| Revision as of 19:51, 27 April 2008 editKont Dracula (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users612 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:54, 27 April 2008 edit undoKont Dracula (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users612 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{administrator|1}} | {{administrator|1}} | ||
| This user has deleted the page because he has been proven a hypocrite. Below is the exchange that he sought to delete on the grounds that, well, er, he came out looking like the hypocritical and cowardly person he is. |
This user has deleted the page because he has been proven a hypocrite. Below is the exchange that he sought to delete on the grounds that, well, er, he came out looking like the hypocritical and cowardly person he is. Someone very, very happy to dish out insults about articles he has not read in no uncertain terms, describing them as "steaming crap" but terrified if anyone objects. He will remove this and I will post it again. What we are dealing with here is a coward. ] (]) 19:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| 1) Is it an acceptable practice for a wikipedia adminstrator to delete articles which are in the very process of being written without consultation or clarification on the basis that they do not contain references when the very same administrator has himself posted less relevant articles which do not contain references himself? | 1) Is it an acceptable practice for a wikipedia adminstrator to delete articles which are in the very process of being written without consultation or clarification on the basis that they do not contain references when the very same administrator has himself posted less relevant articles which do not contain references himself? | ||
| 2) If the answer to the above is yes (and I have to conclude that it is, as that is precisely what has happened) would it be fair to conclude that wikipedia administrators feel themselves above and not subject to the same criteria for notability and verification as non-administrators? After all, my article contained no references and was deleted. NawlinWiki`s contained no references and was amended when I pointed it out. Please refer me to the relevant pages. Kont Dracula (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC) | 2) If the answer to the above is yes (and I have to conclude that it is, as that is precisely what has happened) would it be fair to conclude that wikipedia administrators feel themselves above and not subject to the same criteria for notability and verification as non-administrators? After all, my article contained no references and was deleted. NawlinWiki`s contained no references and was amended when I pointed it out. Please refer me to the relevant pages. ] (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| 1. Yes, to the first part of the question; administrators can delete articles without consultation or clarification. Articles that are being considered for deletion are assessed entirely on their own terms, and not with reference to any other article, so comparison of your article (which I have read) with any article created or edited by anyone else is not a relevant consideration. You can read the relevant policy at WP:WAX. | 1. Yes, to the first part of the question; administrators can delete articles without consultation or clarification. Articles that are being considered for deletion are assessed entirely on their own terms, and not with reference to any other article, so comparison of your article (which I have read) with any article created or edited by anyone else is not a relevant consideration. You can read the relevant policy at WP:WAX. | ||
Revision as of 19:54, 27 April 2008
This user has deleted the page because he has been proven a hypocrite. Below is the exchange that he sought to delete on the grounds that, well, er, he came out looking like the hypocritical and cowardly person he is. Someone very, very happy to dish out insults about articles he has not read in no uncertain terms, describing them as "steaming crap" but terrified if anyone objects. He will remove this and I will post it again. What we are dealing with here is a coward. Kont Dracula (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
|
If you're here to discuss a page, it would be appreciated if you would be specific about the name of the page, if possible providing a link to it. Since I, like you, am working to improve Misplaced Pages, please remember to assume good faith, and also please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. |
 Archives |
|
/Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4, /Archive 5, /Archive 6, /Archive 7, /Archive 8 |
Thanks!
for the *. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure. I think I have to apologize for subjecting you to the diatribe it engendered but, as I think you might agree, it tends to prove the point in an ironic way. I just looked at your talk page and decided that the minor whining *I* get from new page patrol is relatively polite compared to what you seem to have attracted -- hence the *. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC) NalinWiki, you deleted my article while I was still writing it on the basis that it contained "no references whatsoever" but allow your own article to stand even though it contains "no references whatsoever". Please, please explain how your point been proven in "an ironic way". Go ahead. Explain it. All I have seen so far from you is reckless deletion of other people`s work followed by pathetic back-slapping from like-minded wreckers. If you are going to have a dig at me, why not do it on my own talk page? You weren`t shy to destroy four hours of my work, so why be shy now? Kont Dracula (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you've confused the two of us; I must take credit for some statements that have apparently offended you, having signed them, so feel free to express yourself here about them. If you want the contents of an article that was deleted, in order to work on adding citations in a "sandbox" page, you can either ask me or another administrator for assistance. If you have any other questions about Misplaced Pages policies, I'll be happy to direct you to the relevant pages. And if you'd like to work on contributing to Misplaced Pages in a worthwhile way, in accordance with our policies, I think everyone here will try to assist you. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC) No, I haven`t confused anything. There is not very much to confuse between you two drones anyway. I see that you are not very good at answering specific questions about specific articles. Evidently, you feel much safer describing deleted articles that you have not even read as "steaming crap" than you are actually discussing the actual merits of said articles. A really positive, worthwhile contribution there. Is that the kind of "contribution" you want me to make? Hardly surprising that you prefer the classic politburo repsonse of "directing me to the relevant" regulations rather than discuss the merits of the case in question. Yet you have the arch hypocrisy to highlight the "assume good faith" legend on your page.
