Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/December 2005: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Suntag (talk | contribs)
11,118 edits
Adding debates to this page/removing date links
Suntag (talk | contribs)
11,118 edits
No need for toc right
Line 1: Line 1:
{{bots|deny=HagermanBot}}
{{bots|deny=HagermanBot}}
{{TOCright}}
<!-- When adding debates to this page, please add them under the date they were created rather than the debate they were closed, creating a new section where necessary. -->
<!-- When adding debates to this page, please add them under the date they were created rather than the debate they were closed, creating a new section where necessary. -->


Revision as of 16:01, 5 October 2008


2005-12-31

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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.

2005-12-30

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

{

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Become a Sysop

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

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

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)[reply]

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).

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)[reply]


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.

2005-12-29

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Talk:Mini mosher

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

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.

2005-12-28

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Skimall

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.

2005-12-27

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.

2005-12-26

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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 article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied. Radiant_>|< 01:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Plumed Basilisk1

Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo for featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The real nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied by Radiant as user test/mistake. Xoloz 01:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured Picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk1

Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied by Radiant as user test/mistake. Xoloz 01:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured Picture candidates/Pulmed Basilisk2

Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied by Radiant as user test/mistake. Xoloz 01:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured Picture candidates/Pulmed Basilisk

Cele4 was trying to nominate a photo featured picture status, and accidentally made some extra pages. The nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plumed Basilisk Portrait. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

2005-12-25

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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.

Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Delete blatant POV pushing organization that also is trying to undermine AFD and push their own overall POV. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wrong on all counts. Use the page history, please.--SarekOfVulcan 05:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Quote from page history, "(cur) (last) 23:42, 24 December 2005 Shanedidona (rv vandalism)" Chooserr 05:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Well done and well said, Karmafist. - Tεxτurε 18:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom, Tony Sidaway. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This serves only to promote factionalism Pilatus 16:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Tony Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete - Divisive, operates against WP:NPOV, and most of the other reasons people have given above. FreplySpang (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I have serious NPOV questions about this page. Ral315 (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamaliel 20:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the wub "?!" 20:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everyone is entitled to thier own views. It wont hurt to have this page. --Activision45 21:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • "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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Kill it with fire. Ambi 23:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete all POV-pushers. Oh, we can't delete the people? OK, delete the page. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre's reasoning. --Carnildo 08:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Locke Cole 10:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all groups that aim to push a specific POV through vote-stacking. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete bogdan 14:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete POV pushing. And I completely support Ann's comments. Sarah Ewart 22:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop restoring this page. It must be deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Redirect to User:Sam Korn/Catholic Church of Wikipedia :P -- grm_wnr Esc 01:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Organizations of Wikipedians by POV are totally and utterly unacceptable. David | Talk 01:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Organized POV-pushing is definitely a no no. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bishop's law strikes again Raul654 01:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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.

2005-12-24

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

2005-12-21

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

The result of the debate was overwhelming consensus to keep, with a several people suggesting this was a bad faith nomination, WP:POINT, or otherwise out of process. Radiant_>|< 00:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

This was started because stub types were being listed on both TFD and CFD, as a stub type has both a template and a category. This is a rather admirable goal. However, somewhere along the way, a third type of page got included - redirects. Redirects like {{us-rail-stub}} to {{US-rail-stub}} and {{NYCS stub}} to {{NYCS-stub}}. Redirects that would be overwhelmingly if not speedily kept in their proper place, RFD. However, since SFD is an out-of-the-way page, which most non-stub sorters avoid, these useful redirects are typically deleted because they do not follow naming conventions. Thus I am listing this here with the intent on deleting SFD, and reincorporating it into TFD and CFD (possibly with a convention of always having the discussion on one or the other, to avoid fragmenting the discussions). If that does not happen, I hope we can at least come to consensus on handling redirects in the proper place. SPUI (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Steps to use this area are listed in the directions for CFD and TFD, RFD does not direct users to here, but my only opinion on those is that they don't have much use, as they would only redirect to a category or template, wasting server resources. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Wikipedia is Communism

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Delete— per nom, should be deleted or at least moved to meta. // Pathoschild 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. BJAODN is a necessary holding place for all our hilariously unencyclopedic jokes. Johnleemk | Talk 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Important part of Wikipedia culture. Punkmorten 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Big part of Wikipedia culture. --Jaranda wat's sup 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a necessary evil, and sometimes it's actually funny. PJM 18:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • That thingy in a castle Sceptre (Talk) 22:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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.

2005-12-20

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)

Wikipedia:Maple Bookmark Manager

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

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.

2005-12-19

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

2005-12-18

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

The result of the debate was keep, with several people suggesting this is out of process. Radiant_>|< 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals

I don't expect this attempt to succeed, because the cruft level is quite high when it comes to stubs and those who believe in cruft around stubs, and those stub cruft people are more than likely to call this a bad faith nomination since they're too deep into regulations and such to see any other viewpoint. I think trying to edit it within wouldn't work either, since the stub cruft masters would probably gang revert any attempts at reform almost instantly.

However, let me ask you something. What would Wikipedia be like if you had to ask permission to someone to start an article? Can you imagine that? Well, that's what's happening, or at least trying to happen, with this page.

Most of us know better that Wikipedia is an open source project, and just either Ignore things like this if we really want to make a stub or what have you.

However, if you were a Newcomer, what would you think when you see this template below?

I would think that Wikiproject Stub sorting OWNS stubs, and i'd have to scrape and beg to the stub cruft people or be shut out.

