean|Black 23:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I was raised Catholic, and this Catholic League of Decency-style attempt to organize a Catholic-POV voting bloc (as User:Shanedidona's message made clear this is, is reprehensible on so many levels. And Chooserr's excuse for his and Shanedidona's attempt to stuff this ballot box are laughably transparent. --Calton | Talk 00:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Especially disturbing is this addition to the article, which was later deleted. ^BlankVerse 00:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bjelleklang - talk 01:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We condemn and declare it to be anathema. We declare anathema equally those who instigated this new error. - Outerlimits 02:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, har, har. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, divisive.-gadfium 02:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete They are vandalising Jewish articles making them into christian ones, they are a cause of huge fights, the sooner they grow up the better. 220.233.48.200 02:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Users without an account typically are not considered to be able to contribute to a consensus on AfD --Improv 03:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I, for one, would like to know more about which articles this happened on. -- SCZenz 14:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Bless it with the delete button. POV pushers. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- I've had a chance to look at the "Alliance" and its actions, and can find no good reason for it to exist. I'd like to suggest that users that are interested in this subject area look at the fairly small and somewhat less-than-active WikiProject Catholicism 101, and contribute to the Encyclopedia in a positive manner. Gentgeen 06:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I am a Catholic, but this group obviously isn't meant to do much. Quote from the article's page: "The Catholic Alliance of wikipedia is an wiki-organisation intended to nurture and keep wikipedia's pro-life/pro-catholic articles and categories. It is not intended to eliminate all pro-choice articles, nor intended to skew any results." Even if all the group's members promise, and manage, to uphold that bit about no skewing, the group has a mission statement that is wrong. Considering all pro-Catholic articles pro-life is a fallacy. Yes, the Catholic church is pro-life. But this is not the Catholic church's only point of belief. This is plain wrong, and I would prefer if my religion's beliefs were not oversimplified like this (and it's even more disappointing to realize that this is a group of Roman Catholics doing this). Roman Catholicism deals with other things too. If this group were just about nurturing "pro-Catholic articles and categories," it might be worth keeping, but the WikiProject should do that I imagine. But this obviously goes against the mission of the group. I would have to say that this group almost seems to want to covertly work on pro-life by tacking on the pro-Catholic part, so it can seem more useful or more NPOV than it really is. Mred64 07:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Generally, I am pro-life, but in regards to this POV-pushing club I am pro-delete --Doc ^ask? 11:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - if this is kept, I think I'll found an 'Association of LEGO fans' and push for the vast expansion of all pro LEGO articles ++Lar 14:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Terms like rallying voting, preservation of conservative values, Vote Pro-Life!, etc are statements that only politicians make! Cheers -- Szvest 15:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}
• Delete - page seems to be advocating disruption of wiki standards novacatz 16:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in accordance with process. Not during an AfD discussion. - Tεxτurε 17:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per all above comments. Extraordinary Machine 19:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- User:Getcrunk 19:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Campaigning of this type against our policy of neutrality must be stamped out ruthlessly, deleted on sight. In accordance with this I again delete this project page. There is a clear and insurmountable consensus to delete this, and even if there were not it and every project page like it would still have to be deleted because of its conflict with that policy. Please do not restore this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with Tony on this. Campaigning against neutrality has no place on Wikipedia, regardless of consensus. It is heartening that people oppose it enough to vote delete on it so much, but things so obviously against a core tenet of our community should not even come to a vote. --Improv 20:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I have undeleted it. I agree that there will certainly be consensus to delete this. That is a lousy reason to not let our consensus deletion process run its course. Thanks in advance for not trying to cut short the debate another time. Nandesuka 20:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree. Thanks, Nandesuka, for restoring it, which, I think, shows more respect for the community. This is getting like a 3RR war now. I have no doubt that the final outcome will be to delete, but I think it would look better if, when that happens someone other than Tony deleted it. I'd be happy to do so, when there's general agreement. AnnH ^(talk) 21:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as ballot-stuffing. If it can be re-organized as a way for Catholic Wikipedians to contribute to subjects which require specialized knowledge of Catholicism, then keep, but the current mission statement of the group suggests organized punditry. -Kyd 20:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic...not an article...not a forum...no content...unreferenced....this is a speedy based on those reasons. The best option for the creator of this is to userify it.MONGO 20:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Emphatically Strong Delete as per Jtkiefer It is only a matter of time before people of like minded POV will organize and destroy or change the democratic voting process on wikipedia. And whats wrong with that? After all God has the same POV, just ask the organizers of Catholic Alliance of wikipedia if you don't believe it. Travb 21:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV pushing. And I completely support Ann's comments. Sarah Ewart 22:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Please stop restoring this page. It must be deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony, it seems that for you to keep deleting it is the administrator's equivalent of a 3RR edit war over content. I appreciate that you believe it's POV, although those who created it wouldn't agree. But one of the reasons that 3RR is allowed in cases of simple vandalism, but not in the case of POV-pushing, may be that an individual Wikipedian is not the best judge of neutrality and bias — we all think that our POV is the neutral one. You have shown, by the number of times you've deleted this page, that you feel a personal involvement, which again is why admins are not allowed to protect pages they edit, or block people they are in conflict with. As it says in the 3RR guideline, if it really needs to be done, someone else will probably do it. AnnH ^(talk) 23:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony, Please stop simultaneously violating deletion policy and trying to substitute your personal beliefs for community's consensus. Even if you are doing the "right" thing, it is insulting to every single person who has participated in this discussion. No matter how they feel about the underlying topic. The AFD will close in a few days. The article has been restored by no fewer than three administrators. Please behave. Since you feel so strongly about this issue, perhaps you should propose a new criterion for speedy deletion under which it (and similar articles that show up in the future) could be speedily deleted by any admin, and not just by one who is willing to ignore all rules. That, I suggest, would be a more productive use of your time. Nandesuka 23:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'm deleting this page because there's an obvious consensus to delete it and, even if there wasn't, a campaigning page contrary to our neutrality policy must be deleted on sight. No group should ever be permited to abuse our webspace in order to campaign against our neutrality policy. Honestly if 1000 people voted for keep I would still delete this page again because it cannot be permitted exist on WIkpiedia. Let them campaign elsewhere, but not on our webspace and not with people arguing that they have a right to do so. Let it die. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • And I'm restoring it because a debate is taking place. Please stop doing that, it's not helping anything.--Sean|Black 00:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • (After edit conflict) Why does it have to be deleted immediately? Why can't you let the community do the right thing on its own, as it obviously is? You're not the only user who's read WP:NPOV, or who has good judgement and common sense, Tony. Almost nobody says that page should be here; let it die with all the delete votes we can muster. -- SCZenz 00:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• It has all the delete votes it needs. It must not exist in any case. I will delete it again. Pleqse stop recrearting this page that really has no reason to exist. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Musical linguist, whom I greatly respect, has recreated this page. It must still die. It must die as soon as possible. No page resembling this, a campsign against our neutrality policy, must ever be allowed to exist for one minute. Please kill this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your respect, Tony. In return, I'll say that I respect much about you, in particular your ability to work with (and vote for) people with whom you've had disagreements in the past — something I've noticed in the last few months. However, I fail to see what harm that page is doing in the course of its remaining short life. If it were a very POV article rather than project (i.e. likely to be read by the general public) and if for some reason, it couldn't be de-POVed, I could understand (though I mightn't agree with) people jumping in "for the good of Wikipedia", out of concern for the harm done when people read biased articles in an encyclopaedia that so proudly proclaims its neutrality. Yes, kill it, you might say. But how many voting results are going to be skewed between now and the time that that page is lawfully deleted? The answer is: none. That page is doing absolutely no harm other than annoying those who want it gone. I'd have no problem if you deleted because a consensus had been reached. (To my shame, I must admit that despite having been promoted over a month ago, I still haven't familiarized myself with policy as to how long a vote for deletion should go on.) However, you keep saying that you're deleting because such a page must not exist, and that you'd delete if everyone wanted to keep it (or some such words. That sounds as if you have the authority to decide what's accpetable on Wikipedia. I'm not comfortable with that. Sorry. I'm also puzzled that you'd keep doing this when I've noticed that you're far stricter than I would be about 3RR violations. Anyway, I fail to see how this is different from edit warring and violating 3RR on an article content because you think it's POV, and I also fail to see how it differs from using admin powers to get your own way. I suggest you sleep on this. Perhaps someone else will agree with you and delete it instead. You've got too closely involved at this stage, in my view. AnnH ^(talk) 00:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Annh well I opened an arbitration case against myself because clearly I cannot get myself to agree with the prevailing mood and frankly it's getting a bit riduculous. Thank you for your very respectful comments. They are greatly appreciated coming from someone I respect so much. I remain a great fan of yours, whatever the outcome. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to User:Sam Korn/Catholic Church of Wikipedia :P -- grm_wnr Esc 01:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Organizations of Wikipedians by POV are totally and utterly unacceptable. David | Talk 01:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Organized POV-pushing is definitely a no no. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Adam Bishop's law strikes again Raul654 01:32, 28 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Worldwealth

Advertising. User's only edit was Worldwealth, which I speedy deleted as it contained nothing but a list of websites the company runs. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Spam. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 05:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Xoloz 14:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. «LordViD» 00:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all spam. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- The Anome 14:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. They can do what they want with it. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, no, they can't. Advertising on User pages is deleted regularly. See also Wikipedia:User page#What should I avoid? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:06, 30 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page'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 - Look below for why. Hedley 23:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Gone Wild

