Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:R/Single Letter Group
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As it should be. --MichaelLinnear 23:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Or not as many other users believe. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
DRV after an early and unexplained close is entirely predictabl. ViridaeTalk 23:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Whoever closes this MfD, I implore you to disregard the multiple Strong KEEP votes by the users associated with the group as a COI. —« ANIMUM » 19:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are also Strong KEEP comments from users who are not in the group. And yes, for the sake of COI, I decided not to say "delete" or "keep", but to reply and leave comments. (→O - RLY?) 19:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Magnus animum, I would imagine that whoever closes this MfD will understand that your citation of WP:COI is invalid, as it primarily relates to financial interests and mainspace articles. Otherwise, interested, involved parties are encouraged to engage in XfD discussions. This is not a vote. This is an attempt to build consensus. Therefore, the concerns and issues brought up by everyone matter. The support for and against deletion of the page is based on the statements of each individual in the discussion, not solely their usage of "keep" or "delete" or so forth. In any event, if you believe that the opinions of any individuals should be struck in the discussion, I suggest you comment below their statements in the actual discussion. j talk 19:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Whoever closes this MfD, I implore you to disregard the multiple Strong KEEP votes by the users associated with the group as a COI. —« ANIMUM » 19:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I'm perfectly aware of that, J, what I was trying to state by "COI" was the fact that almost every user who is in the group will obviously vote (Strong) keep, ergo, while everyone is entitled to give their opinion, these are naturally biased. —« ANIMUM » 21:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- And another thing -- and I quote -- "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, he stands in a conflict of interest." "...in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals..." I'd like to direct your attention to that key phrase; if you are in the group, and you vote keep (I know, it's twisted, but logical) you are promoting either yourself, your peers in the group, or both simultaneously, you are indeed making a COI. It may talk mainly about articles, but it applies across the whole playing field. —« ANIMUM » 21:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly aware of that, J, what I was trying to state by "COI" was the fact that almost every user who is in the group will obviously vote (Strong) keep, ergo, while everyone is entitled to give their opinion, these are naturally biased. —« ANIMUM » 21:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