To me, that's not an acceptable way of working on Wikipedia. karmafist 18:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nope, couldn't think of a better way. The cruft level is far too high IMO for any change to occur any other way. If you can think of a better way to make WSS into a project of Stub "sorting" rather than stub "regulation", please let me know. I don't expect this, because currently all of my dealings with WSS have just been strewn with border line personal attacks from Grutness, you, and a few others. karmafist 19:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We have managed to refrain from personal attacks, haven't we? I hope it'll stay so. Conscious 20:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination (indeed, karmafist) to prove a point. Karmafist deliberately misrepresents the WikiProject, its participants and the way templates work on wikipedia. Templates are not articles and do not work like articles, therefore the example of having to request permission to start an article is completely flawed. This wikiproject plays a vital role in the maintenance work of stub sorting and categorizing. We do the work of sorting the articles, so that knowledgeable users can expand the article beyond stub status. We do not own anything on Wikipedia and we do not bar non-participants from joining in stub creation. The proposals process is a vital part of harmonizing and structuring stub categories. We can't prevent vandals and other bad-faith contributors from creating nonsense stubs, but we are here to assist and advise good-faith users on how to properly create a stub and categorize the stub category. Aecis praatpaal 19:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aecis, would you mind changing {{newstubs}} to help better show Newbies both to stubs and to Wikipedia as a whole, that WSS is in fact not in charge of stub creation, like you say? A "proposal" begs the question on who such proposals are being proposed to. A better option would be maybe "ideas" or such. karmafist 19:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I edit {{newstubs}}? The template is comprehensive and correct. Did you happen to notice the words please and discuss on that template? And why do you keep linking to WP:BITE? What are you trying to prove by that? And do you know how bad nonsensical templates screw up Wikipedia? It's easy to fill it with hundreds of articles in a matter of minutes, but it is a sisyphus labour to undo those edits. Just doing whatever you like because you feel like it works about as counterproductively as it can get. What you're basically suggesting is anarchy and chaos. Aecis praatpaal 20:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination is absurd. The stub-sorting project is doing far better at categorising stubs than the Wikipedia entirely is at categorising articles in general, and it would be far better to be thinking about how to apply the lessons learnt in stub-sorting to general categorising, which is haphazard and poor. Morwen - Talk 20:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep What Karmafist is suggesting is that we basically give up categorizing stubs by a mutually agreed to system. Extending logic to categories in general would mean that we could have for example:
  • Category:American jazz musicians
  • Category:United States jazz musicians
  • Category:U.S. jazz musicians
  • Category:US jazz musicians
  • Category:USA jazz musicians
  • Category:Jazz musicians of the United States of America
  • Category:Usonian music makers who play jazz
  • Category:Jazz artists of the fifty states, etc.
Categories and templates are not articles. They require editors to cooperate in order to work well and the Stub Sorting project is the manner in which cooperation concerning stub templates and stub categories is being achieved. If someone has a better idea for how to achieve that cooperation, then I hope they propose it, but throwing away cooperation should not be an option. This is the Wikipedia not the Karmafistpedia. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with cooperation, so why not Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Announcements? Let people create stubs, populate them, and then optionally announce and discuss them. WSS has instead taken an almost ownership attitude about stubs (as evidenced by the nominations on WP:SFD). —Locke Cole 05:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because it takes many, many times the work to delete a stub type and recategorise everything that's been put into it than not have it made in the first place. WP:WSS doesn't "own" the stub types - but it does do its best to make sure that those which are made make sense and help Wikipedia by forming a stable structure, rather than running contrary to each other in such a way that they are of no use to editors. Read Caerwine's comments above, and imaging what it would be like if everyone started creating stub templates and categories and calling them by whatever name they wanted. The other possible outcome of removing this process - if you wanted stub categories to be in any way useful - would to have a detailed set of instructions for people creating new stub types to make sure they fit in with other stub types. That would probably run to a dozen pages or more. Far better than having one project page, I'm sure :/. Grutness...wha? 05:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone created stubs then maybe WikiProject Stub sorting would go back to it's original named mandate: sorting stubs. As it stands, the WikiProject has gone for a power grab approach, insisting that stubs be "proposed". I'm still digging through the history of WP:WSS/P, but it seems from this diff (which covers a conversation held for one day) that WP:WSS/P was created with the consensus of just six people (as such, I'm also going to be removing {{guideline}} from the article, though I will be replacing it with {{proposed}}). —Locke Cole 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone created stubs then stub sorting as an organised activity on Wikipedia would no longer be possible. it would be impossible to keep track of what categories and templates existed at any one time, and there would be no way of knowing whether a new, more suitable template to use would exist the following day. For that reason, there would be no point in attempting to keep stubs in anything approaching sensible categories. The whole stub sorting process would irrevocably break down. Grutness...wha? 08:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there was a concensus, and it was up for discussion; I don't know what caught your interest in this, but what's wrong here? Ah, I see: we're in danger of getting flooded by another Cabal, the powerlusting stubsorting cabal. (laughs evilly) Lectonar 08:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would be interested in some links to this debate. So far I've found two debates related to stub sorting: a 12-person debate that resulted in the creation of WP:SFD, and a 6-person debate that resulted in WP:WSS/P. Now I have no problem with WP:SFD, and would happily support it's creation if it were being debated today, but WP:WSS/P reeks of instruction creep. I'd have never supported something like this if were being debated today. —Locke Cole 11:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that's kind of beside the point now; the pertaining debates are history, and they lead to the now existing guideline. As you haven't (and couldn't possibly have) participated in the discussions (as I know you weren't around at the time), that's what we're here for now, today...and as it has been mentioned: you're free to participate in any way you deem appropriate. It has worked fine as it is now for quite some time, and no one objected (but let me guess: everyone who tempted to object was voted down by the owners of WP:WSS/P)--Lectonar 11:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Locke's right that discussion of the WSS/P page was held in one day by six people. But the proposal process was already well-established many months before that. The discussion was to split that page and the discoveries page WP:WSS/D from an existing page WP:WSS/C, which had a length exceeding 400kb. That debate is completey irrelevant. Grutness...wha? 22:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because bureaucracy does work sometimes. A newbie can see that notice and he/she can find a niche where to get acquainted to Wikipedia, so it isn't "evil". Besides, they've been doing a good job. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 21:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep part of karmafists ongoing railing against the system. he obviously hasnt read WP:POINT. BL kiss the lizard 04:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, bad instruction creep. As mentioned on the talk page, this is also very un-wiki and runs counter to what Wikipedia is all about. What's worse, when people create stubs out-of-band (that is, without "proposing" it at WP:WSS/P), the WP:WSS regulars act indignant that you didn't get their blessing first. I don't believe it's appropriate for a WikiProject to (attempt to) have this much influence over Wikipedia. —Locke Cole 04:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep. Another part of the grand plan to have Wikipedia be exactly what karmafist wants it to be, whether it causes chaos or not. He's already had a go at WP:WSS through WP:VPP, now he's trying here. Previously he cited WP:BOLD, not realising that it refers to articles and cautions against boldness with regard to templates. Now he's calling on WP:IAR, but that says On occasion, rules may be disregarded if this is necessary to make the encyclopedia better. Disregarding a rule for other purposes is not good. Ignoring an established procedure for making sure the different stub types mesh together into a stable hierarchy of stub types for the benefit of wikipedia does not make the encyclopedia better. It also says some actions that are not expressly forbidden by rule may still be obnoxious and lead to negative consequences. It is not expressly forbidden to create stub types without consulting WP:WSS/P, but doing so quite often leads to negative consequences. Grutness...wha? 05:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep A useful page for keeping stubs in some categories, having categories and sub catergories of stubs makes it easier for interested editors to find articles in need of their expertise. xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed {{guideline}} and replaced it with {{proposed}}, due to the fact that it seems six people were involved in creating this. I would also like to note that speedy keep votes should be reserved for bad faith nominations (which this most certainly is not as evidenced by Karmafist's attempt to discuss this at the Village Pump and elsewhere). —Locke Cole 06:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given the outcome of the discussions at VPP and