This project has nothing to do with making an encylopedia xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete— per nom, should be deleted or at least moved to meta. // Pathoschild 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This isn't really a "project". This is one in a long series of collections of comments, articles and contributions which, yes, are inappropriate to the encyclopedia but which were so bad that people thought they were funny. Kind of like an outtakes reel for a movie. They were sliced out of the encyclopedia space (because they're not encyclopedic) but kept because they have some value for stress-relief. I personally don't find most of them to be funny (though a few are hilarious) but others clearly do. These pages may not help the encyclopedia but isolated as they are, they don't really hurt the encyclopedia either. Regardless, they should not be moved to meta. These are outtakes from the creation of the encyclopedia and are not particularly relevant to the rest of the WikiMedia projects. Rossami (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. BJAODN is a necessary holding place for all our hilariously unencyclopedic jokes. Johnleemk | Talk 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's room for some humour outside the main workspace. This is a form of one of our longstanding traditions, and is as such a cherished part of Wikipedia culture. --Improv 18:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important part of Wikipedia culture. Punkmorten 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. A long tradition on Wikipedia, clearly separated from article and workflow pages. OTOH, I would suggest regulal pruning of those long lists to get rid of the unfunny stuff.Zocky 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Big part of Wikipedia culture. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a necessary evil, and sometimes it's actually funny. PJM 18:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- There is a longstanding precedent that pages within Wikipedia space can be dedicated to Wikipedia-related humor, e.g. the one-millionth-topic pool. → Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 18:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Keep Keep Keep Keeeep Keep Keep Keep Keep - SoM
• Super Glue Keep - I can't believe someone wants this deleted. It's one of the oldest articles on Wikipedia, and there is no need to have it removed. Yes Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it can't have it's lighter moments. Please keep and I hope I never see BJAODN on the deletion page again.(Besides, this is a nomination to have just one subpage of BJAODN deleted, and not the actual project itself. --D-Day 19:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• That thingy in a castle Sceptre ^(Talk) 22:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. (That's a keep, btw.) RMoloney (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• (CTU) 5002 rebmeceD 12 ,65:22 [klat]0oM .ereh gniod m'I tahw ekil ,tcejorp suoires esiwrehto na no ssenillis rof gnivarc ruoy llifluf ot deen ouy nehw rof taerg si esnesnoN deteleD rehto dna sekoJ daB .peeK
• Of course we should keep this! --Kuroki Mio 2006 23:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Serves a necessary function as an outlet for stress relief for Wikipedians. Keeps a lot of craziness out of the article space. Has a long tradition. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 23:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• keep as per everyone above who's given a good reason for keep. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 21 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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was boldly speedily deleted. BD2412 T 03:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Maple Bookmark Manager

Delete: This is nothing more than spam. ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. —Preost ^talk contribs 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Edgar181 21:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- JJay 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not “Wikipedic.” How has this managed to remain in the Wikipedia for six months with no one finding it and nominating it? •DanMS 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Flyboy Will 22:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Commercial advert. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 16:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. // Pathoschild 17:06, 21 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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was out of MFD scope. Radiant_>|< 20:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sept11 Memorial Wiki

In the early days of Wikipedia, the September 11 Memorial Wiki was created as a spin-off of the regular English Wikipedia. It is in many ways an aberration. Although it uses the Wikipedia name and domain name, it does not follow any of the rules of Wikipedia (such as NOV, original research, etc.) and basically acts as a separate project. It has not been actively maintained in years (as you can tell by the outdated logo), and has become a playground for vandals. Useful content from the Memorial wiki should be merged back into the English Wikipedia where appropriate, and perhaps some of the more personal content can be moved to Wikibooks. The project itself, however, is not relavent to the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation or the Wikipedia community (that being the creation of an encyclopedia). Thus I believe that sep11.wikipedia.org should be deleted. As the project was originally a spin-off of the English Wikipedia, I think this is the most appropriate place to discuss merging it back. Discussions about this issue on Meta have not attracted enough attention to be useful. Kaldari 20:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Since MFD can only decide on pages within the English Wikipedia, please take this discussion to Meta instead. Radiant_>|< 20:46, 19 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Superceded by events/redirect

[edit] Template:User harm

Redundant. There are two sets of harmonica player templates, and I think the "harmonica" ones are more appropriate than the "harm" ones. Dancingbanana204 01:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps this belongs instead on Templates for deletion? Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, per Titoxd. This belongs in Templates for Deletion. «LordViD» 13:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• That's not a speedy keep, it's a "speedy move to the correct process". However, in this case I've fixed the problem by simply redirecting this template to the better one. Radiant_>|< 16:40, 19 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was inappropriate and orphaned listing, re-listed at WP:CFD. Hiding talk 20:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Time Travel devices

This category is named "Time Travel devices". According to my understanding of Wikipedia policy, only the initial letter is supposed to be capitalized unless it is a name. Since there is no way (that I found) to rename a category, I made the category change in all of the affected articles. Now that this category is empty, it should be deleted. Val42 18:58, 17 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page'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, as it's a proposed policy. It will either pass or fail, and as it's not in the main namespace it really shouldn't be here. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org

