User talk:Zordrac/deletions

This page was nominated for deletion on 9 February 2023. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Nice work on all the talker articles. If interested, stop by and help work out the kinks in Wikipedia:Experimental deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion reform, where I saw your pointer to the deletion discussion. ∴ here…♠ 18:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What new deletion policy? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in here...

WP:AfD myself. Rather, we can only hope that it may lead to well informed policy changes ;).. ∴ here…♠ 07:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I think that I said there that it would be a good chance to test the new policy. I don't think that that implies that it already existed. Just suggesting that the person who blanked their own page once they realised it was in wiktionary has done nothing wrong in doing so, and it would be consistent with

WP:XD. Should have linked though. Zordrac 07:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I completely agree. The more traffic we have at

WP:XD, the better Wikipedia:Deletion reform will progress, imho. ∴ here…♠ 07:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

vfds

Hi. I've noticed that you just voted on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Planes_of_existence_(chat_site). Please can you also vote on my other article up for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/lintilla (chat site), which is currently losing 5-3.

Just a note that spamming for votes is generally frowned upon; also, bear in mind with your statistics you quote on your user page that 58.2% of those deletes were unanimous, which suggests that they were probably "good" deletes. That said; I'll have to abstain on this one. Peyna 05:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its frowned upon to ask people to vote? I would have thought that everyone should vote as much as they can. I can understand if you don't know enough about the topic to vote though. Those statistics were apparently generated by some kind of computer tool. Says it on the link anyway. Zordrac 05:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is any kind of

WP:POLICY on it, but AfD shouldn't turn into a "who can get more of their friends to vote" contest. As it is now most voters are either people talking a look at the AfD list or those that stumble across the article. About as random of a sample as we're going to get, and probably the best to go with. Peyna 05:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

What friends? Are you my friend? I only just started using this, and have not made any friends here. The only person that I may have had contact with before is User: Zetawoof, and he voted delete on both articles. Personally, I don't think that voting is relevant over such articles, where there is a clear precedent to follow. I've explained that in what I wrote on deletion reform. I don't think it should get down to who can manipulate votes. My aim was not to manipulate votes, rather it was to get a sample of people who don't know the nominator and who are unbiased, because I felt confident that unbiased people would vote keep. My belief is that the early voters were manipulated, and I wanted to try to redress that problem. Zordrac 06:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a similar or different article was voted up or down before does not necessarily establish

deletion review. Peyna 06:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

If this was done by law, it would be relevant. And I think that that's a good way to go. However, that's not the only argument that I was making for it to be kept, and not the only precedent. Anyway, I don't think we need to argue this any more. You've made your point and I've made mine, and we've really finished talking. I will apologise to you to writing to you and I hope that you didn't take offence at that, and I hope that that is the end of it. Zordrac 06:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your name on the deletion pages all the time. Good work. As far as Wikipedian improvements go, the greatest step toward improvement is getting rid of all the garbage articles. I vote on several articles everyday. The system of deletion seems to be in shambles, but that's probably because it has gone ignored for a long time, and Wikipedia has become a haven for articles filled with vanity, fancruft, self-promotions, and unimportance. There are 831,000 articles in our language, and probably one-fourth of them don't belong in an encyclopedia, even if it is Wikipedia. (Notorious4life 05:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Noticed you mentioned on a recent AFD vote that Pauline Hanson said 'aborigines should be "sent home"'. Don't see it in the article - if it's a genuine quote, maybe you could add it? Such a stupid assertion is noteworthy and should be included. 81.79.10.7 13:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think your charactarization of deletionists as people who are are "trigger happy and like to see people suffer" is completely unfair and not thought out. I challenge you to go to New Articles and look through a hundred new submissions, and then tell me if you think article deletion is never merited. The mere fact that an article has been submitted does not somehow call down the Hand of God in its favor.

Deletionists are no less concerned that Wikipedia be a good encyclopedia than are inclusionists, but deletionist believe first and foremost that if something is to be part of Wikipedia, it must merit a place. Wikipedia is not a place where every rock and twig on this planet can have its own article, nor should it be. I do not get an article, nor do you, and for good reason. My post office does not get an article, and the road in front of my house does not either, yet some inclusionist would insist that such articles be kept.