elsewhere, and the tone of karmafist's comments relating to the project in general, there is not much else it could possibly be considered at except bad faith. {{Proposed}} isn't really appropriate in these circumstances, either, since {{guideline}} is already on WP:STUB - the parent document which links to all WP:WSS activity. Grutness...wha? 08:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As per the talk page I had added that marker "not in an attempt to give (the page) more authority, but in an attempt to show that it is not a policy," in an attempt help resolve this civily, however I have no qualms about it not being there either. My bottom line is that stub management is a good thing, and that it will not work efficiently without a hierarchy of catergories, however I am all in favor of proposals to make this easier for all editors, includie newbies. xaosflux Talk/CVU 15:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although even with his proposed discussions I smell something like WP:POINT; and lets cite the always popular WP:NOT, as it is not paper. Oh, and I concur with Aecis and Grutness Lectonar 07:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. However, if you were a Newcomer, what would you think when you see this template below? When I was a newcomer and saw the template, I thought it was a good thing, to keep stubs (which are closer to categories than articles) from becoming an unordered mess. As for the comment above about how WSS has taken an ownership attitude, I'm concerned now; because I have been able to contribute to the project, but I don't remember paying any membership fee. Or, maybe that's just the way a cooperative is supposed to work? Neier 09:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I was referring to ownership in so far as it relates to control over something. (And this is actually what WP:OWN describes, amongst other things). —Locke Cole 11:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last I checked WP:OWN was regarding Ownership of articles, and does not appear to apply here, if nothing else I think a consensus can be made that Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals is not an article. xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The very first section of WP:OWN is titled Control of Wikipedia articles. —Locke Cole 20:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just like the rest of WP:OWN, which only speaks of articles. Using that in a debate about templates, categories and a wikiproject is flawed reasoning. Aecis praatpaal 21:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is it? I believe the term "article" is used as a generalization for any page on Wikipedia (as evidenced by this brief passage towards the end of the first section– Or if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page [...]). There is nothing flawed at pointing out that nobody (either as an individual, nor a group) should attempt to assert ownership over parts of Wikipedia. —Locke Cole 00:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • According to Wikipedia:What is an article, "a Wikipedia article is defined as a page that has encyclopedic or almanac-like information on it ("almanac-like" being lists, timelines, tables or charts). An "article" does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes." I get the impression that templates are among those specified namespaces, although they are not mentioned on the list at the page. Therefore, I've left a note at the talkpage. Aecis praatpaal 23:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a recent newcomer I find it useful that things such as stubs are organised (I did wish they were better explained, though). Cooperative behaviour does not imply literal ownership or regulation, people are free to choose whether or not to particpate. From the above it seems to me your chief objection is to the notice, so I suggest you focus on offering a wording that is more to your taste (without compromising neutrality, of course). --LesleyW 10:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The stub system would work better if it were taken out of the hands of the WPSS cabal. STFD is the only place on Wikipedia where systemic bias is a mantra, not a problem, and this page is part of the culture that creates that. Ambi 14:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that SFD is part of the deletion policy, not of WP:WSS? Aecis praatpaal 14:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i thought this mfd debate was about WSS/P not WP:SFD! if ambi wants SFD gone, perhaps he should nominate that rather that confusing this debate. BL kiss the lizard 21:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Discuss the problems with the people having spent years devising this system instead of blurting in and saying "Ooh, this pleases me more." Sam Vimes 22:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • spent years? I show above where the decision to create this was made in one day by six people. And there were attempts to discuss this with the people at WP:WSS/P, but they seem to be suffering from a collective "we-can't-see-the-forrest-for-all-the-trees" syndrome. Hence why the debate has moved here where (at least I'd hoped) more eyeballs might scrutinize the situation more. —Locke Cole 00:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure where the years comes from, but WP:WSS/P came from splitting WP:WSS/C, as Grutness noted above. WP:WSS/C has been around for almost a year, and was used for proposals since February 2, 2005. It appears up until then, all stubs used {{stub}}. But I fail to see how its exact history is especially relevant... --Mairi 00:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The history is relevant in that it seems this was created with little consensus from the community at large. Given that I still haven't tracked down where proposals was initially created, I almost wonder if this wasn't just created without any community input (and that inertia has just carried it forward until it's become the unruly mess it is now). —Locke Cole 04:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If someone is worried about people taking "ownership" of articles through WP:WSS/P then there is a simple solution -- expand all the articles tagged with stubs to full article length. Once articles are no longer stubs, the stub tag is removed. Stub status is purely temporary, so it is hard to understand how anyone can see coordinating stubs as ownership. Such ownership would never be permanent. Perhaps those proposing deletion could tell us all what they think the function of a stub is. It has been my understanding that stub tags are intended to group like stubs so that interested experts can find and expand articles with such a tag. If each person is creating his/her own stubs without checking for appropriate stubs already in existence, then what is gained? What would be lost? Would it be easier or harder to remember the spelling of an existing stub template if the stub was created at will without regard to the structure of the hundreds of existing stubs? Should each article have a uniquely crafted stub tag? As long as there are stubs, there will be a need to sort and coordinate them so that informed article writers can find places to do their best work. Having a group who discusses stubs helps tremendously, in part because no one person could have sufficient knowledge of existing stubs or breadth of knowledge to do it alone. Nominating the process of stub coordination for outright deletion without proposing an equally viable alternative is bizarre, to say the least. --EncycloPetey 04:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue being discussed is one of ownership of stubs themselves, not articles which happen to have stub templates on them. I proposed discarding WP:WSS/P (Proposal) and creating WP:WSS/A (Announce) which, for me, would solve the objection I have to WP:WSS/P (there would no longer be this implication that you should seek permission before creating a stub; instead, people would be encouraged to announce stubs after-the-fact (where they can then be modified or, in extreme cases, nominated at WP:SFD). But, IIRC, nobody responded to that suggestion. —Locke Cole 04:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I'm beginning to see where you're coming from. Since you're proposing an alternative, it's not the concept of the Proposal page that you object to, but rather the implication that you should seek permission that comes from the page. It sounds to me as though a change in the language of the page and its project templates might be enough to satisfy you. The WP:WSS/P is not a place to seek permission, but a place to share people's ideas and input. In most cases I"ve seen, the only issues to consider are: (1) Is there really a need for the propsed stub, or will an existing stub suffice? and (2) IS the proposed stub name sufficiently clear in meaning and structured like other existing stubs to make its use consistent and clear? There also have been some cases where the name and/or structure of a stub turned out to be contentious, and I for one think it is better to hash those concerns out before a lot of time is wasted renaming, resorting, and possibly deleting stubs. As for your proposed solution, people may not have specifically mentioned it, but the serious pitfalls have been raised both by myself and others in the course of this discussion. --EncycloPetey 06:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep The current process helps keep consistant naming and catagorization among stubs, adn hleps avoid the creation of ill-advised stub types. if a stub type is once created and many articels are tagged wiht it (as can easily happen quite quickly) clening it up is alot of work, not the easily reverted situation of an article edit or creation for which WP:BOLD is appropriate. DES (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. As long as all stub types are centrally documented I think we can loosen stub-type lockdown. Project:Stub-sorting needs to bypass this kind of beuracracy, at least for a while, or nothing will ever get done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.207.248 (talk • contribs)
User's first edit. Aecis praatpaal 15:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am all for a stub sorting project to organize stubs. But having to propose for a new stub, getting it approved, is time consuming. I agree with Karmafist on this. You don't have to ask for permission for creating articles. Why do that for a stub? --Ganeshk 23:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, would like to add that if the page does not get deleted, new stub proposals must atleast become localized. Proposals to add India related stubs must be added to a seperate page that has Indian audience (may be under India Notice Board). I think putting them under a long list like the current one is not helpful. - Ganeshk 23:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Superceded by events/redirect

