Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iasson (talk | contribs) at 12:30, 26 January 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Average rule

Strongly appears to be original research. It has no citations whatsoever, I can't find any Google hits that aren't Misplaced Pages-originated, and it's the creation of User:146.124.141.250 -- the alter-ego of User:Iasson , who's using it as the authority for the bizarre voting standards he's been adding to VfD votes and to his RFC . I say this puppy should have been nuked months ago. --Calton 00:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The above IP is not my alter-ego, it is a proxy and a lot of people read and write from there. Not all articles with the above IP are written by me. Iasson 12:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as User:Iasson disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. ] 00:59, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete reasons as above. This three-ring circus needs to leave town for good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:34, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense thinly disguised as original research. Raven42 01:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is getting ridiculous. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 02:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be made verifiably notable. Tuf-Kat 02:45, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See above reasons. Bart133 02:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See Calton's and Raven42's reasons. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rhobite 04:15, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. However, this article was created in August, and Iasson didn't start posting his bizarre rules until October. Do you really believe he seeded this then waited around for two months before acting on it? RickK 05:22, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty clear he created it (see my reasons above), and he and his alter ego have been monkeying around with topics concerning democracy ever since which shows his interest in the democratic process.

My own hypothesis is that he came up with this and other cockamamie voting theories and he's trying to use the VFD process to test them out. --Calton 06:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. I have created 11 voting theories in Misplaced Pages. Go find them and delete them all! Fascism has to rise in wikipedia! Iasson 08:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If they don't have encyclopedic relevance, they must all go. I've already dealt with another person like you who seems to keep insisting that ideas you invent belong in a public encyclopedia. That's simply not within reason, and you should know that. --Stevietheman 08:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Several people have been speculating quietly that this might be the case. It turns out they are right. I'm impressed. No change of vote. Andrewa 10:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, for all the reasons given in previous day's VfD for "Quadratic Rule". "Average rule has never been tried as a policy..." Barno 05:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, "average rule" + political -> 462 Google hits, but a lot of the first ones look like copies of this page... mainly anonymous edits here too... I don't see notability here per se, but the "average rule" does seem to exist in some form or fashion. --Idont Havaname 06:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article has been written 6/8/2004. Until now nobody has proposed it for deletion, and a lot of people helped to improve it. Why you want to delete it right now? Is it because I am using it to defence myself in my RFC] ?? Is it because you are a fascist and you are burning books? I suggest as decision method to be used the Average rule, I also suggest the decision to be valid as long as the average rule requires, I also suggest 25% of Active Vfd voters to vote in this poll in 5 days, in order for the decision to be legitimate. Iasson 08:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no time-based rule regarding the deletion of articles, and an article doesn't become any more encyclopedic if it happens to stay alive in the Misplaced Pages for any length of time. The reasons expressed here for its deletion appear to be valid. So instead of complaining about book burning, how about addressing the concerns? And if you can't address them, just accept the judgement and how Misplaced Pages is organized. --Stevietheman 08:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Policy bullshits! I am asking you to show me an active poll where the active wikipedians have voted and they still keep valid a decision that says that original research is prohibited from wikipedia. Can you point to that poll? Or, is the prohibition of original research just another decision of the administration cabal? Iasson 09:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • see Misplaced Pages:No original research. As I understand it, this is a founding principal of Misplaced Pages. Thryduulf 09:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I see. We have to find the reasons why the administration cabal insist of keeping such a principal. Is this founding principal by chance? Is it because administration's plans are to create the best encyclopedia in the world and sell it somewhere someday, and they want us to create articles in their encyclopedia for free, but of course without beeing able to tranform their encyclopedia to something else because this is against their business plans? I cant find another reason but maybe you can help me a little to find one, and I am in good faith to believe it. Of course there is also the possibility that this is NOT a founding principal as you claim. Iasson 10:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't think that they could do as you suggest, because of the GNU Free Documentation License Misplaced Pages uses (see Misplaced Pages:Copyrights). It is normal for an encyclopedia to contain no original research, as it is a secondary source not a primary source. There is, however, a fork called wikinfo that apparently does allow orignal research. Thryduulf