As a deletionist, I still vote regularly to keep articles. I have even rescued articles from AfD by improving them; I do this regularly. I am not the only one. (At the same time, some inclusionists, even Kappa, occasionally vote to delete articles.)

I would urge you to avoid false characterizations and to avoid fanning the flames of what is already an acrimonious debate. Wikipedia will be made best by cooperation and compromise, not by sniping at anyone who disagrees. Denni ☯ 05:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on your reply as to who you are. By the way, I was urging everyone to vote, so that the natural tendencies, of about 50% delete and 50% keep, which is the average amount per *PEOPLE* that vote, be kept, as opposed to the 79% delete and 21% keep, which is the average voting statistic.

I personally vote around the 50% mark. I think that most people who are not trigger happy would do the same. Zordrac 08:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I spend a good deal of time around AFD, and watch who comes and goes. I hadn't seen you around here before, so I checked out your POV on your user page. I agree that people should vote, and I don't promote either a deletionist or an inclusionist slant. I'd disagree with you that the vote should fall fifty-fifty - remember, these are articles which are already borderline, and the 80-20 figure is probably more representative of what should happen with a lot of nn-bios and obscure garage bands. Anyway, my main concern is that we act as a community and remember that there is a place for both deletion and inclusion. Calling people trigger happy and suggesting that they like to see people suffer is no way to build consensus. Denni ☯ 00:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. If its 80-20 that is the norm, then why is it that the average voter votes 50-50? Is the average voter ill informed? Are the statistics, which state that the serial voter influences votes, misleading? Zordrac 01:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering where you get the 50-50 figure. If that were the voting ratio for the average user, then the figure for articles kept versus articles deleted should be way closer to 50-50, when in fact, about 80% of the articles coming to AFD are deleted, typically by unanimous vote. It would be interesting to find out what the figure actually is. Denni ☯ 01:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide a link to the 100 day stats, that says 50/50 or thereabouts. I thought that you were referring to my quoting of statistics. Have a look at my big note on this page. I am quoting statistics here. Zordrac 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zordrac. When voting "speedy delete" on an AfD nomination, please be certain that it meets the very specific criteria required for speedy deletions. An article may violate other Wikipedia policies, like "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", but if it is not included in the criteria, unfortunately it can't be speedily deleted. Also, when you are the first person voting "speedy delete", you should say which criterion the article meets, such as "A7". If you want to state that you strongly feel that the article should be deleted, you can vote "strong delete".

In case it ever comes up, "speedy keep" is used for situations in which you believe the nominator has acted in bad faith. However, there are a few other situations in which a "speedy keep" vote may be appropriate, such as when a new editor nominates an article he or she didn't actually want to be deleted. "Strong keep" can be used when you strongly feel that the article should be kept. Thanks, Kjkolb 10:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy !@^&#$%#$! I am not sure if I want to wade through that every time. LOL. You'd think they'd make it more obvious. I'll see if I can just summarise this for myself here.

Speedy delete if:

• Its a silly page, made by a banned user, etc (i.e. obvious stuff)

Woah, hang on, I object to that bit "unremarkable people" should NEVER be a qualification for speedy delete. I might argue that one out on the talk page. Reason: because often people make assertions that someone is not notable when actually they are.

• Personal attack, in a foreign language, trying to get around reverts etc, (obvious stuff)
• Redirect to non existent pages, user pages, etc (obvious stuff)
• Images that are no longer relevant etc (NB: I have no intention of voting on images)

Okay. Well thanks for drawing my attention to that. I am going to go ahead and argue that part about unremarkable people being able to be speedied. Delete, maybe, but not speedied. Zordrac 11:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reading this, see my notes here: Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_of_vanity_articles#Scrap_this_policy_as_a_reason_for_speedy_deletion_-_AFD_only. Zordrac 11:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that policy isn't going to be changed. I haven't argued my case very well though, I must admit. The Absolute Boyfriend article *IS* a prime example why the policy needs to be removed though. And, as you said that vanity articles are not candidates for speedy deletion, well, at least they shouldn't be. I admit that I misunderstood policy though. Zordrac 01:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn deletecruft, per
  WP:WORLD
  .