An attempt to argue that Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (religioustolerance.org) is not a valid reference in Wikipedia articles. User:Jguk, who created this (and is its only editor), is already quoting it as if it were policy. This belongs in talk or user pages, not the primary Wikipedia namespace, where its presence might confuse people. Firebug 12:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Jguk has gone on a spree through Wikipedia deleting all cites to this website. It should be noted that religioustolerance.org has been on the Internet for 10 years and gets many millions of hits per week. [5] Furthermore, it gets ranked quite highly by most search engines and by many review sites. Next to all that, frankly, jguk's opinion doesn't count for much. Firebug 12:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it is useful, though needs to make clear it's not policy. — Dunc|☺ 12:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Firebug is right - because references to this website do not belong in a serious encyclopaedia. It is not an academic site, it is just a collection of essays by a man who quite freely admits he has no academic training whatsoever in the subject-matter he writes about. None of his essays is peer-reviewed (and a lot are of very poor quality). His "group", as his website freely states, consists of only five people. We're here to write a serious encyclopaedia sourced from proper academic sources. This website has all the reliability of a blog, and we don't allow my mates' blogs as a reference (or as a link) on Wikipedia. How many visits a website is immaterial here - it is a question of reliably sourcing information on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org page outlines some of the problems with this website. It also makes clear that although Religioustolerance.org should not be used as a reference on Wikipedia (because it is unreliable), that does not mean that information on that website is necessarily wrong - it means that it should just be referenced from elsewhere, jguk 12:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • First of all, this vote is out of order, as creators aren't allowed to vote keep on their own articles, only to comment. Secondly, what matters is that OCRT's articles are sourced, well-written, popular, and generally respect NPOV - they are not polemics for one side, nor unsourced rants, which makes your comparison to blogs wholly inappropriate. All you have said is that one of the OCRT authors doesn't have certain academic credentials, but so what? Would you disqualify citing microsoft.com for a computing issue since Bill Gates dropped out of college? (Admittedly a reducio ad absurdum, of course.) If you limit cites to peer-reviewed journals, 90% of the external links on Wikipedia would be off-limits. Your statement that the essays are of "poor quality" is just your own opinion, and apparently a lot of other Internet users don't share it, or the site wouldn't be as popular as it is. Firebug 13:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This should not have been sectioned off of WP:V; it gives the appearence that it is policy (!). El_C 12:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • By all means label it as a place for centralised discussion. It seems far better to discuss any points arising in one place (ie the Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org page) rather than on three dozen different talk pages, jguk 12:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Your references to it in your mass reverts falsely imply that it is policy. Firebug 12:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Why three dozen? Just section it off off jguk; same thing, but not in the project namespace. El_C 12:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
        • jguk, please wait before reverting en mass (and calling the reverts "restore edit", which I found confusing). I'm undoing these until this issue can be discussed. Let's avoid a revert war and come up with a formula. El_C 13:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Then they will never get discussed. Stop edit-warring and discuss the issue, if you want is resolved. Merely reverting all the time and refusing to discuss an issue that affects a fair number of our articles isn't what WP is about, jguk 13:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
            • If you want to mass delete links, it is your responsibility to get consensus first. You are trying to strong-arm people into discussing the issue on your terms. Firebug 13:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Jguk, I didn't edit war. I would have undone your changes, but someone else beat me to it while writing the above. El_C 13:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A conversation is ongoing on the talk page; basically, it is a proposal of a specific example of WP:V. Deleting it at this point would be premature. I agree that it should be appropriately labeled to avoid confusion. Nandesuka 13:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have added the {{proposed}} tag to the page to avoid confusion. Given that, I'd like to ask firebug to withdraw this MFD until the conversation reaches consensus. Nandesuka 13:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, deletion was premature, but this should'nt have been sectioned off of WP:V, to begin with. El_C 13:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the issue needs to be discussed. And since when aren't creators allowed to vote to keep their own pages? --Angr (t·c) 14:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding that question, Firebug's changes made it appear as if Jguk added the strike out. Let me expand my caution to Firebug: if s/he ever feels the need to modify the comments of other editors, s/he must do so with a diff as per clear attribution of comment text. Something along these lines will do: X's comment was modified by Y diff. 14:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC) El_C 14:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC) El_C 14:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete -- this page is freaking pointless, it's just a personal attack on a website by a person with proven extreme bias. Any discussion about the topic can and should be done elsewhere, this is not the place for it, and leaving it here gives extra assumed weight to something that deserves none at all. DreamGuy 14:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, This is an attempt to calumniate and dismiss a reputable, useful resource, authored by a group of earnest, knowledgeable laypeople who attempt to remain in a neutral point of view. Sound familiar? Carolynparrishfan 14:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete page and save discussion there is nothing wrong with religioustolerance.org - if you check any of their articles they have a references section with clearly cited sources. Or are those sources biased as well? IMO if we can use www.omniglot.com as a source (and we do), then we can also use religioustolerance.org. Izehar (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No--more than that: if Wikipedia can exist, then we can use religioustolerance.org. Carolynparrishfan 14:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• As a number of different contributors to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org have already pointed out the sources (1) are often misquoted; (2) are ignored in coming to the articles conclusion; and (3) are, if anything, more likely to be better references for Wikipedia (as they will be secondary sources), than this tertiary source. I don't understand why you are trying to use this mechanism to delete this discussion. Anyone's welcome to join it, jguk 14:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• But are the parallels to criticisms we as Wikipedians receive not disturbing? Carolynparrishfan 14:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• There are many other problems we have with unreferenced or poorly referenced information with Wikipedia - and we should seek to improve the situation. The comment above about omniglot.com is worrying. I don't know that website and haven't come across it here as yet on WP - but if it's not a good source, we should stop using it too, not use its continued use as a justification for using other poor sources. Maybe we need a Wikipedia:Verifiability/Omniglot.com if it's a problem. Anyway, reliability of sources is a serious issue - this is a proposal dealing with one problem of many. If you wish to comment on the specifics, please come along and discuss them, but it's not appropriate to try to silence these discussions by deleting (and thereby banning) them, jguk 15:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, Omniglot is a website that tries to show the alphabets used in every country and language in the world... They're a good site, I've been using them as a source myself lately, but I don't take every single statement on there as the gospel. The same should go for any website. Some should get an A, some should get a D or a F... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- this is a valid proposed policy, it is in the right place, I was under no illusions that it was an existing policy, owing to the clearly marked 'prosed policy' template at the top, and I think the policy ought to be voted on in a proper vote as to whether it should be made wikipedia policy. Trying to kill off the procedure without giving people a chance to discuss the real issue here is staring to resemble partisan polticking. (And if I write the word strong, can my opinion count some more? :o)) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The "proposed" tag was not there when I posted the deletion notice. Firebug 14:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, "Strong" is simply a qualitative notation. It has no bearing on the tabulation of votes Carolynparrishfan 14:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete -- the user is simply pushing his anti-religioustolerance.org agenda. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 15:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The religioustolerance.org website is suspected by many, including Skeptic Tank, to be a front or a shill for Scientology. True or not, their coverage of the Scientology hostile takeover of Cult Awareness Network is completely whitewashed in their reporting, [6] and their comments about Scientology are so warm, glowing, and non-critical that Scientologists themselves link frequently to the site. Whether they're controlled by the CoS or not, their kissy-face relationship with them and direct connections to them disqualify religioustolerance.org, in my view, as being a serious and impartial resource. wikipediatrix 15:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What?! I've never even heard such allegations! And Skeptic Tank looks to me to be a far nuttier/fringier site than religioustolerance.org. OCRT are very transparent about their religious leanings. (Most of them are agnostic.) Carolynparrishfan 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Compare religioustolerance.org's page about Scientology to Wikipedia's Scientology article. Religioustolerance.org completely glosses over and ignores the major controversies regarding Scientology and dismisses their opponents as "Attacks by the anti-cult movement". No mention of Operation Clambake. No mention of Lisa McPherson. Their 'overview' of the CoS reads like a press release and even regurgitates, unquestioningly, the church's inflated statistics about themselves. The idea that religioustolerance.org is slanted with a pro-Scientology bias is also discussed here. wikipediatrix 19:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It is certainly legitimate to discuss the use of a certain website as a reference. It should be done more often in more cases. u p p l a n d 15:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have found religioustolerance.org to be a useful and informative site, and it cites its references. If we're going to criticise them for not being experts, then firstly a vast number of cited links on Wikipedia will have to be deleted, and secondly, this is the same criticism people make of Wikipedia. I also dislike the way Jguk is reverting edits, insisting that these links be removed until decided otherwise, as if this policy was official, even though it turns out to only be a proposed policy. Mdwh 16:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any source is subject to question, regardless of whether it is in hard copy or on the Web, and regardless of how many academic degrees its author has or lacks. The religioustolerance.org website is frequently referred to mostly because it is a handy compilation of material about religious beliefs and practices, not because it is infallible. We don't need a verifiability policy that makes it as a specific target; that in itself smells of POV axegrinding. Smerdis of Tlön 16:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userify One individual's opinion of the biases of site belongs in his userspace, not wikispace, where it has the appearence of authority. Xoloz 17:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you read Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org you will find a number of editors who share my concerns, and even a request to have a similar sort of discussion about other websites that are used to source multiple articles on WP. Reliability of sources is an important issue - I'm not surprised that a number of editors in different fields, including those who I disagree with on a number of other issues, are equally concerned about this, jguk 18:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, terrific. Every source, ideally, should be investigated. Why not userspace? I'm sure you have colleagues who share your concerns, and others who disagree. Namespace carries a certain formal weight that shouldn't be applied to disputed content, whether it's a source evalution of the Nation, or National Review; of this site, or of Anti-Flouridationists of America. My opinion here is nonpartisan - source evaluation is admirable, but it's messy, so move it to userspace, unless there is a consensus on a source. Xoloz 23:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Religioustolerance.org has valuable information, but it shouldn't be used as an authority. Having this wiki page reminds editors that it's not a great reference in case of disputes. I also don't appreciate jguk coming to one of my pages and deleting the link. Cuñado - Talk 19:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice as regards recreation in userspace. Much disapproval here over jguk's attempt to create a seeming policy page and then use it as justification for massive reference removal without first going through a process of gaining consensus. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Revised opinion: Move to a more general title and let's start a central place to talk about quality of specific sources. I don't think we should be just talking about religioustolerance.org, and I don't think a page making a blanket ban on any specific source is appropriate. However, it would be useful to have discussion about specific commonly cited sources centralised. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's now a proposed policy/guideline, and as such should be discussed in the Wikipedia namespace. In retrospect, I realise I should have just created this proposal page and then dropped notes on the relevant talkpages (which I've now done), rather than to edit articles in the first place. But that should not detract from the need to analyse sources that are cited in multiple articles to see whether they are appropriate - and that needs centralised discussion. I'm sure others will wish to discuss other sources in due course (one editor on the proposal talk page has already mentioned a website that also deserves centralised discussion). If we're to improve the quality of our references, we need central discussion pages. You're free, of course, to add your own comments on the proposal - but why eliminate it? jguk 20:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • See my revised opinion above. I let my annoyance at the way you had handled this color my opinion a little too far. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userify. Little more than a POV rant, and it is highly inappropriate to piggyback this page under official policy, and doubly misleading when you go about removing references with an edit summary of remove inappropriate link - see Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org (at the time he went about removing references, this page did not have a "proposed" tag, and was masquerading as official policy). It is perfectly fine to discuss the suitability of references, but consensus should be established before making such widespread changes. I would also think something like this cannot be decided on a global basis, but on an article by article basis as some pages from this site may make for good references while others may not (as any other reference site). Sortan 19:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userify. I agree this should be decided on an article by article basis. There should not be a global wiki policy on the appropriateness of a single website. Lyrl 20:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Insanely strong keep. Good grief, give the guy a chance to breathe! Let's all join the WikiMafia: if we don't like someone, let's delete all of their proposals before they have the chance to try and organize themselves to form a consensus! Yay! ...
  Alright, that's me being facetious, but do you get the point? The issue, not the defender of the issue, is the debate at hand, and this is clearly undeserving of deletion. (Note: If you don't like a proposed policy, try voting against it when the vote comes up. Deletion on ongoing issues shouldn't be used lightly.) Matt Yeager 20:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually we are voting to delete it from it's current location. We are voting to undo an arbitrary unilateral move, not supress free speech as an organised cabal. The discussion is free to resume elsewhere, perhaps on the talk pages of the articles in question (what a roaringly good idea!). This discussion has no place at its current location though - it sends out the wrong message. Izehar (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an issue which currently effects at least three dozen articles and will come up again. I have already been surprised by the numbers of editors who have come to the proposal talk page who have already come across arguments on this website before. It's a single issue - surely you're not really suggesting that we should have exactly the same discussion on the talk pages of three dozen (or more) different articles? It needs to be centralised - and surely the Wikipedia namespace is the most appropriate place for it? Incidentally, Izehar, at present your vote is "delete" - if you really believe the discussion should be on another page you might want to go back and change it to "move", jguk 20:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No need to - it'll crop up anyway. Izehar (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep hi Izehar, εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't support the page's move to make a written guideline on the subject - if editorial judgement isn't enough we're fucked already, we have enough guidelinecruft that NO-ONE could read even a fraction of them, and their main use is to hit people over the head with - but I know OCRT to be a remarkably dodgy source that is nevertheless quoted extremely often by those it writes about because it makes a point of sympathetic point of view. As such, its quality as a source is seriously dubious and worthy of discussion - David Gerard 21:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment if we keep this then please take into account that similar pages will appear. I personally want to create one. Andries 22:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Immediately Delete This page is an attempt to manipulate opposing views (in this case tolerance!?) out of wikipedia. If we can't use sites such as this, then we can't use the many legitimate, factually based arguments they put forward. There should be no wikipedia policies controlling the availiability of information. I can't believe this is being discussed.. why don't we go out and ban marxists.org as well, or any of the many other academic sites that don't fit into mainstream America. Ridiculous. --sansvoix 22:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, if there should be any policy, there should be one keeping prostelizing fundementalists (of anytype) out of wikipedia. Sure these people all mean well, but there is an "ends justify the means" approach (think personal attacks, edit wars, crafty personal commentary) they use that drive the rest of us insane.

• Strong Keep. Listing this for deletion is an attempt to circumvent discussion; it is no more in good faith than listing an AfD page itself for deletion is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious, speedy keep This is a current discussion. If it needs to be moved, because it's falsely implying that it's policy, fine. But deleting it is obviously wrong. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While I think at least part of the proposed guideline is absurd (forbidding the site to be linked to or mandating a scary warning), the proposal should be discussed instead of summarily deleted. --cesarb 01:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't understand why so many people think this is an issue of free speech. This poll is asking you if the proposal should be considerd for policy, or if it should be removed. Not if opinions should be silenced, of course they shouldn't be silienced, but that is what user pages are for. Freedom and choice are sexy things, but we need to put our foot down on what is appropriate, and what is not when changing wikipedia policy.--sansvoix 03:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And what IS inappropriate when changing Wikipedia policy? I would argue that nothing is. (Excepting illegal copyright vios, etc.) This is a wiki, after all. Matt Yeager 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Move out of policy namespace and into discussion of policy namespace--JimWae 04:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but if kept extremely strong move to either userspace or anywhere that's not a subpage of our important policy WP:V. Radiant_>|< 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a valid discussion about a website that should almost certainly not be used as a citable source. It's a good source to look at to begin your research, just as Wikipedia is, but it shouldn't be used as a source that is cited in an article, because it's little more than a personal website. They say of themselves: "The OCRT began as little more than a hobby. It has grown to be a full-time assignment for one of our volunteers, and a part-time task for the others. We hope that it will expand further to become a sustainable agency that will endure into the future." And perhaps it will, but for now, it's just an activity that the writers don't get paid for, they have no relevant qualifications, there is no peer-review or fact-checking process, it's not clear who they are exactly, and they've been used to prop up suspect claims in Wikipedia articles, such as the persecution of Wiccans by the Canadian government. ;-) If the website starts to be cited as a trusted source by credible newspapers, then perhaps it could be regarded as a citable source for Wikipedia, but not before then. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Proposed policy has often gone in this namespace, and it's a worthwhile discussion to have. --Improv 06:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's a proposed policy. I'm going to close this one early. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:36, 20 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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Friends of Wikipedia and subpages

Old page from 2001, when it was exciting to have websites linking to Wikipedia. Would be nice to save for nostalgia, but it is a spam trap. Maybe redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_the_media or revert to an old version and lock. Ashibaka tock 06:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not especially nostalgic on this one; if no one comes forward with love for it, let it go gently into that good night. Xoloz 23:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Xoloz. --Improv 06:11, 20 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Wikipedia:Wikirace per unanimous consensus. Xoloz 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedia racing