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)[reply]

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.

2005-12-17

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep it is useful, though needs to make clear it's not policy. — Dunc|☺ 12:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
No--more than that: if Wikipedia can exist, then we can use religioustolerance.org. Carolynparrishfan 14:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
No, "Strong" is simply a qualitative notation. It has no bearing on the tabulation of votes Carolynparrishfan 14:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete -- the user is simply pushing his anti-religioustolerance.org agenda. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 15:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No need to - it'll crop up anyway. Izehar (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep hi Izehar, εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Move out of policy namespace and into discussion of policy namespace--JimWae 04:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Proposed policy has often gone in this namespace, and it's a worthwhile discussion to have. --Improv 06:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

2005-12-16

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)[reply]

Furry/Temp1

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

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.

2005-12-15

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Merge with WikiProject:Islam or somesuch. --King of All the Franks 02:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And the anti-Muslim vitriol on the talk page? Guettarda 05:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Why would editors have to reveal their religion to join the main Islam project?--Sean|Black 05:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Actually, I agree: it seems unnecessarily factionalising to split editors up like that.--Sean|Black 05:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 05:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Delete. --Zero 08:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hmmm...well you might try taking a quick look at the main page of the Muslim Guild. Babajobu 15:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
None of the guild members voiced strong opposition to it. --JuanMuslim 1m 21:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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&#153;[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 /c08:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Ian Pitchford 17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Radiant_>|< 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete --Soft coderTalk 11:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2005-12-14

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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" ?

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.

2005-12-12

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Images

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

Oh, good, keep with Deathphoenix's change. I should have thought of doing that myself. Coffee 14:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the reasoning of both Phoenixes. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 19:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2005-12-10

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

2005-12-09

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiwidow

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • (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)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy, this is a project to add Ed Poor's original research to Wikipedia. Gazpacho 19:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wikipedia:900,000th pool

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

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)[reply]

User:Video central

This user page is an advertisement xaosflux T/C 05:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

2005-12-08

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. This survived a MfD just over a week ago. Let's not turn this into another GNAA. The community has already made a decision about this. Acetic Acid 05:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sam Korn/Catholic Church of Wikipedia

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
So this is where I join, right? El_C 12:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another question: once I'm a member, where do I pick up my free drugs? El_C 15:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Free coffees at my place, SqueakBox 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep, still harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete The potential for libel is too great.Mareino 20:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --HappyCamper 01:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. --Ixfd64 03:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Delete -- I missed the point a lot. Categories will suffice. gren グレン 05:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...says the ArbCom-sanctioned LaRouchite. --Calton | Talk 00:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry, corrected. Still early here! --Sachabrunel 17:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2005-12-05

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

The result of the debate was delete. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Klairah

User page not attached to a user account. (If you created it and you've come here confused--the way to create a userpage is by logging in, creating an account, and then clicking on the userpage tab for your account, not just creating one out of thin air.) I would think this would be a CSD but it's not listed as one, so I've brought it here. Chick Bowen 19:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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.

2005-12-04

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted' by Jtkiefer. Xoloz 16:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Specialtyhomehardware

Advertising. User has no other edits. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Speedied as blatant advert user also username blocked. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted per the primary discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guide to Humanity. Rossami (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Guide to Humanity

See also the parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guide to Humanity.

Recreation of disputed Guide to Humanity. Delete as per all the delete arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guide to Humanity. In short, this is a user's project that does not contribute to the goal of building an English encyclopedia, and instead tries to take advantage of the prominence of Wikipedia as a site. FreplySpang (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

2005-12-03

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:JuanMuslim/Wikipedia Boycott Campaign