  On a more serious note, the conclusions you draw on your user page re: deletions (note that the actual meaning of "deletionist" is "someone who doesn't agree with me") are flawed, and I can find absolutely no way of logically tying them to the information given without resorting to some false assumptions:

  1. You seem to assume that every article raised on AfD has an equal chance of deletion. Since every article is different, this must be false.
  2. You seem to assume that every "delete" vote is of equal weight and importance. One voter may cast one controversial delete vote (e.g. "delete, nn school"), while another might case several hundred uncontroversial ones (e.g. nonsense, vanity, elaborate hoax, etc).
  3. Most importantly, it doesn't take into account that an article requires "rough consensus" for an actual deletion, which means that the 70% of deletions actually made at least 2:1 in favour of delete. However, some 58% of all votes were unanimous deletion, suggesting these were actually justified. As a result, of the contested deletions, only 28% were deleted, which is well below the 60% that the average voter might "want to delete" (according to your already-flawed reasoning)
  4. You have identified 18 of the top 20 contributors on the 100 days as "people that don't agree with you" (q.v.). Unless, of course, you have some other way of determining whether someone is an "inclusionist" or "deletionist" other than by their own confession? I hope it wasn't based on the proportion of keep/delete votes as that is useless as a measure (q.v.). Almost as useless, in fact, as using more than 3 figures of edit count to determine the weight of someone's opinion.

  I hope your little list above was good-spirited satire rather than veiled stinging criticism (per

  WP:AGF). Your interpretation of the numbers on the 100 days of AfD is incorrect, and one of any number of incorrect interpretations. The correct interpretation is that they're just a bunch of numbers with no real meaning to them, since there is not enough consistency in AfD to be of any real use. Chris talk back 02:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Cough. People who disagree with facts or dispute statistics don't need a lot of answering. Zordrac 03:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which facts are being disputed here? Facts are generally indisputable, it is opinions that are generally disputed. Chris talk back 18:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS, typical form is to respond to user talk comments on the talk page of the person leaving them. That way, they don't have to watch a million user talk pages to see if you've responded. :) Chris talk back 18:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was talking about what happened in the Vfds for the 2 articles I created. If you think that my interpretation of the AFD 100 days thing is misleading, then that's fine. However, it is not incorrect. I was quoting a fact. I was not "wrong" as you put it because I was stating a factual statement. If you yourself would draw alternative conclusions, then that is your decision. However, suggesting that statistics must be interpreted in one way and only one way is wrong. They are statistics, and factual. To me, it was glaringly obvious, but if you want to interpret them in another manner, then feel free to do so. Zordrac 03:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's break this down a little. The numbers as they originally appeared are facts drawn from examining 100 days on AfD. Not everything you present is fact. The rest is either interpretation, misinterpretation, or misleading.

• 6314 out of 6912 voters make less than 20 votes. Fact extracted from table, though presented out of context. Conversely, a full 598 individuals voted at least 20 times.
• These 6314 voters vote "delete" on average 56.2% of the time (just over half). Not fact, but incorrect interpretation. Note 1.
• 46 out of 6912 voters make more than 250 votes Fact extracted from table, presented out of context. Though, again, it's worth noting that 552 voters managed between 25-250 votes.
• These 46 voters vote "delete" on average 76.0%. Bzzt! Wrong again. Note 2.
• The overall statistic is that 70.6% of votes end in delete. I'm sorry, that's not what's on the card. Note 3.
• Yet the average voter would delete only 60%. This is actually a closer match than you make it out to be. Note 4.

Didn't you do well? Let's see where it all went wrong:

1. 56.2% of votes from these voters were "delete" votes. This is not the same thing as voting delete 56.2% of the time, due to the volatile nature of AfD, and the inconsistency of the cases presented. Remember also that this includes the anons, the sockpuppet brigade and defensive article authors, most of whom feature in the category of less than 5 votes. If you take just 5-20 votes, the number is around 66.1%. Note that there were 11211 articles nominated, and only 7665 votes by voters casting less than 5 votes, which is less than one vote per nomination.
2. This is another conflation of the proportion of specific votes with the proportion of general votes. What happened on these 11211 AfDs is not an indicator of what might happen on the next 100 days, or the 100 days before that, due to the highly variable quality of articles nominated. Remember, not every voter votes on every debate. These statistics only tell us how people voted on the ones in which they did. It does not take account of how maybe they would have voted on the ones they didn't vote on.
3. Actually, only 60.0% of the nominations ended in delete. 70.6% is the proportion of all individual votes interpreted as "delete".
4. You propose the "average" voter deletes 60% of the time, and the actual number of deletions is 60%. One problem, though. What's your "average" voter? "Average" by what definition? One man's average is another's extreme. Without clarifying what exactly you mean by "average", it is a meaningless number with no context.