Yet another Wikipedia game, but not in the article namespace any longer, as I moved it into the Wikipedia namespace. However, it is redundant with more well-written pages, and similar pages that remained in the article namespace have recently been speedied. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Vote changed, see below.
• Delete Redundant with Wiki-Race, which is better written. Xoloz 05:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Just redirect it to Wikipedia:Wikirace. Uncle G 17:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, redirecting seems more appropriate than a straight-up deletion. Matt Yeager 20:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• OK, redirect to Wikipedia:Wikirace sounds fine. However, most parts of the original nomination apply to this new vote. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll strike my vote, and close this with a redirect, as we have unanimity. Xoloz 23:38, 17 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no decision, referred to talk page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Furry/Temp1

Failed fork of the original article. Ekevu (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this be taken to WP:AFD instead? Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Uh... subpage? I was unsure about where to take and decided to bring it here. Ekevu (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'd say "Yes"... I'll add, too, from my armchair perusal, that this is much more thorough than the main Furry. I support replacing Furry with this. Xoloz 23:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that you mention it, I agree. But if I'd want to bring more people to that discussion, where should I go? RfC? Ekevu (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Main Furry talk would be a good idea. If few people frequent there, and you can't get a good quorum, don't be afraid to be WP:BOLD, as anyone who disagrees can revert -- though I can't see why they would. Xoloz 05:16, 17 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Zeitgeist

Well over a year and a half un updated, no means of updating it (http://www.wikipedia.org/stats is down) and totally unlinked to (Grand total of two links, both from userpages). 68.39.174.238 15:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Minor interest for historical purposes, I suppose, but the almost complete lack of links shows that no one really shares this interest. Space-wasting, unless someone comes forward and really wants it. Xoloz 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Its 15 minutes are up... kind of like the Google zeitgeist. Ashibaka tock 06:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's got historical purposes, and I don't see why deleting such a thing would be useful. Perhaps we can combine it with something more active? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, we don't have a space problem. - ulayiti (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Space wasn't the reason for deletion, the fact that the page it seems to have gotten its stats from is gone. Also, this page is totally unused, judging by its lack of updates and links. A page like this, in the WikipediA: namespace, is a perfect place for someone to vandalize because it'll never be noticed and will make it look offical ("According to Google Zeitgeist, Wikipedia sucks!"). 12.75.98.103 19:33, 21 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG

I'm proposing this for deletion again. The previous vote is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiProject Islam:SIIEG, which closed with no consensus.

There is already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam so there's no need for this additional project. Whatever the original intentions, it has turned into a platform for bigotry, and a magnet for people who arrive at Wikipedia with the sole intention of causing trouble at Islam-related articles. Editors associated with the project have included Chaosfeary, Existentializer and Ni-ju-Ichi (aka Enviroknot), Zeno of Elea, Urchid (aka CltFn), Exmuslim, Germen, and OceanSplash, all anti-Islam POV warriors, some of them highly offensive and disruptive. (In fairness, some decent editors have signed up too e.g. Babajobu and Briangotts, with the perfectly correct intention of ensuring that well-sourced criticism of Islam is included in articles, and any criticism I make here is not directed at them).

The project's stated aim is arguably not consistent with NPOV: "Document and include ... the known objective facts about Islam ... while ensuring that Islam related articles on Wikipedia are written in an encyclopedic style free from apologetics and non-neutral POV." Sounds good in theory, but there's actually nothing wrong with including material that is sympathetic to and respectful of Islam (so-called apologetics) within certain limits, so long as it's well-sourced and not stated as fact. The idea of relying on some of these disruptive editors to determine what the "objective facts" about Islam are is absurd. I'm therefore asking the community to vote against bigotry and delete this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Nomination out of process. Take this to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is just plain bigotry with a superficial gloss of intellectualism.Cberlet 20:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - it doesn't matter where it is, we can't have pro-bigotry WikiProjects which do things like rally to block Requests for Adminship against Muslim editors. Guettarda 20:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete an organization of pov pushers and several trolls which make it harder for editors who want to edit Islam-related articles seriously. It is not secular, it's just anti-Islamic and few of its members over the last few months have even been blocked for openly vandalizing wikipedia articles. A completely useless and bigot project. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Guettarda and Slim Virgin. The name "SIIEG" seems to be a subconscious mindset of the majority of its members (not all though, Babajobu is a good guy), they feel like they're under "Siege" from Islam. It's basically a POV pushing committeee. karmafist 20:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• When they were looking for a motto for the group, an IP editor suggested Siieg Heil as one :-) Tintin 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this is wrong, IMHO it should be establised as policy that those with all viewpoints may join a wikiproject and that pro- and anti- wikiporjects aren't allowed. This isn't the first time a similar thing has happened. — Dunc|☺ 20:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not cool. FeloniousMonk 20:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Slrubenstein | Talk 21:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete BYT 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, POV pushing, hateful bullshit.--Sean|Black 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete AnnH ^(talk) 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete --Striver 21:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Brimba 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gee, is it any accident SIIEG is so close to sieg? Uberrima, while correct, is certainly no accident either. This piece of trash needs to go. Jim62sch 21:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Of course. And someone please ban a few of the above voters for extreme incivility and personal attacks. -- Karl Meier 21:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment One of the members of the SIIEG Guild left this Islamophobic message at Jimbo Wales talk page. I'm conflicted about this vote. If a KKK Guild existed on Wikipedia, would we vote to delete the guild? Yes/No? And why/why not? --JuanMuslim ^1m 23:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for the same reason I voted keep for the WP Decency project: Disagreeing with what you say, defending to the death your right to say it. (per BD2412) Tomer^talk 22:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • While I agree that they have a right to say the horrible, hateful garbage that they do, they don't need the WikiProject equivalent of a POV fork to say it— if they wish to contribute to Islam-related articles they can join the actual project.--Sean|Black 22:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Putting aside your sweeping generalization about the "horrible garbage" that "they do", would you also demand that Shia and Sunni editors "join the actual (Islam) project" rather than maintaining their "fork" projects? Babajobu 02:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, probably, but my point is that WikiProjects can't be exclusionary: You don't have to be Jewish to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, nor do you have to be a Doctor Who fan to be a member of WP:WHO. And I apologize about the "garbage" thing, but I've seen countless examples of such things from every single editor who has been involved in this project, excepting yourself. There's a myriad of examples here.--Sean|Black 03:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to be secular to be a member of SIIEG, you just have to be interested in seeing Islam covered in an NPOV, secular fashion. Plenty of Muslim Wikipedians are annoyed when they see "PBUH" and so on creeping into Islam articles, because they know it reflects poorly on the NPOV and quality of those articles. Babajobu 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Then I don't really see why this exists. Of course all Islam-related articles should be neutral, informative, and verifiable: this is simply unnecessary and divisive.--Sean|Black 04:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And of course all article on Shia Islam or Sunni Islam should be good, and all articles on music or medicine should be good. But guilds exist in those areas to coordinate the efforts of editors who want to work on those particular tasks. SIIEG is no different. It exists to coordinate the efforts of those editors who want to see Islam covered in an NPOV, non-pious manner. Babajobu 05:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, a bad-faith attempt at pushing a POV. «LordViD» 22:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is the WikiProject equivalent of a POV fork. As others have said, the WikiProject Islam is more than open to them. Someone should keep a list of the members however, for future reference. --bainer (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this attempt at censorship makes me sick--Diatrobica;l 22:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  User's second edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Yuber^(talk) 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• No opinion What in the world is this? Why do I care? I don't know anything about this AFD, and I have nothing to say about it. But I'm very curious why this user thought I would want to know about it. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think Diatrobica;l gave everyone on Cat:Conservative Wikipedians a message to vote keep on this, and that is why you were contacted. This type of campaigning is, I think, perfectly acceptable and normal. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree - spamming is not acceptable. Guettarda 23:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, as of this time I have no opinion on this particular instance of campaigning, but occasionally campaigning is acceptable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete almost redundent with WP:Islam, nearly the same mission statement. Also, I agree wholeheartedly with Dunc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete. what "censorship"? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If a Wikiproject is unencyclopedic, it needs to go, that's our only standard. Wikiproject Islam will do for both apologists and critics of Islam. dab (ᛏ) 23:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Something should not be put up for deletion just because you don't like what people are saying. Dwain 23:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete. per nominator --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete. not worthy of encyclopedia entry. also, i don't want these annoying messages... --R6MaY89 00:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep clearly too soon to judge the intentions of such a new wiki projct--Shlemnik 00:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  User's first edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• strong keep I don't belive in the deletion of wikiprojects--Fgleb 00:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  User's first edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  Now blocked for page-move vandalism. Guettarda 18:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• SpeedyKeep nominator is a vandal, should be blocked from editing--Femglow 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  Ditto. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• weak keep don't agree with the project's goals, but I'll fght to the death to defend your right to say it--Hoboman 00:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  Such an original thinker. User's first edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  Um, I presume the closing admin will take note of the sockpuppetry. WP:SOCK states that "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." Recent contributors seem to have only one edit... Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  All four are confirmed sockpuppets. Guettarda 04:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Even Muslims can't have an organization, and that is bad. Эйрон Кинни 00:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh? What does that mean?--Sean|Black 00:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: This seems redundant and controversial, so I also vote to remove it. However, I will admit there is a fine line between discussing Islam and promoting/attacking it, and one person's "fact" may be another person's "slander". Palm_Dogg 01:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment how about a Wiki project that has conditions to enter? From the project main page:

SIIEG members should: not have an apologetic point-of-view towards Islam

--Striver 01:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems like a clone, besides someone put something on my talk page trying to make me vote keep. NightOwl91 01:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not conducive to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Furthermore - how about a little golden rule? How awful I would feel if there were a Wikiproject devoted to attacking my religion. This project only breeds further intolerance and ill will. Worst of all for the Wikipedia, it fosters ill will toward the project. Dan Lovejoy 02:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with WikiProject:Islam or somesuch. --King of All the Franks 02:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Aside from never having heard anything good about this WikiProject, I must agree that it is redundant to WikiProject Islam. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparent POV fork with WikiProject Islam. This isn't speech censorship, incidentally; Wiki space and Project space represent the encyclopedia to a certain degree, and content must show encyclopedic relevence and must meet community standards. Any user can devote their userspace to this endeavor, so long as it remains free of NPA and CIV violations. Xoloz 02:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep In addition to the main Muslim guild there is also a Shia guild and a Sunni guild--why then is it inappropriate that there should also be a "secular guild" for Islam editors. I agree that some editors who have signed onto the guild have also said or done inappropriate things, but the same is true of the Shia and Sunni guilds and any other wikiguild for that matter. The answer is not to destroy the guilds. SIIEG serves a legitimate purpose. Do the delete voters want to be the ones who go around Wikipedia removing the (once) endless examples of "PBUH" and "peace be upon him and upon the ahlul-bayt", and "The Glorious Quran" and so forth? Or changing all those very many statements like "Muhammad was the final Prophet" so that they reflect that this is the Muslim view, rather than simple reality? I doubt you do. Let SIEEGers get back on with it. Babajobu 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We can't have exclusionary membership of WikiProjects, and we can't have WikiProjects whose talk page seems dedicated to attacking Islam and blocking the RFAs of Muslim editors simply because they are Muslim. Both of these factors make this WikiProject unacceptable. Guettarda 03:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In addition, the stated purpose of changing all mentions of Muhammad to "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" is factually inaccurate, since he is also considered a prophet by Bahais and Ahmaddiyas. Guettarda 03:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The talk page is not dedicated to "attacking Islam" or blocking the RfAs of Muslim editors. Two RfAs were mentioned without telling readers how to vote...for one of them I voted oppose and one I voted neutral...there was no "block voting", and the only question was whether candidates were familiar with, and committed to, WP:NPOV. And how is this project "exclusionary"? It is for editors with interest in a particular area. There are members of several faiths (including Islam) and none. And there is no stated intent to change all mentions of "Muhammad" to "the Islamic prophet Muhammad"...the intent is to change all mentions of "Prophet Muhammad" to either "Muhammad" or, when disambiguation is necessary, to the formulation you mention. This is not inaccurate...at very worst it is incomplete in not mentioning Bahais (and Ahmaddiyas, if you don't consider Ahmaddiyas to be Muslim despite their self-definition). Babajobu 03:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The page bans people from membership on the basis of their beliefs. How is that not exclusionary? And the talk page is seething with anti-Islamic hate. I'm not Muslim and I found it highly offensive. And people coming off the project did vote to oppose in one of those RFAs because the editor was Muslim. Guettarda 03:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What in God's name are you talking about that the project "bans people from membership on the basis of their beliefs"?? It absolutely does not. The most pious member of any religion, including Islam, is welcome at SIIEG...they just have to have an interest in seeing their pieties presented in an NPOV manner, rather than as plain, objective truth. "Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged steed" is POV; "so-and-so believes that Muhammad ascended..." or "Muslims believe that Muhammad ascended" or "some Muslims believe that..." are all perfectly fine and NPOV. Pious Muslims are perfectly capable of observing NPOV, and perfectly welcome to join SIEEG! And I have a hard time believing that any editors voted against an RfA "because the editor was Muslim"...but even if that did happen, you're going to ban a particular guild because one or two of its members did something inappropriate. Is that sort of collective punishment really necessary? Babajobu 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It says "[must]not have an apologetic point-of-view towards Islam" - this is unacceptable exclusion. You don't have the right to tell people that they can only be involved in a project if they do hold certain views about religion. As for the RFA vote "because the editor was Muslim" - that came up in the RFA. True, one vote would not make a project biased, but exclusive language and hateful anti-Muslim language on the talk page are enough. Guettarda 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

My interpretation of that clause has been that writers must not attempt to insinuate "Islam is True" POV into articles and pass it off as plain truth. The most pious believer in any faith is not necessarily an advocate of apologetics on behalf of that faith. You can be a believer without wanting to impose your belief system on others and without demanding that others accept your view of the world. That's all SIIEG asks of its religious members. In wiki articles just describe your faith, don't preach it. Is that so offensive? And also, if some offensive talk on a talk page earns a ban, then boy is wikipedia in trouble. 50% of our talk pages will have to go. Babajobu 04:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not what apologetics is. Any Muslim should hold the view that their religion is true. The exclusion says nothing about editing POV - it says that they are not allowed membership on the basis on their opinion about Islam. None of us are neutral, none of us are expected not to have a POV. We are expected to write NPOV regardless of how we feel. This project excludes people on the basis of their belief. That is contrary to what Wikipedia is all about. Guettarda 04:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely that editors are entitled to whatever beliefs they hold, but not entitled to impose those beliefs on Wikipedia. "Apologetics" are the systematic and rhetorical defense and advancement of the faith to non-believers. I think the clause is written poorly, because I believe it uses "POV" in the wiki-sense of "the opposite of NPOV", i.e. the tendency or desire to slant wikipedia articles toward the editor's particular set of beliefs. Perhaps that needs to be made clearer. But again, all this is a wild overreaction and could have been solved with a little feedback rather than an hack-and-slay MfD. Babajobu 04:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And the anti-Muslim vitriol on the talk page? Guettarda 05:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There's some bad stuff on the talkpage, and some good stuff, too. If we're going to delete every Wikipedia talk page with crap on it, we've got a whole lot of conversation deleting to do. Babajobu 05:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot of bad stuff there - as bad a page as I have encountered, and what appears to be a general acceptance of hate-speech. It isn't a little crap, it's a pervasive bias. Couple that with the "you aren't welcome if you disagree with us" sign on the front page and you have a very bad place. How can that type of a poisonous atmosphere be tolerated for so long anywhere in this project? I have never come across that hostile a page (well, with the possible exception of this page, but the attacks on that page are aimed at me personally). Guettarda 06:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How much of the page have you read? It's a long page, and most of it is pretty mundane, talking about the most NPOV way to state things, voting on fairly trivial issues, alerts to pages of interest or articles of interest. And there are a couple rants that people are focusing on to discredit the entire project. Whatever, go ahead and delete the verboten secular project in a fit of PC pique. Hope to see you running "honorifics and praises" patrol, Guettarda, since SIIEG will no longer be coordinating it. Babajobu 06:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no purpose for it's existence in it's present form and the changes needed to make it NPOV are so huge that you might as well start over.--MONGO 03:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Could everyone that received the "This type of censorship makes me sick" from User:Diatrobica;l raise their hand? Also, did any of you vote "keep"? --Striver 03:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep per Babajobu. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment You are all encouraged to check out the similarities and differences among the various Islam-related guilds....Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Sunni Guild, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG--JuanMuslim ^1m 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Question. I was going to vote "delete" on the basis that we already have Wikiproject:Islam, which could perform the worthwhile tasks mentioned by Babajobu. I see, however, that the SIIEG says that Wikiproject:Islam is its "parent". Therefore, perhaps it's not exactly "an additional project", as SlimVirgin characterized it. If the people in Wikiproject:Islam have found it useful to set up a subproject to root out edits that reflect a pro-Islamic bias, I would be OK with that, although I agree with Guettarda and others that membership in the subproject should be open. (An editor with an apologetic attitude can still edit neutrally.) Would someone please clarify the relationship between SIIEG and Wikiproject:Islam? JamesMLane 04:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Muslim guild is the parent project of SIIEG. Personally, I don't like signing up to guilds that require me to add my name to a separate section for non-believers, as the Muslim guild does, so I haven't added my name to the Muslim guild. But SIIEG, like the Sunni and Shia guilds, is a guild for people with an interest in Islam articles but also an interest in a particular type of information on Islam. And of course SIIEG membership is open to people of all beliefs, so long as they are willing to try to write in an NPOV manner about Islam. But I agree that this needs to be made more clear on the project page. Babajobu 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Only the Islam religion guild is the parent guild of the subguilds. We've no authority over you and vice versa. Another problem with the SIIEG is the title - Secular Islamic Information Editors' Guild. The title makes about as much sense as the "Secular Christianity Information Editors' Guild." The title implies that the guild is trying to secularize a religion. --JuanMuslim ^1m 05:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The name isn't perfect, Juan, but I don't think it implies anything about "secularizing a religion". I think it suggests the desire to have information on Islam presented in a secular, NPOV manner in which the truth claims of the religion are neither affirmed nor denied, but only described. And yes, the Islam guild is the parent guild. Babajobu 05:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There's also too much emphasis by the SIIEG against the apologetic point-of-view. Apologetic has a negative connotation. For many people when they hear the word, they understand it to mean, "Say what I believe is true else you're apologizing." It's basically a nice way of saying you're lying to me. What many people want Muslims to say is "Muslims are all terrorists!" Everything doesn't have simple answers. Sometimes there are two views that should be expressed. Anti-POV or neutral POV should be sufficient. --JuanMuslim ^1m 05:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, very often it is useful and necessary to present multiple points of view, including a pious or "Islam is True" POV. SIIEG's point is that these views should be presented as POVs, rather than as universal reality. And no one here wants Muslims to say "Muslims are all terrorists!"...in fact I've often removed vandalism like that from Islam-related articles, as I watchlist them for SIIEG. Babajobu 05:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm referring to the POV pushed on various Islam-related articles, such as the Criticism of Islam article and the discussion on its talk page. --JuanMuslim ^1m 07:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The various Islam-related guilds support the standards mentioned at Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). Thus, we all agree that such praises should be avoided in Wikipedia. --JuanMuslim ^1m 04:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Juan, maybe so, but before SIIEG got started Islam articles were absolutely overrun with that sort of thing. SIIEG members made a much more concerted effort than members of the other guilds to remove those sorts of praises. Babajobu 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I think that having projects which require editors to have a certain viewpoint is not helpful to the aim of building consensuses in articles. "SIIEG members should not have an apologetic point-of-view towards Islam." We should focus in the content, not the attitudes of editors (beyond the usual Wikipedia-wide policies). -Willmcw 04:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to be bold and rephrase that clause in the SIIEG mission statement. I think it's poorly worded. I've always understood it to require only that members not seek to advance an apologetic approach to Islam in wiki articles, rather than attempting to somehow forbid them to have apologetic viewpoints themselves. I'll change it to reflect that. Babajobu 04:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Question Aren't other Wikipedia rules sufficient for dealing with the problem element in this group? User:Babajobu offers one good reason for not joining the general Islam project: editors may prefer not to reveal their own religion - at least not in a catalogued and easily referrable manner. As much as I detest bigotry, not all editors in this project are objectionable. It would be easy for the problem users to start a forum on another website away from scrutiny. Isn't it better to discipline specific violations of policy? Durova 05:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why would editors have to reveal their religion to join the main Islam project?--Sean|Black 05:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Please check out the actual pages. Even the Muslim Guild has an option in which editors can state they are neither Muslim nor nonMuslim, meaning I don't want to tell you. I don't have to tell you. Or none of your business. And that is and should be sufficient for any of us. Nor do I appreciate when someone writes to Jimbo Wales stating that "Remember: “for evil to triumph, all it takes is for good people to do nothing”. It is the peace of the world that is at stake. It is lives of many innocent people that is at stake." --JuanMuslim ^1m 05:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you misunderstood, I agree with you: the religion of any given editor is largely irrelevant to their editing, and thus should not be a factor in joining a WikiProject. I was asking Durova, who seemed to imply that editors have to reveal their religion to join the Islam WikiProject.--Sean|Black 05:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree totally with Durova, obviously. As for the Muslim Guild, it has the section on top for Muslims, the section below for non-Muslims, and a third and mostly uninhabited section for "Other", whatever that means. And you are wrong that "that is...sufficient for any of us". For me, sufficient would be a guild that did not categorize its members according to their response to "what is your religion?" That's just my personal feeling. Obviously many others are fine with it. Babajobu 05:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I agree: it seems unnecessarily factionalising to split editors up like that.--Sean|Black 05:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Ambi 05:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'm pissed. I really think the overwhelming number of delete votes in this AfD is the result of PC sheep effect and that a good and necessary project is getting deleted. I hope all the delete voters are ready to take up the mop and pail and perform the sort of thankless janitorial tasks I mentioned in my vote and that SIIEG has coordinated. There's no "recent uses of PBUH" or "recent praises of Muhammad in article space" page. You have to look for that stuff, and it takes time. Enjoy. Babajobu 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly believe that regardless of the vote, there will always be some people who will do their best to get rid of the PBUHs, etc.--JuanMuslim ^1m 06:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure there will, but before SIIEG came along their efforts were hopelessly ineffective. And I'm not interested in continuing that sort of "honorifics and praise" patrol when this horde of delete voters are working to ensure that that kind of janitorial work is as difficult, cumbersome, and uncoordinated as possible. Let them do it, if they're interested in having Islam-related articles that don't read like mosque handouts. Babajobu 07:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Come on. You're fully aware that any editor who understands WP:NPOV wouldn't allow such things to happen, and your also aware that those sorts of edits were reverted long before SIIEG existed.--Sean|Black 07:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