There are very few situations in which I believe it's appropriate to nominate a user's page for deletion, but this is one of those rare instances. This page actively works against everything that Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. It advocates a boycott of Wikipedia and proposes that it "should be ended rather than amended", "Wikipedia can never become encyclopedic regardless of changes, recommendations, etc.", "...actively discourage everyone from using Wikipedia as a research tool..." and "...encourage professional organizations to officially denounce Wikipedia as a research tool." I asked User:JuanMuslim to remove the page, but he declined, stating that a vote was ongoing. As this page doesn't help Wikipedia in any way and, in fact, has the potential to harm it, I believe deletion is warranted. Carbonite | Talk 04:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • A boycott isn't designed to help the subject of the boycott, it's designed to harm it. If Nike is boycotted for labor violations, is the purpose of that boycott to help Nike? Of course not. How could a proposed boycott ever help Wikipedia? In any case, your user space isn't the place for proposing a helpful or harmful boycott. Carbonite | Talk 17:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A boycott seeks to better a social, political, etc situation. A beneficial outcome would certainly benefit researchers, students, etc, and thus, Wikipedia as a whole. As mentioned before, there is no such thing as a Wikipedia Boycott Campaign. --JuanMuslim 1m 04:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arguing for reforming WP is okay, criticizing WP is ok... but these suggestions must be constructive to be within the bounds of project participation. Saying "Everyone Leave WP!", even as some form of diluted hypothetical, isn't constructive. Still, this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Feel free to write a user essay discussing your worries about WP, together with "positive" suggestions for reform. Just an ill-conceived execution of an idea with a germ of good-faith at its heart, I suspect. Xoloz 06:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions must be "constructive" to be "within the bounds of project participation"? Constructive in whose eyes? +sj +
  • Keep. Deleting such things only lends credibility to accusations of cabalism. If people disagree, let them talk about it on the talk page. Friday (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's stupid and harmless, and deleting user subpages because they're stupid puts a chilling effect on Wikipedia political discussions. Ignore it and it will go away. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a endless supply of stupid user pages, but I've never nominated any of them for deletion. This page goes beyond stupid to being a disruption and working directly against the goals of Wikipedia. It's important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and a community second. This isn't a social experiment or a democracy. When pages go from being stupid to being detrimental, deletion is often warranted. This page would be entirely appropriate for someone's personal web site, but it doesn't belong here. Carbonite | Talk 15:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what way is it disruption? It seems to me that by putting this as a user-space subpage, 1m is very specifically not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; rather, he's trying to make his point without disrupting the community as a whole. If he was trying to call a lot of attention to his campaign, that might be disruptive. If he was spamming pointers to the page onto other pages, that might be disruptive. Instead, he appears to have quietly mentioned it to a couple of other users. The disruption caused by this MfD (as small at it is) is greater than whatever disruption the article has caused. People get to talk about Wikipedia politics on Wikipedia; would you be happier if this were in User talk: space instead of in User: space? I look at it as a thought experiment. He posits the question, "should there be a movement to boycott Wikipedia", and then says he's not sure, let's talk. This is entirely within the sphere of Wikipedia community discussion. I know I'm not the only one who, on occasion, reacts to some of the Wikiuglitude with "I've got much better things to do with my life. Why am I here? Why is anyone?" I think we should let people talk about their issues with Wikipedia on Wikipedia user subpages, as long as they abide by our general policies of witiquette. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. While it's absurdly ridiculous, Friday and Jpgordon make good points. I agree with Xoloz in that it could easily be converted into something more constructive. However, as it stands, it has little to no value, and could be harmfull.--Sean|Black 07:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many articles of little value that aren't subpages can be found on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, many are harmful to the interests of Wikipedia, certainly, much more than a subpage found within my own personal user page.--JuanMuslim 1m 17:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Sean. I can't see anything beyond its little value and the potential to harm Wikipedia to justify a full delete vote. But then I can't see any good reason to keep it. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 08:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just one of my subpages. A right that everyone should have. It is not an actual website, because a website would contain subpages such as for links and library, a left side menu, and other features common to a website. My personal subpage that you want to delete only has one page along with its talk page.--JuanMuslim 1m 17:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Wikipedia is not a web host, and is under no obligation to carry users' content that is not related to improving Wikipedia. Moreover, this appears to be dedicated to harming Wikipedia. Do it off-site, if you must. — Matt Crypto 11:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    By this reasoning, any commentary critical of Wikipedia could be removed from the site. This isn't what you meant to suggest, is it? +sj + 00:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No; criticism of Wikipedia is beneficial to the project. However, a boycott is going beyond saying "Wikipedia is bad because of X", a boycott is saying "harm Wikipedia using method Y". — Matt Crypto 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless and a relevant use of userspace. The question "can Wikipedia ever become a reliable source?" is a totally valid one. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a relevant question, but the page doesn't ask it. Under "Aspects the boycott could include:" are "Acknowledging that Wikipedia is an inherently flawed system that should be ended rather than amended." and "Acknowledging that Wikipedia can never become encyclopedic regardless of changes, recommendations, etc.". If this was a discussion about the problems of Wikipedia and how best to solve to them, of course that would be a valid and relevant page. If JuanMuslim wants to create that page instead, no one is stopping him. Carbonite | Talk 17:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand why you insist on censoring debate on a relevant subject about Wikipedia. Well, my original idea was to leave everything as broad as possible; now it looks like I've given a too narrow focus for people to vote on. Check out the original page...[9] My original idea would allow boycott participants to select different levels such as 1 to 5 based on their temporary, boycott involvement, but then I decided to take a different approach, and that's what my current subpage looks like.--JuanMuslim 1m 17:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Presumably he's asking for a response, so it seems that this IS that page. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A glance at the talk page confirms that there is plenty of quite reasonable discussion going on. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, how about copying the talk (discussion) page so that it replaces the main boycott page? I think that would be acceptable since it would actually be relevant to improving Wikipedia. Carbonite | Talk 17:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I feel is the most inappropriate is having the details of this proposed boycott all laid out and asking people to support or oppose a particular plan. There's even a logo for the boycott. If this could be transformed into the discussion that's taking place on the Boycott talk page, then I'd agree that it would have some purpose. Carbonite | Talk 17:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if he hadn't made other contributions my vote might have been different, but I don't see it as harmful to wikipedia. I'm not sure I understand the point but if he wants the page I don't see why not. So many users have pages not fully related to the project and I don't find this one particularly special. I understand the "wikipedia is not a webs host" argument, but I would say if we are going to delete this then it should come in the context of more sweeping changes in policy of what users can host or not. gren グレン 20:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am embarrassed that this "Miscellany for deletion" exists. It's very heavy handed and is strong evidence that Juan has a point. Censoring the talk pages of JuanMuslim will only drive the discussions of harming Wikipedia underground. I like this discussion better here where we can see it and counter hype with factual information. --Peter McConaughey 22:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant misuse of a talk page, I don't normally endorse deleting a person's own userspace pages but this page crosses the line. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 04:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page baggles me thoroughly--what is he riddling? My initial response to its many layers of self-contradiction is "Delete". Yet, it is a User: space page. If JuanMuslim were to join in a boycott, he would not have the right to use the page User:JuanMuslim or any of its subpages. Even if JuanMuslim did not join such a boycott, leading or directing such a movement would be sufficient grounds for this page's deletion. This is a worthless and outright harmful page, and I wonder what good faith could have led JuanMuslim to create such a thing. However, I cannot vote for its deletion--yet. NatusRoma 05:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per jpgordon. Also agree with Rossami: "This is no worse than the final rant we see from many users who decide to leave the project." TacoDeposit 08:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is worse than that. This is an active (or would-be active) campaign by an active editor, not one who has left in a huff. -Splashtalk 18:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I am an active editor who has dedicated many long hours to Wikipedia. We must not become complacent. I am not surprised that the possibility of a boycott frightens those who feel insecure about the status of Wikipedia. --JuanMuslim 1m 19:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is very sad, these 2 articles criticizing wikipedia, are themselves "self-interesters". Lets just keep these 2 articles to show everyone how stupid it is. JedOs 11:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I heard there's an encyclopedia around here somewhere. If these rumors are true, maybe working on that is a better use of time than worrying about what's in user space. Friday (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignore: it's in his user space. If a user wants to make an idiot of himself in his user space, let him. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not if he's trying to make an idiot of Wikipedia too. We allow wide latitude in userspace, but that is no excuse for wilfully trying to boycott the project. Wikipedia is tolerant: it is not stupid. -Splashtalk 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's only a user page. This is not a big threat to Wikipedia. Don't we have better things to do than worry about this? As a previous voter stated, deleting this page will only give ammunition to cabalism accusers. It would be absolutely silly to delete this page.--Alhutch 04:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I guess I can't vote delete because I voted their, and I think it is pretty crazy to try to delete something on his userspace anyway. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't like it, but it's his user space and he can do what he wants with it!--Irishpunktom\talk 11:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I can't vote to boycott something that I spend a lot of time and effort on, but the incident regarding "65.81.97.208" and John Seigenthaler Sr. proves one thing true: DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA AS A TRUE SOURCE IN ANY PAPER RESEARCH OR DOCUMENT don't even believe some of the things you read unless you have another source, for the love of God!. That is one of the many reasons I have voted abstain here and on the deletion page. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • labeling someone is not going to help anyone. He has a right to an opinion on his userspace. I do not believe his user space is hurting anyone, that is not to say I dont agree with him, as I believe a boycott of wikipedia would do no good. JedOs 00:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that 'trolling' on one's user pages was grounds for deletion. In fact, I am pretty sure it isn't. If you find the trolling to be really annoying, you can file an RfC or submit a case to mediation. But voting to delete someone's user page on these grounds is out of line. +sj + 00:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you agree we should delete this page? Either you're trying to bring it down from the inside, or you're not. If you are, then it should be deleted as harmful, if you're not it should be deleted as pointlessness with potential for harm. -Splashtalk 03:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The fact that Wikipedia has trouble tolerating criticism is a grave and dangerous problem. The points brought up on this "boycott" page should be welcomed, not deleted. To Juan: I am glad you moved your site to BluWiki and would like to let you know, as the owner of BluWiki, your content will never be censored. --SamOdio 18:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have started a website on BluWiki at http://www.bluwiki.org/go/BoycottWikipedia. I want to thank all of you for your kind words of encouragement. Because you all have worked hard to fight for "subpage rights", I will keep my current WBC subpage for some time to come. Also, I need the assistance of Wikipedians to make Wikipedia better. You know Wikipedia better than any librarian, engineer, etc.--JuanMuslim 1m 05:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that the BoycottWikipedia.jpg image that I use for my subpage is up for possible deletion.--JuanMuslim 1m 07:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia needs to embrace and respond to criticism. However, this is not the correct response. David D. (Talk) 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a blatant attempt at censorship for political control. Barnaby dawson 23:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No problem with criticism inside a userpage. It's presented fairly reasonably too, even if I totally disagree with it! -- Jgritz 00:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You have my vote. Эйрон Кинни 01:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just a way of highlighting core problems. Not harmful at all - just shows that we allow internal debate/dissent -- Eug 02:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Ignore. The actual content is pretty incoherent (calling on Wikipedians to boycott Wikipedia? Asking for support of a campaign the organizer himself calls hypothetical?), but I don't see any inherent reason why it should be deleted. The concerns about Wikipedia's reliability are legitimate ones the community needs to respond to (even if this presentation of them isn't particularly articulate). Plus, the points raised above about allowing internal dissent are important ones. Speech on a userpage isn't disruption. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let them rant, it is good -Nv8200p talk 14:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without attributing more value to it than that an editor put it on their page, and that it is no slam dunk to decide that a boycott is harmful to WP in the long run, which is all that should count.
    --Jerzy•t 22:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: IMO voting "ignore" is an abuse of MfD and verges on a personal attack. Comments within xFD pages, on how good or bad the page at issue is, are tolerated, presumably bcz it's tough to draw the line between when they aid compactly expressing one's reason and when they are just efforts to shame a colleague for their editing or vote. You failed to ignore no later than when you learned enough to edit this page, and saying "ignore" as if casting a vote is neither participation in this process nor ignoring it. Rather, it is either amusing yourself to the detriment of this serious process, or an effort to deliver an insult, or probably both. Given the ambiguity, an insult is delivered, even if you were just vandalistically amusing yourself. And the insult is the worse for being ambiguous about whether you are really insulting voters on one side (the Keep side, i would guess), both sides who take this process seriously, or the colleague who created the page. For shame.
    --Jerzy•t 22:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page in now way assists in the creation of an encyclopedia, and is in effect using a user page as personal web space. DES (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bootcamp