That's the numbers done with. Now for your conclusions:

• Conclusion is obvious - a handful of deletionists are pushing through deletions.
  Non sequitur. How exactly is this conclusion reached? It's not obvious to me, but then I know a misuse of statistics
  when I see one ;-)
• Now, number 4 and 5 are inclusionists ... but even still 18 of the top 20 contributors are deletionists. How are you determining whether someone is "inclusionist" or "deletionist"? Simply by looking at the proportions? Have you actaully looked at every vote to decide someone's stance? Am I a deletionist because I will generally vote to delete patent nonsense, or an inclusionist because I will generally vote to keep a featured article that someone has nominated in bad faith? As far as I am concerned, the only person entitled to judge is me. You have labelled BD2412 as a deletionist, whereas he identifies himself as inclusionist.
• The ultimate conclusion to all of that is that the Vfd process is unfair. Maybe, but not in the way nor for the reasons you claim. As I am sure you are aware, a vocal minority can prevent deletion even when outnumbered 2:1, though this would suggest in large enough votes that someone wants the article. The stringency of the criteria for speedy deletion means AfD gets overloaded with obvious stuff (remember, 58.6% of the deletions were uncontested - only 1.4% of all nominated articles were contested deletions). As a result, people see the word "delete" all the way down the page and assume the worst. These circumstances typically mean that AfD gets presented in an unfavourable light anyway.
• And that ... what we can do in the short term is to vote vote vote as much as possible. No, no, no, no, NO! This is the sort of statement that only serves to polarise the community further. The guide to deletion at one point used to discourage adding weight to a discussion for the sake of it. It currently states that the discussions are not intended to be voting rounds. A more accurate suggestion than "vote vote vote as much as possible" (because polls are evil) would be "make your opinions heard".

So, in summary, you really, really, need to stop complaining everywhere that stuff is broken (we already know) and that everyone is out to get you (yes,

WP:AGF, you'll have no trouble accepting this). A cynical co-worker of mine once said "Check your fiction. If you're going to spread misinformation, at least make sure it holds water first." :-) Chris talk back 06:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Not entitled to interpret statistics correctly? What absolute nonsense. Please stop writing nonsense in here. Zordrac 09:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bunchofgrapes weighs in

Hi, Zordrac! I'm going to make a friendly attempt here to point out that the conclusion you derive from the 100 days on AFD data isn't neccessarily correct. You said: "Conclusion is obvious - a handful of deletionists are pushing through deletions. Not only that, but the vast majority of people who make a lot of votes are voting delete!"

It's true that the vast majority of people who make a lot of votes vote delete most of the time. But someone voting delete most of the time at AfD does not mean they are neccessarily a deletionist. (I guess you could choose to define deletionism strictly by the number of keep/delete votes cast at AfD, but I don't think that would be fair, and I'm writing this to explain why.) If you

on AfD nominations, you would have to say that most nominations are made, not of random articles, but of articles that someone really thinks don't belong in Wikipedia. And, in fact, a great many AfD votes end up as uncontroversial deletes: everybody who bothers voting agrees that the article doesn't belong. And those uncontroversial ones are, well, boring. In many cases, only the die-hard constant AfD contributers even bother tacking on a vote for a page that should obviously go and has a few delete votes already. Which could explain exactly why the frequent contributors end up with more delete votes then occassional voters, who probably seek out interesting or controversial AfDs to weigh in on.

So, infrequent contributers who seek out interesting AfDs will always end up with a more even mix of keep and delete votes than individuals who vote on almost every AfD. Deletionism may have nothing to do with it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that uncontested delete votes equate to something being definitely delete-worthy. I have seen a large number of votes which were all delete when in fact the subject matter was very notable and relevant. This is what is known as "being a sheep". Most people in the general community are sheep, ergo most people on wikipedia are sheep too. Go and have a look at Absolute Boyfriend for a second, and then tell me that delete votes necessitate that an article is unworthy.