When SIIEG first started Wikipedia was positively loaded up with PBUHs and "Glorious Quran"s and "Holy Quran"s and assertions that various supernatural events in Muslim theology were plain historical truth, et cetera. I'm sure that people made ad hoc efforts to address this stuff before SIIEG, but they had clearly met with only partial success. SIIEG did what a guild is supposed to do, it coordinated the efforts of different users, pooled information and tips, and "the mosque handout" phenomenon in Wikipedia dropped noticeably. But clearly this was all part of SIIEG's racist, Islamophobic, hate-spewing agenda, so let's bring back the mosque handouts while all the delete voters wander back to the areas they actually work on. Babajobu 07:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Do have any evidence that that's the truth? Because I really, really think that you're exaggerating.--Sean|Black 07:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well we'll find out, won't we? Check back in three months and have a look. I'm not saying SIIEG made all the difference, but it made a significant one. Babajobu 07:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. But I think that there are better methods for that, and that editors who purposefully don't revert edits like that should be reminded of WP:NPOV (and WP:POINT, but that's another matter entirely).--Sean|Black 07:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This is just me talking off the top of my head :) but can't you set up a bot to find things like PBUH or SAWS or Holy/Glorious/Noble Quran? Palm_Dogg 19:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Zero 08:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Babajobu, my main objection was that SIIEG is made redundant by WikiProject Islam. "This Islam WikiProject aims to address all POV issues from all articles on or referencing Islam"....doesn't that sound familiar? Isn't that exactly what you're trying to do with SIIEG? Then why not join WikiProject Islam and do that there? «LordViD» 08:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already mentioned why I won't join wikiproject Islam...I don't want to join a project that categorizes its members, and has different sign-up areas for them, based on their answer to the question "what is your religion?", as wikiproject Islam does. Also, wikiproject Islam by default covers both Sunni and Shia topics, but there are still Sunni and Shia guilds for editors who want to especially focus on those areas. The Islam guild also touches on issues surrounding NPOV, but SIIEG is for members who want to specifically focus on that issue. If the Shia and Sunni guilds are fair, then why isn't SIIEG? Babajobu 12:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

All members of the subguilds are members of the Islam Wikiproject. Therefore, the Islam Wikiproject doesn't even have an actual list of participants as far as I know. --JuanMuslim ^1m 15:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...well you might try taking a quick look at the main page of the Muslim Guild. Babajobu 15:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh ok, you meant to say Muslim Guild rather than the Islam Guild. You mentioned the Islam Guild earlier. Islam Guild participants. I mentioned the url to the Muslim Guild earlier. --JuanMuslim ^1m 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - if there was a Wikiproject dedicated to vandalizing articles with grossly bigoted, untrue and POV statements, saying things like Muslims lie. This is what Islam teaches them to do...Muslims use anyone including the neo-Nazis to acheive their goal. (all in one recent statement from User:OceanSplash) about Buddhism, Republicans, Jews or popstars, we'd do the same. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As you say, all these comments were made in one statement by one user who very recently joined the project. How you make the leap from that one comment to saying that the project is "dedicated to" those things completely escapes me. Babajobu 15:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You guys are so intent on pushing Islamophobic views that you guys are actually considering setting up a website to promote your ideas. For more information on this new SIIEG project idea check this out.--JuanMuslim ^1m 16:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cut it out with the inaccurate "you guys" generalizations, would you please? One frustrated user said he wanted to start a Wikipedia fork...the only two people who responded to his comment (I was one of them) said basically "sounds interesting, but we're happy with Wikipedia". Does that sound like "you Islamophobes are starting a fork"? Or are you just making the sorts of unfair, innacurate generalizations you rightfully dislike when made about Islam? Babajobu 20:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

None of the guild members voiced strong opposition to it. --JuanMuslim ^1m 21:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Become full of bigots, alas. Maybe it started honourably, but that is not how it is now. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

• Very weak and careful keep. Long explanation: Firstly, the spamming that informed me of this VFD really pisses me off and made me almost vote "delete" as a reflex. Even though the project has many similarities to wikiproject:Islam, it is a descendant project which does make some useful NPOV contributions. Some of the project's members are trolls, vandals, socks (like the guy who spammed the whole of Category:Conservative wikipedians, a tactic I find, frankly disgusting), bigots, and other Islamophobes. However SIIEG is not responsible for the actions of it's members outside of the project. Now here is my point, if a member vandalizes Islam and replaces the text with "Muslims are evil" then couldnt there be some sort of suspension of membership on a project that is supposed to work toward NPOV? My vote is very weak so if someone could rebutt me then I'll change my vote. Banes 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't believe there's any need to have separate Islam Wikiprojects (even the Shia, etc.) for the same reason that I don't think we should have Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism:Non-Catholics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Republican Party of the United States:Moderate Republicans. There's positively no need for splitting things up so minutely. I respect Babajobu, but I don't think that there's a need for this page. Ral315 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for redundancy. --Apostrophe 18:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if WikiProject Islam wants to keep them as a child group, per Babajobu. Of course, the problem elements should be dealt with as appropriate under the normal procedures. (I could have sworn I already voted "delete" on this, but oh well.) —Simetrical (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There are various Islam-related guilds because if we were all members of just the Islam Guild we would spend all our time arguing. Maybe, the SIIEG should make various changes, such as changing its name. --JuanMuslim ^1m 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I already changed the ambiguous membership clause so that it now explicitly states that members need only refrain from insinuating "Islam is True" POV into articles, rather than that they must disavow any particular type of opinion. I'd be open to a name change, but at this point it's irrelevant. People are getting too much pleasure out of this kneejerk politically correct gangbang to overcome the ridiculous number of delete votes. I'm through with this crap. Babajobu 22:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu, you wrote "Personally, I don't like signing up to guilds that require me to add my name to a separate section for non-believers, as the Muslim guild does, so I haven't added my name to the Muslim guild.

First of all, we do not have any "non-Beliver" section in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild, its "non-Muslim". For the second, there is a "Others" section - he is free to use it if he does not like to share his belief, in the same way the two other members under that section. --Striver 23:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not about not wanting to reveal my beliefs. I don't want to join a guild that categorizes its members based on one of three possible answers to the question "Are you a Muslim?". Fortunately no other religion project in Wikipedia categorizes its members in this way, only the Muslim guild does it. Other people don't mind, obviously. But to me, frankly, it's a little obnoxious, and I won't sign up to a guild that does that. Babajobu 01:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Although not forcing members to catagorize themselves, Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism asks for its members to BE Roman Catholics. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? Wow. Well, so much for the idea that SIIEG had violated sacred wikilaw by possibly saying that its members should BE non-apologists for Islam. Anyway, that's been changed, so it now only asks people not to edit in an apologetic way. So, when do we see the hordes of indignant delete-this-guild voters go after the Catholicism 101 guild for demanding that its members be and believe something in particular? Any time soon? Or is SIIEG being deleted for breach of "principles" that were fabricated for this special occasion? Babajobu 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a small note about the exclusivity of WP:Catholicism 101, the issue has been brought up on their talk page just recently (probably as a result of my above comment). Along with RC's, they are "open" to "those deeply associated with Catholic theology". That project is less than two months old and only has three members, so its current position may change as it grows and matures. If you are interested in discussing that project, feel free to do so there and please continue to assume good faith in all discussions, as these WikiProjects may cause dispute, but they add immensely to WP. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

To answer Babajobu's question: If the Catholicism project goes back to listing membership criteria that make any reference to an editor's own religious beliefs, then, yes, I will happily join the "hordes of indignant delete-this-guild voters". As for SIIEG, I'm still undecided. Part of my problem is the impression that this project's attitude is, "We try to find and correct NPOV violations that are pro-Muslim. We don't care about the ones that are anti-Muslim." If that impression is inaccurate, would it be possible to change the name and expand the mission? There might be less objection to a project that was expressly aimed at rooting out POV hostility to Islam along with rooting out the PBUH's. JamesMLane 03:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per SlimVirgin. 172 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that members of the SIIEG Guild are encouraged to edit with more regard towards accuracy and balance. Anyone who seeks a neutral POV will be "non-apologetic."--JuanMuslim ^1m 05:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu wrote: "It's not about not wanting to reveal my beliefs. I don't want to join a guild that categorizes its members based on one of three possible answers to the question "Are you a Muslim?"." What question? I only see three places where one can choose to sign in on, i see no question. --Striver 06:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Babajobu and TShilo. --Kefalonia 15:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep there's nothing wrong with such a project in principle. if you don't like how it's being run, participate and reform it. Derex 17:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't that be an argument against the keeping of this group, as it was created for those who had issues with the primary Islam WikiProject? --Apostrophe 01:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. WikiProject Islam already exists, and these issues should be taken there; this seems only to be a vehicle for provocation and disruption. The name "SIIEG" also seems highly dubious, given the obvious associations. -- The Anome 01:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• MERGE changed to Merge and delete - The project, though it helped to reach an agreement about the use of glorified titles from Islam-related articles. I have no doubt that the same achievement would have been made at the parent Wikiproject Islam. The SIIEG has only helped to create tensions that wikipedia doesn't need. Wikipedia needs collaborations and not random planning. I am also against the existance of both Sh'ia and Sunna projects for the same reason. If not delete. Cheers -- Svest 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