This is a really weird version of Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, and Wikipedia:Tutorial that isn't as helpful as any of those. Moreover, it introduces Wikipedia in a way that is distinctly unfriendly ("You and your friends are writing not only to these people, but also to unreasonable and rude and stupid people...") compared to the other three introductions. I don't see anything salvageable so I think maybe it needs to go. Ashibaka (tock) 04:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops, I noticed that this is actually supposed to be the introduction page for a newbie IRC channel. It's still a weird page that presents itself as a dupe of one of the aforementioned articles. Merge into WP:WELCOME and delete, possibly. Ashibaka (tock) 04:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's an intro for the newbie #wpbootcamp channel. You're right that the text could use some cleaning up, but "I don't see anything salvaeable", coming from someone who couldn't be bothered to leave a message on the (active) talk page, is pretty rich. Ashibaka, you've been around long enough to know better :-) +sj + 23:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone shows up to give a purpose for this page, it seems redundant to me. Xoloz 22:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if only because it is linked to by over 250 pages (many of them User talk pages). Obviously someone is using it. I think it's intended to be a "crash course". It's obviously not for the random n00b, but I think it's fine if that's the style people want to learn in. That said, it looks like only 3 people are really working on it at the moment, so maybe it's in a few templates (which is why it's on so many Talk pages) rather than really being used that much. pfctdayelise 14:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep (and clean up). Randomly deleting pages that are in use is one of the things that makes MfD so controversial. +sj + 23:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree Keep --Junkbot44 19:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why are you axe-happy? Don't chop down this tree! Let Wikipedians be Wikepedians. This page is obviously an effort by someone to improve Wikepedia. Nurture it. Let it grow. Let it evolve. Go for it! 01:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chooserr
  • Keep Strong keep, it justs needs a bit of a clean up Brian | (Talk) 03:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:EddieSegoura/Exicornt

