Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/December 2005

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion | Archived debates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hiding (talk | contribs) at 20:53, 27 December 2005 (adding 01). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 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 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.

2005-12-21

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 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. [1] 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, [2] 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.
[3]
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." [4] 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...[5] 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.

2005-12-01

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=32911892"