• Keep has survived previous VfD. Serves important wiki function. Klonimus 05:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus is one of the most active SIIEG members. The guild is about as needed as these POV articles Klonimus wrote - The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism, Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad, Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle, Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington, and The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad. What important function? To spread hatred and fear of Muslims? --JuanMuslim ^1m 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• delete . there is a muslim guild with active members , so there is no need of a "secular isalm" guild . Removing PBUHs is not such a big task that we need to have a whole guild for it . After all there must be many CHRISTs , LORDs , SRIs , SWAMIs , GURUs , MASTERs , SENSEIs out there . We dont have & dont need any secular christianity , secular hinduism guilds . The guild is only used for colaboration in severe anti-islam pov pushing , colaborations for revert warrings & campaign against VFA of muslim wikipedians . The founder Zeno of Elea is well known for publicitising his hateful beliefs about Islam , and anybody who opposes him , he calls them apologetics for fundamentalist islam , liberals who want to censor information , ramadan crazed nazi mullahs e.t.c . He came up with SIIEG idea when he & company failed to link their favourite Islamophobic site from Islam . Its a long history . In Dhul-Qarnayn , we had a long debate with him . His logic was "since muhammad copied quran from pre-existing texts & since DQ has got many similarities with Alexender & since those texts considered the earth as flat , so Islam believes in a flat earth" . In jihad he believed that all Islamic definitions & etymomlgy of the word are irrelevent , definitions from US DOJ are most relevent . You dont have to be a rocket scientist to guess what's goinon here . Similar behaviour can be found on Allah , Islamic banking , Muhammad , Muhammad's wives etc (see the talk pages). There are other members who believe that Islam is an off-shoot of Nazism (or nazism is an off-shoot of Islam) , Even others who believe its their moral obligation to use WP to let people about real Islam & free the world from the claws of Islam . Some people believe there is a jihadi beneath their bed , some believe there is a jihadi in their cupboard .....the list goes on . PBUH removers , apologetic removers , faithful secular janitors.......these words are just a coverup . The founder is so desperate that he is planning to start his own Islampedia , that wont have any Islamic views about Islam , only his .

other reason that is given for keeping it is that Muslim guild categorizes its members according to their response to "what is your religion" . Well this thing as a problem was never brought up by the members or non-members . If anybody has problems with it , we can always discuss it . Its not such a big issue that we need a whole guild for this matter . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c}08:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --Ian Pitchford 17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Radiant_>|< 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Because Wikipedia is intended to be an encylopedia, this should not be a place for placating the fantasies of religious believers. Nevertheless, this is what occurs here on a constant basis. The "Islam is the truth" POV permeats wikipedia Islam articles because it is Muslims and other deluded indviduals, as opposed to objective thinkers, who dominate and control such pages. Any statement, no matter how well sources and objective, is immediatly deleted if it suggests that Islam is a lie just like every other religion. This is a problem that cannot be solved through projects such as the one currently under vote for deletion. Rather, this is a problem that can only be solved if and when jimbo wales and his people are willing to address it themselves.
• Keep per user:Hoboman Freedom of speech is important, even on Wikipedia Zeq 08:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Soft coder^Talk 11:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per user:Bill Levinson There are many versions of Islam and Islamic perspectives that all need to be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Levinson (talk • contribs)
• Weak delete. In itself, the third point of the policies ("SIIEG members should not attempt to advance an apologetic point-of-view towards Islam in Wikipedia articles") is commendable. Wikipedia indeed shouldn't apologize for anything, and this is completely consistent with WP:NPOV. However, the statement omits that wikipedia articles shouldn't criticize Islam either. An encyclopedia should not take any side in the debate. This omission turns the point from npov to highly pov. OTOH, mildening it would make the WikiProject redundant with Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam, which the participants are free to join. Aecis ^praatpaal 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:02, 21 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Leeharveyoswald

This is an odd situation. Editor User:Leeharveyoswald (last edit Nov 2004) has posted a POV fork, his own preferred version of the Lee Harvey Oswald article, on his user page. While that's all well and good, but given his username and that there's nothing to distinguish this and a regular encyclopedia article, there's the potential for confusion for the novice WP user. It seems that already at least two or three editors have confused this with the real thing. I think we should delete it, or failing that, move it to a subpage or post a disclaimer. Gamaliel 19:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete due to risk of confusion and POV-ness. Stifle 21:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Delete. As can be seen from this user's contributions, the account appears to be made for the sole purpose of preserving the preferred version of the article, and has made no other contributions. Perhaps we should wait a few days, and if that user hadn't made a proper contribution, then delete. «LordViD» 08:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless user comes forward with an explanation. All his contributions were to this year-old page. Unless a good argument is made, this POV article is little different than an ad for a service in userspace. Users with very few contributions have less latitude with their userspace, as they have not demonstrated knowledge of, or concern for, the project, other than using it as a web host. Xoloz 20:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as user has been gone for a year and email doesn't work to contact him/her. Appears to be nonconcesus rendition of personal opinion and per above.--MONGO 03:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• either delete or move to another name so as not to confuse people. BL kiss the lizard 23:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This user page has even attracted newbie editors thinking it was the real article. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 18:18, 17 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Template messages/Infoboxes

Page has not been updated for ages, the information inside is obsolete per css-class infobox. The other information only handles taxo-boxes _→AzaToth 23:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Then Keep and tag for cleanup, you don't tag for deletion because something is out of date, you update it. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Seems to be a good-faith idea that never got beyond two or three edits. Given its age it seems unlikely that someone will update it (or indeed use it much). Since there's no actual content to archive, I support deletion. Radiant_>|< 13:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Radiant. Xoloz 20:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rebundant with Wikipedia:Infobox templates. CG 06:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• As a member of AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, I can safely say delete because, despite the fact that I dislike making broad judgements about the worthiness of this article, it's not an article, so I can say whatever I want. (Mostly.) Cernen 08:06, 17 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page'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, per the same reasoning as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Vote. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 17:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Vote

Open ballots are the tools of tyranny and dictatorships. We used to have a secret ballot. Whatever happened to "this year's election will be held using the Special:Arb-com-vote software" ?

• Delete --Victim of signature fascism 17:16, 15 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Images

We can't have galleries of fair use images. Wikipedia:Fair use. Coffee 18:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, good, keep with Deathphoenix's change. I should have thought of doing that myself. Coffee 14:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete We certainly shouldn't have fair use galleries, although it might be possible to justify one under exceptional circumstances, with the addition of reasonable text citing appropriate fair use. Anyway, this isn't that case. Xoloz 22:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC) Keep with the change, though JTK is correct in his added concerns. Xoloz 14:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The purpose of this page is to provide a link to all of the Harry Potter-related images for categorisation and use. This is more a workspace for the Wikiproject to coordinate images and screenshots. If galleries of fair use images are prohibited, I can change the links to fair use images from [[Image:Example]] to [[:Image:Example]] so that the image doesn't get displayed. Would that be acceptable? At the very least, this page should be kept with the images removed, not have the entire page deleted entirely. --Deathphoenix 19:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As Deathphoenix said, it't not intended as a display gallery, but as a place to organize and maintain images pertaining to Harry Potter for the HP WikiProject. As Deathphoenix said, we can easily make the images simply linked so as to avoid fair use issues. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 20:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I've changed the galleries into links that don't display the image. Now this is no longer a fair use gallery, and is simply a Wikiproject workspace for handling images. --Deathphoenix 20:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep With Deathphoenix's change, however every once in awhile people should go through and tag any images that aren't in use in an article since without article usage they can't even be on the server for long as fair use. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. After a little while, I'll go through these files and tag some that aren't used myself. --Deathphoenix 17:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

    If any of those aren't used in articles, they'll be tagged by User:Gmaxwell's bot and it'll show up here. That's actually how I found this gallery. Coffee 14:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, per the reasoning of both Phoenixes. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 19:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: as this is needed for the maintaining of the Harry Potter related pages Stordoff 16:52, 15 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 17:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedia DVD

This page doesn't really serve a purpose. It's not a guideline, a proposal, something that aids the Community..or supports it in a way. We can't move this to the article-namespace either, since the page is just a copy and paste (and translate, in this case), from elsewhere.-- SoothingR^(pour) 10:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Is it just me, or does this page make no sense at all? All I see is a load of nonesense. LordViD 10:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete barely literate, pointless. Xoloz 17:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I made that ages ago before I had an account hoping someone would put more info there, however this has not happened. So it should be deleted. --Adam1213 Talk + 07:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dinosaur page that has never been needed. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Look at WP:1.0 for this kind of thing. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 19:56, 14 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 17:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Malcolm in the middle

This is a one-line portal. It doesn't function like a portal is supposed to. LordViD 10:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete malformed, unused "portal". Xoloz 21:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this page seems useless. xaosflux ^T/_C 07:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete useless. --Computerjoe 18:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it looks more like a substub than a portal. Portals are supposed to be gateways to related articles, something this "portal" does not accomplish. This portal is useless. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 13 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 20:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiwidow

Something... If a joke, really not funny. Last edited on Dec. 2004 Renata3 17:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Cute, but not really funny. The foo-widow expression isn't unheard of, but this bit of attempted humor obviously failed to catch on. Xoloz 18:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not really funny enough for BJAODN in my opinion. Rossami (talk) 19:50, 9 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfied to User:Ed Poor/Aspects of evolution. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 20:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Aspects of evolution