Well I do have some questions about wikipedia policy, as you mention it:
1) Is it an acceptable practice for a wikipedia adminstrator to delete articles which are in the very process of being written without consultation or clarification on the basis that they do not contain references when the very same administrator has himself posted less relevant articles which do not contain references himself?
2) If the answer to the above is yes (and I have to conclude that it is, as that is precisely what has happened) would it be fair to conclude that wikipedia administrators feel themselves above and not subject to the same criteria for notability and verification as non-administrators? After all, my article contained no references and was deleted. NawlinWiki`s contained no references and was amended when I pointed it out. Please refer me to the relevant pages. Kont Dracula (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Yes, to the first part of the question; administrators can delete articles without consultation or clarification. Articles that are being considered for deletion are assessed entirely on their own terms, and not with reference to any other article, so comparison of your article (which I have read) with any article created or edited by anyone else is not a relevant consideration. You can read the relevant policy at WP:WAX. Well I didn`t expect you to be so candid about it. So you believe that it is entirely acceptable for an administrator to completely ignore the very regulations that he is so dogmatically enforcing onto others. You still haven`t referred me to the "relevant" page on that one.
But no, you have not "read" my article because it was in the very process of being written when it was deleted. I am sure that there was a great deal of improvement that it required. There were some slightly whimiscial and humourous details which were possibly not appropriate for a wikipedia entry. It wasn`t perfect. You see, that is why I was editing it and indeed still writing it.
Of course, in reality we know that you have not actually expressed your own opinion. You were pretty forward with your opinion the other day though, weren`t you? You described other people`s articles as "steaming shit". Now though, you are not quite so forward with your opinion. Instead, you try to retreat behind "guidelines" "relevant pages" and "policies". You sadly missed your calling in life. You would have made the perfect Chinese Communist Party apparatchik. Kont Dracula (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
2. There is no Misplaced Pages policy that governs the personal attitudes of individual administrators, so I can't tell you how other administrators "feel". You're free to conclude whatever you like, and apparently have done so. If other articles don't contain references, you're welcome to tag them appropriately for improvement or deletion, just like every other editor here. There are a number of ways you can find out about tags and every page with such a tag contains pathways to find out the tag's meaning.
If you have any further questions or problems, please take them elsewhere; you've now consumed as much of my time as you're going to get. If you'd like to contribute to Misplaced Pages within its boundaries instead of squabbling with its administrators, you'll be welcome, but you've now exhausted my patience. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Getting a little testy now, are you? You seem to get a kick out of sneering at other people`s deleted articles and describing them as "steaming shit" but don`t seem to like when those people respond. Don`t worry though, I won`t be expecting you to field any more of my "questions and problems". Your pisspoor reponses have constituted nothing more than some ducking and dodging and your implicit approval of a hilariously flagrant double standard.
And how incredibly arrogant you are to suggest that I am "squabbling". An administrator, apparently acting within the "boundaries", permanently deleted an article which I had spent four hours writing in the space of half a second. He did this without knowing anything whatsoever about the field in question and he did this despite the fact that he himself flouts the very regulations he pretends to enforce. You, in your wisdom, came to sneer and back him on the back for it and pour scorn on the writers of the deleted articles. I have a very justifiable grievance. How very arrogant of you to suggest otherwise.
My response to your own "questions and problems" is to say that, if you don`t like it when people protest the deletion of their work, then maybe you shouldn`t be so quick to weigh in calling it "steaming shit". Perhaps you should be using less of your oh so precious time on deriding and ridiculing articles you have not read and know nothing about if you are unhappy when the authors of these articles object. It is people like you who are what is wrong with wikipedia, not people like me. After all, this exchange has made it abundantly clear that your fondness for talking the talk is sadly not matched by a corresponding ability to walk the walk. At the risk of exhuasting supplies in the metaphor bank, if you can`t take it, then perhaps you should think a little longer before you decide to dish it out. My work is gone for good and I can accept that. When I was writing it I was aware that perhaps it was only of interest to a small number of people in the world. Malta is, after all, a small country and its leading rock bands do not often figure much in the wider scope of things. And of course, it wasn`t a perfect article but, to reiterate, I was still writing it. I was not entirely surprised that its notability was questioned. I half-expected it. However, what I did not expect was the incredible arrogance exercised by wikipedia administrators in, first deleting it, and then lining up to slap each other on the back in congratulation and actually award each other for what they described as "steaming shit". I would have liked a little apology and at least a concession that a mistake may have been made. The level of arrogance I have received has been beyond belief. Kont Dracula (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Accounting4Taste"