And FWIW, I am not suggesting that the vote *has* to be 50% just because that's about half. What I am suggesting is that the average voter votes about 60%. I said 60%, didn't I? Not 50%. Average voter = 60%, high voter = 76%, overall average = 70%. Nowhere did I say 50%, nor did I suggest anywhere that they were random articles. I believe that if an article was plucked out at random, you would find that less than 5% of people would vote delete. Therefore, the 50% logic doesn't fit.

AS for a reason why people vote only occasionally as opposed to regularly, well, here's one: TIME. Most people who use this spend enough time researching things and trying to write articles, and they simply don't have enough time to vote. How many people vote? Look, the average votes per article is about 5 or 6, while I was user number 600,000, and I would suggest that there are thousands of regular users. What is that telling you? Less than 1% of regular contributors vote on Vfds regularly. Less than 1%. I think that the reality is that most people who vote regularly are doing so because they like to see things deleted.

This is based on a lot of experience with similar kinds of things. One example is the LiveJournal abuse team. Studies proved that being in the abuse team for a long period of time led to people getting trigger happy and banning everyone. So they now have a rotation policy, whereby people only stay in for a short period of time.

Similarly, if you have a talker (or MUD or practically any online community), if an administrator has the "ban button" then over time they become more likely to hit ban. They will either hate "having" to use it, or else get a kick out of it. And if they stay there for long, it will be because they get a kick out of it (either that, or they are terribly depressed).

So what most talkers (et al) do to avoid that kind of symptom is to get people to mix punishments with something positive. On talkers, they'd advertise, welcome newbies, and so forth. And when you have people doing that kind of thing, then the trigger happy power trips stop.

Now, apply the same kinds of studies and proven examples to Wikipedia, and you have a reality whereby Vfds are all negative. Ergo, the longer that people use Vfds and the more frequently they use them, there will be a tendency towards them hitting delete, just for fun. Then add in the sheep factor and steamrolling votes and everything else, and it gets increasingly worse.

There are a number of people who have publicly admitted to going out of their way to delete articles, and that they get a kick out of doing it. Check out some user pages. It's not some myth or anything. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat this, and in larger type because you obviously didn't see it the first time. The proportion of articles deleted was 60%, not 70%.. That is now two people who have pointed out that your interpretation of the numbers is patently incorrect. Chris talk back 09:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People who tend toward favoring deletion frequently think Afd is unduly influenced by those who insist on keeping junk articles. People who tend toward inclusion frequently think that Afd is dominated by those who want to delete perfectly good articles. Funny how that works, eh? Friday (talk) 07:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While those tending towards eventualism think that everyone at AFD is just totally crazy. O:-) Kim Bruning 07:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this was interesting going here after not looking for a while, and seeing 2 people talking to each other. I might as well open up my own chat forum! LOL.

You are right though Friday, that it probably does create a bias. However, statistically the majority of people who participate in AFDs are deletionists. Perhaps they only represent a small proportion of editors, or an average number, but they actually dominate AFD discussions. Now, that is a statistical reality. You can argue if you like about whether the statistics are misleading, but that is a statistical reality.

I have never heard of anyone claim that there are too many junk articles being kept because of unfair keep votes in the AFD. Oh, sorry, there was one claim, where someone claimed that a girl used "meat puppets" to influence a vote - i.e. got all of her friends to vote "keep" on an article to tip the tide in her favour. I have not yet heard any other such claim along those lines.

However, I have heard a wide range of claims in talk around the deletion reform and related areas about how too many articles are being needlessly deleted for various reasons. It would seem that people who feel that way comment about the unfairness but do not any longer participate in the AFD discussions. A logical conclusion? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zordrac. Please do not ever change other editors comments in AfDs (or anywhere else), such as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sholom Keller. It is for them to get it right. It in fact aids counting to be able to see the unusual phrasings from less experienced users. Thanks. -Splash^talk 23:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amending other's comments is frowned upon very heavily, and should not be done (unless it's a simple link fix or something). Admin's should be able to read the debates for themselves and in doing so it should be very easy to see what the editor meant. If an admin closes a debate incorrectly when there are such comments, then

WP:DRV or their talk page is the remedy. In fact, changing people's comments is defined as Wikipedia:Vandalism, except for the fact that your changes were clearly meant in good faith. Just the other day, for example, I wrote a snappy edit-summary because someone had added a colon to the front of one of my posts: it changed who I was replying to. -Splash^talk 23:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