This is not a Wikipedia project. It is a platform created by User:Ed Poor to promote his ideas about evolution. This was made to get around the vote for deletion for the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of evolution. --ScienceApologist 18:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• (after edit conflict) I suspect strongly that the nominator believes your division of evolution into three facts is itself POV. The nominator is correct, imo. Nevertheless, Keep. Mr. Poor's occasional unilateralism aside, he's a valuable member of the community. This is a project about a valid encyclopedic topic, meaning anyone (including debunkers) can add their views to it, and Mr. Poor can use it as a place from which to advance (rigorously, one hopes, and non-disruptively) his views on the matter. Xoloz 18:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy, this is a project to add Ed Poor's original research to Wikipedia. Gazpacho 19:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy - How is this a WikiProject? "A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific family of information within Wikipedia. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles, but a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing". This page is not a "coordination" of any sort, so I suggest this be moved to Ed Poor's user space. LordViD 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or userfy, per LordViD. This isn't really a project. Friday (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- POV fork. Certainly not a WikiProject. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 21:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to have been an invalid attempt to get around the article Afd result. Vsmith 21:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- WAS 4.250 21:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NPOV rule means you shouldn't try to create POV-pushing projects. We had a similar thing a while ago when Ungtss (talk · contribs) did a similar thing; the aims were so watered down to be NPOV compatible and he found himself joined by the biologists. — Dunc|☺ 22:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is becoming surreal. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though my sincere thanks to the editors who cleaned out the page between when I first saw it and now. It actually made me laugh when I first read it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-09 23:37:45Z
• Delete or move to user space. This is not a WikiProject. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy. Not a WikiProject. B.Wind 01:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy. It isn't a WikiProject. -Parallel or Together ? 01:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy per practically everyone. David | Talk 15:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, per B.Wind. Stifle 00:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Oh, and which ideas are these? I've asked you a dozen times to put up or shut up: which "POV" do you allege I am pushing or promoting? If you refuse to answer, it can only mean that you know it is not true. Uncle Ed 18:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ed, you are promoting creationism from the perspective of a "balanced" Unificationist point of view, perhaps not intentionally, but nevertheless it is clear by those who are familiar with the subject that this is exactly what is coming across in your continued insistence in keeping this "information" which amounts to little more than your own original research. --ScienceApologist 18:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have never promoted Creationism in a Wikipedia article. Please show even ONE diff which shows a pro-Creationist edit.

[7]

I am completely unaware of a "balanced" Unificationist point of view on anything. The Unification Church takes specific, dogmatic stands on many things. I have no idea what you mean by balanced unless it's an anti-Wikipedia objection to NPOV.

I have asked you many times to tell me what "original research" you allege I am presenting. But you refuse to answer. Are you aware of the difference between (1) presenting accurate, properly-sourced summaries of research or views which non-Wikipedians have presented and (2) reporting one's own research or views? If you think I've violated NOR, please show it; don't just keep accusing me groundlessly of it.

Ed, your summaries of "research" are neither accurate nor properly-sourced. As such, they represent a unique point-of-view that is your own. That's the definition of original research. --ScienceApologist 14:43, 10 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 20:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:900,000th pool

Just 2 edits, and we have enough pools already. Renata3 00:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unused. Xoloz 21:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:58, 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 20:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Video central

This user page is an advertisement xaosflux ^T/_C 05:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an advertisement. xaosflux ^T/_C 05:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advretising--Shanel 05:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You know, sneaky users like this could at least have the decency to edit a little bit first. It isn't difficult to copyedit, and we can use the help. Xoloz 20:58, 10 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 page'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 miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, the category stays, as it was not a part of the debate and needs to be listed at CFD. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 20:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:List of drug-free Wikipedians

Wikipedia:List of drug-free Wikipedians was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-12. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of drug-free Wikipedians/2005-08-12.

Flamebait that needlessly divides the Wikipedia community. I think that User:Android79 put it best: "Seems to me that if a silly "community" page is causing this much acrimony it ought to be done away with. Wikipedia:List of drug-free Wikipedians ain't a part of the encyclopedia, guys. Try to remember that's what we're here to write." [8] I agree with this statement completely. This article was previously nominated on AFD, but it really belongs here since it is outside the main article namespace. Firebug 09:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The previous debate can be read here. The outcome was "No consensus" after 10 days of debate. It was nominated on 12 August, which iirc was about the time of the change from VfD to AfD and MfD (originally "Non-main namespace pages for deleteion"), hence it was not nominated here. Thryduulf 10:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

So this is where I join, right? El_C 12:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Another question: once I'm a member, where do I pick up my free drugs? El_C 15:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This question has never been answered, which has lead many to become disillusioned with the whole idea. Friday (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Free coffees at my place, SqueakBox 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Most of the "keep" votes in the previous discussion expressed a viewpoint that "it's harmless", something that no longer holds true given the bad feelings an edit war over this page has caused. And, frankly, I don't see the point of this page in the first place. android79 13:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete and congrats to the person who proposed it for deletion. This was a POV platform set up by Cognition with one intention: to promote his anti-pot views. That is not what wikipedia is about. To then invoke vandalsim policy to protect his POV is clearly an abuse of wikipedia NPOV and the abuse must stop, SqueakBox 13:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. It's just a magnet for POV pushing. Although, part of me is sad to see the little jab I inserted there go away, without even being noticed. Friday (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  Clarification: I know that advocating a point of view about Wikipedia is OK for Wikipedia-space content. But the POV being advocated here has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. When one member tells another member Your help in fighting dope and its pushers is truly heroic. not talking about real drug dealers but about purging the page of those who are pro pot I think we can safely say this page, far from having anything to do with wikipedia, seems to be here to disrupt wikipedia in the name of pursuing the POV personal crusade of one member, SqueakBox 14:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'm afraid that I also fail to see how this moves the project forward in any way. While we generally allow more latitude outside the article space, we are still supposed to be focused on writing an encyclopedia. Unless someone can present a compelling argument for how this page will improve the project, I have to recommend deletion. Rossami (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, still harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Question, is this about deleting the category too? As uncool as popular opinion around here apparently holds being drug-free, I think it's as useful a category as any of the others out there. As for the list... I took myself off it because I wasn't sure if it was a joke or what. --W.marsh 16:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I am sure the category, without this articles' POV pushing statements, will remain as it is not under threat of deletion and I would vote to keep myself were it so. This page started as a highly POV piece see here by anti pot activist using it as a launchpad for his POV and it has been riven with POV struggles sinmce as other editors are clearly not willing to see wikipedia misused in this way. I would urge anyone who wants to let people know they are drug-free and are happy with the little pot forbidden symbol (which probably means they see pot as a drug of which they are free) to put themselves in the category. This page is a different matter. Many pages like this have been turned into categories with the page deleted in order to avoid the kind of problems we see here, SqueakBox 16:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete While I agree it is harmless to have this page open, it just causes debate among wikipedians that is anything but harmless. If you still want to be listed as "drug-free" you can add the user box to your user page called {{User Drug-free}}. It creates a category called Category:Drug Free Wikipedians, that way you are categorized as drug-free without furthur debate. Its just useless trying to debate over something that can never really be answered like how benefical pot really is. I agree with SqueakBox with many pages like this have been deleted to avoid this and I think most pages, like this one, should be put up for deletion and replaced with categories. — Moe ε 17:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The page, together with signers' comments, is at least as funny as much of what passes for humor in Wiki-space. However, this page doesn't advance the project, and has nothing to do with the project that I can see. WP is not PetitionsOnline.com. Xoloz 17:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The potential for libel is too great.Mareino 20:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --HappyCamper 01:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. --Ixfd64 03:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Delete anything that violates WP:NPA or is an outright insult. If the user readds it then warn him and if it persists then block him. I see nothing wrong with a list like this. I understand the what the delete votes have said, but I think an enforced cleanup would work just fine. gren グレン 01:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Enforced cleanup. In what way and by whom? The only thing going for this page at the moment is that it is reasonably NPOV (in the sense that it expresses differing opinions). An enforced clean-up could cause more problems than it solves, and of course anything can only be enforced through consensus, the lack of which is a fact right now, SqueakBox 01:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose I don't understand the "pushing his point of view" part of your argument since this is not in article space. I always find user categorization interesting to some degree or another. I do agree that this has gotten some negative attention... which is regrettable... but, not the end of the world. By enforced cleanup I was referring to things like "only losers, hippies, and dumbass misguided teens with too much angst and not much else use drugs." It has no purpose but to disparage and should be summarily deleted. Only enforce things that are blatantly against wikipedia policy, etc. The page is full of nonsense and I am not sure how that should be dealt with... but, if users did this to other "Wikipedians" pages how would we deal with it. .....Midway through writing this I came up with a solution that is perfect for me. Categorization. No worthless comments that lead to edit wars... but you can show your opinions. Discuss them on your userpage if you're so inclined. gren グレン 05:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- I missed the point a lot. Categories will suffice. gren グレン 05:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - ordinary user categorisation page. People who don't like it don't have to tag their userpages with it (just as an atheist might find the Christian Wikipedians category offensive) Cynical 13:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment And I am sure if a Christian page was criticising atheists or an atheist page was criticising Christians you would get a page looking like a bit like this, SqueakBox 14:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I think that there may be somewhat of a pro-drug usage in some articles, particularly the pro-LSD mystical nonsense referenced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable people who have commented on the LSD experience. Perhaps a project by "drug-free" users may be able to counteract such bias. 172 16:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• The page referred to was found to be encyclopedic, this is evidently not. Bias doesn't come into it. --Sachabrunel 17:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Should we create a list of suspected wikipedian drug abusers?, or is that now already made by default?--sansvoix 22:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Mushroom 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be causing a fair bit of unecessary hostility. Category:Drug-free Wikipedians would be much, much better. -- MegamiX 11:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Has now spawned a category. Wikipedia is not a miscellaneous host for good causes, it is an encyclopedia writing project. Rhollenton 01:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep One of dozens of similar user categorization pages. Cognition 02:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Divisive -- and frankly stupid -- user-superiority page, with the LaRouchite chief offender posting just above me. Check out his user page for a peek into his mindset. --Calton | Talk 07:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sansvoix right on man, your list would be fairly long. I agree with Calton. I see it's encouraged some other dodgy pages at Category:Wikipedians --Ballchef 03:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Divisive and unnecessary. -Willmcw 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. And note my objection to User:Calton's ad hominem argument, above. --HK 22:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

...says the ArbCom-sanctioned LaRouchite. --Calton | Talk 00:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Read the page through and give me one reason this should be kept. --Sachabrunel 17:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I voted delete too... but... just to point out... this isn't in the encyclopedia. gren グレン 17:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, corrected. Still early here! --Sachabrunel 17:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Vizcarra 19:11, 14 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.