Made up term which User:EddieSegoura spent a great deal of time defending by creating several sockpuppets to vote on the AfD page. Quite rightly, the page was deleted, but now it's shown up on this User page. Since User pages are viewable by Google, this appears to be an attempt at getting this made up word Internet coverage. For what, a potential recreation of the article? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: What's wrong with keeping it on My userpages? And no I had no idea google would pick it up. I'm keeping it until I have the right research for the word. This is not an attempt to recreate the word and it will not be recreated in the main space until I get reliable research. Check here for now. -- Eddie 04:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the bottom the page. It explains why I use the word, even though many of You have never heard of it before. -- Eddie 05:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie, read WP:NOT. --Viriditas 07:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahhhh...ok. The source for this information is a personal website, which contains an image of a (non-professionally) drawn list of railroad junction. Because someone has engaged in sockpuppetry related to this, it is reasonable to suspect that a puppet posted this image, which is otherwise unrelated to its parent page and not very convincing as substantial evidence. However, forgetting the picture, I will vote to keep this. I do think Mr. Segoura remains a bit confused (see his RfA's) about what WP is, and how one should use it. That said, I believe he is acting in good faith. If "exicornt" is, as suspected, imaginary, I doubt this page will cause it to gain currency. If it does, somehow, accomplish this, I will be very impressed, to say the least. On the off chance Mr. Segoura is correct, let the page remain his pet in user-space. My vote would be very different if Mr. Segoura engages in a pattern of dubious articles, but I cannot call a single one, standing alone, dishonest. Xoloz 05:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the page will not be recreated in the mainspace until I have enough research to put it up. If I don't find any, it will remain here in My archive. Thank You for understanding, Xoloz -- Eddie 06:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
don't worry, that alone will not be used to recreate it in the namespace. -- Eddie 06:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Eddie, I highly recommend deleting that web page and avoiding any reference to it in the future. --Viriditas 07:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the duplicate and changed it into a real discussion page. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Eddie 06:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right SPUI, thanks for catching that point I missed above. --HappyCamper 01:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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.

2005-12-02

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as blatant spam JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:Fortunelounge

Misuse of userpage as blatant spam; username was created and used to create similar page for company spam Peyna 07:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate wasSpeedy Keep per nomination withdrawl. Xoloz 09:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:62.195.115.51

User registered an account and wished to start with a clean slate Syrthiss 03:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If the user (don't say who) registered an account, how are we going to know his IP? After all, the discussions on his user talk page are much more important, and nobody can determine the said user's IP unless they run a CheckUser on him, which is reserved for ArbCom. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 03:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh I was wondering that myself. I was hoping it wasn't a hard thing to checkuser. :/ I'm not sure there is any history there other than me and the user themselves, if that makes a difference (they only contributed some minor stuff today that was reverted and the talk page was me giving them warnings). I suppose I could email the user and have them logout and request it, but I'm not sure that isn't just as cumbersome. --Syrthiss 03:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2005-12-01

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

The result of the debate was delete Hiding talk 16:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (signpost articles)

Essentially duplicates the idea of disambiguation pages, and in simple cases redirects. Offers no benefits, but adds yet more complexity to the Wikipedia world! As it stands it has only 11 uses to date, these should be reformatted as disambig pages... I cannot find any discussion on the creation of this type of article in the WP:MoS discussion archives. I have removed the article from the MoS Style template plus put Category:Signpost articles up for deletion. Thanks/wangi 09:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The description states that signpost articles "are a lot like disambiguation pages, except that the target pages need not have the same name." This is a misunderstanding of disambiguation pages (which can incorporate synonyms and topics for which the applicable term describes a relatively minor element). As such, this setup is entirely redundant. —Lifeisunfair 18:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've completely misunderstood the intent. As such I will re-word it and re-propose it. If I explain it right this time, it should be abundantly clear that they are very different from disambiguation pages (I regret saying they were!). Note that category is way way too overloaded to be useful anyway :). Pcb21 Pete 14:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lifeisunfair, unless someone presents a compelling rationale for this, which I certainly don't see. Not really instruction creep, just "confusion creep". Xoloz 01:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Confusion creep is annoying. Ashibaka (tock) 04:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it was not discussed and there is no need for it. Neonumbers 05:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's a lot of confusion about "not pure dab pages" that can be avoided by simply not having them. Tedernst | talk 19:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Archived_debates/December_2005&oldid=243201117"