You will get many more people offside if you go around amending other editors' comments. Please don't do it. -Splash^talk 23:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can invent me saying things I didn't say if you like. Specifically, I made no reference whatsoever that cleaning up a page was vandalism, I did not threaten to block you, and I quite clearly said you were acting in good-faith. I said only that changing others' comments was deeply frowned upon, and that it is included in Wikipedia:Vandalism. There have been major inter-editor conflicts over changes to comments and, believe me, they are not worth it. There is no need to get nearly so angry about a short note; saying someone said something they didn't say is another way to upset people. -Splash^talk 00:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is explicitly what I did here: [1] - changed 3 votes which were listed as "Do not delete", "No", and "Please no" to "Keep" to avoid confusion by an administrator. Vandalism? I think not. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to iterate: it really is not necessary to change "Do not delete" to "Keep". The closing administrator really does read everything, especially if the result of the debate is not immediately obvious, and it is clear that "do not delete" means "keep". So please don't do that again. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was 6/6 yet you deleted the article. I have proposed for it to be undeleted on that basis as well as a number of incorrect assertions made. A prime example of steamrolling a deletion IMO. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that AfD is not a vote. (This is why the name was changed from Votes for Deletion). It is a discussion. The administrators then review the discussion and make a decision, evaluating all factors. Anyway, the undeletion request is the proper way to go, so I'll this be. Peyna 02:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously its not a vote when a 6/6 vote leads to a deletion! Certainly wasn't a deletion by community decision! We are still voting though, whether the votes are everything or not. IMO so many incorrect assertions were made in relation to that article, and so much manipulation of the process that the article must be undeleted. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to vote for a community decision. In fact, there are many instances where votes actually form decisions contrary to community opinion, due to the vocal minorities.

It's becoming increasingly apparent from reading your comments that you just don't understand the deletion process and how it fits into building a dependable encyclopaedia. Most of all, try and be careful to avoid putting process before product. We are here to compile an encyclopaedia, and process is supposed to guide us toward that goal, not as a rigid set of rules. Remember, articles are not people, so we shouldn't get tied up in legalistic wrangling over procedures in dealing with them.

And finally, per

WP:DENSE instead), it's generally accepted that hypocrisy

is a bad thing. For example, it's considered extremely bad form to throw around claims that others are making "incorrect assertions" while actually displaying some on your user pages.

WP:LA

By the way, the user who accused me of vandalism, User: Splash AFAIK is not an administrator on Wikipedia, yet seemed to be pretending to be one in making the threats/accusations towards me. Is there some way to confirm whether or not he is an administrator?

Sure, Wikipedia:List of administrators. Splash is an admin. Not that that should really matter. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you referring to me and/or my actions here on Wikipedia on several other user's talk pages. If you have any issue with me or my actions or edits here on Wikipedia, please feel free to discuss them directly with me. Peyna 04:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you, Peyna. I think you are doing great. I am sorry if you feel that I have talked about you in a negative way. I have generally talked about some things which from a theoretical point of view I think are incorrect, but my argument is from the theoretical point of view, not from an individual basis. That you happen to philosophically disagree with me is fine. I don't want it to turn in to a personal attack. You have never attacked me, and I hope that you don't think that I have ever attacked you. I don't want to go to your talk page because I don't think that there is a problem. If you do, then I am sorry, and please let me know what you think the problem is. I am always happy for people to have different beliefs to me. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make sure there was nothing more personal going on here. I don't take Wikipedia all that seriously to begin with, but I would hate for you to think that I have some kind of person vendetta against you either. Thanks for clearing this up. Peyna 04:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if nothing else, you've said many kind words to me. I would be foolish to ignore them. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should make an effort to

]

The conclusions from the numbers on this page are wrong

I'm a physicist, and I have some idea what it means to make conclusions from numbers. It's easy to make them say things they don't. Let me offer an alternate possible conclusion. Perhaps only a small number of users choose to vote on no-brainer deletions, and a large number of users only vote on controversial items. That would explain the statistics on this page just as well. To claim the conclusion is clear is false, and I think it would be nice to change that. -- SCZenz 06:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In the AfD for Good Clean Fun you said Keep - they have an allmusic.com entry. That's enough for me. Thanks. Could you perhaps check out the AfD for Screw 32 as well? Punkmorten 20:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

just a quick note to show my respect and say thanks for all of the thought and effort you have put into deletion reform. Great job! Lerner 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]