            • What is going on here? Original research is always considered to be a reason to delete an article in Vfd! Why nobody proposes to move original research articles to wikinfo, and everybody here proposes for every original research article to be deleted? This is another proof that the deletionist gang band has overcome wikipedia. If the owner of wikipedia is not a cabal member, he must uproot deletionist cancer gang band from wikipedia's heart, and he must do it as soon as possible. And dont mention to me undelete policy bullshits. How a newcomer can vote for an article to be undeleted, if he cannot read it? Iasson 11:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • Probably because Wikinfo is not a Wikimedia project. Thryduulf 11:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                • Aha!..ok then...as I can see wikinfo and secondary_source are sister projects of wikipedia and they welcome original research articles. Thats good! So I propose as a policy, all proposed for deletion original research articles to be moved there insteed of deleted. Then if voted for undeletion, they should return back to wikipedia. And of course if somenoe asks wikipedia about a deleted original research article, wikipedia should point to its sister projects with a warning that this was an ostracized article. If you want to convince me that you are not a deletionist gang band that want to overcome wikipedia and turn a supposed edited by anyone encyclopedia to an encyclopedia that supports your deletionist gang band POV, you HAVE to support as a policy what I am proposing you. If you dont, this proves that you are a deletionist gang band, and every rational human person can understand this. I am not supporting the average rule article right now, I am supporting all the past articles you have already deleted, and the future you are going to. 146.124.141.250 11:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                  • You appear to have misunderstood what I meant in my previous comment. Wikinfo is not a sister project to wikipedia. Thryduulf 12:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                    • And what about secondary_source? I consider your answer as an acceptance that you are a deletionist gang band that wants to turn wikipedia to an encyclopedia that , although supposed to be edited by anyone and support NPOV, contains articles that are compatible only with the POV of your deletionist gang band. Nice try, troll guys, but you are not going to win against all rational human persons. Iasson 12:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
              • Comment: I've suggested to several authors that they check out Wikinfo, and strongly suggest it to you too. You can even write signed articles there, but you don't need to sign articles. I've transwikied one article there myself and intend to do more, but it's far better if the author does it, and the copying is automated and very easy provided you do it before they are deleted here. So I hope to see you and your theories there. But be aware that most of the policies of Wikinfo are based on Misplaced Pages, and your behaviour here would not go down well there either. No change of vote. Andrewa 12:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • see also Misplaced Pages#No original_research. Thryduulf 09:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I have found 11 persons that have contribute to the article in this 6 months period. Here they are: Duncharris, Stevietheman, 193.92.*.* (seems dialup of the same person), Mike Storm, 213.16.*.*(seems dialup of the same person), 217.81.54.218, Brian Sayrs, 69.194.194.27, Curps, Jmartinezot, Michael Hardy. The fact that nobody of them have ever asked the article to be deleted, means that those 11 persons at least have cast a keep or abstain vote. Not to mention also the other people in this 6 month period who read the article and did not propose it for deletion. All those people obviously are a keep or abstain vote for the article. I am asking an admin to tell me how many people read the article in this 6 months period, and consider their votes as keep or abstain votes. Iasson 09:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: No. This process will be conducted according to our rules, not yours. You seem to have great trouble interpretting these rules, although you have obviously read them. But we don't. No change of vote. Andrewa 10:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • What you mean your rules? You mean the rules that your deletionist gang band have created and imposed to all the others? Where is the poll that shows that current deletion policy is voted by all active wikipedia voters, and also all active wikipedia voters still keep their vote alive in your current deletion policy? You cannot point to that poll, simply because deletion policy has been created by 10-20 people and an administrator cabal, in order to destroy the work of the others, any work that is against gang band's belief or against its plans. This is clear to me, and I am not going to bother with your gang band anymore. Iasson 10:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Iasson is right, it should have been deleted some time ago, and this might have saved a lot of trouble. Better late than never. See why Misplaced Pages is not so great. Andrewa 08:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. The fact that it hasn't been deleted before simply indicates that Misplaced Pages isn't perfect, it is not evidence that the subject is worth keeping. -- Solipsist 09:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I can't say anything better than has been said above. Thryduulf 09:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• delete, speedy as vandalism? Dunc|☺ 10:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)