Feel the urge to vandalize this page? Keep it clean and #Vandalism, and be creative: the current theme is haiku. :Yes, I borrowed the idea from User:Geogre. ---- ==Mission Statement== On a campaign against vandalism, vanity pages, patent nonsense, and malformatted pages. You probably won't find me writing long articles, though I may add tidbits of information to existing articles from time to time. Basically, I'm just trying to keep the place clean. ==Philosophy== I tend toward being a m:Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians. I think an encyclopedia should contain only notable entries. No one should have to turn to another source such as [http://www.google.com/ Google] to determine if a topic is notable. It is an author's responsibility to establish notability, not the reader's. I'm also not in favor of most stubs (exception made for new articles). An encyclopedia entry should cover its topic in detail. As such, I'll tend vote to delete or merge in a Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion unless the content of the article itself can convince me that its topic is important and relevant to a large audience. ==Other stuff== User:Xcali/helpful ==Vandalism== :To express oneself :In seventeen syllables :Is very diffic - :Oh why won't he be :Taste the secret of my hat :Tuppence for your work :If my article :Does not seem very notable :Then never you mind
== Vandalism and vanity == what denotes vandalism and vanity in your opinion??? * A fair question. I'd call vanity anything that a person enters about themselves. As a general rule, any entry about a person with two sentences or less is probably vanity. Anything about someone born in the last 20 years is likely to be vanity. Anything describing someone/something as "up and coming" or "budding" is likely to be vanity. Articles listing only hobbies/activites without accomplishments are vanity. Anything falling under Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. :Vandalism is deleting housekeeping tags from pages such as the or tags. It's also cluttering the WikiSpace with patent nonsense, personal attacks, deleting relevant information from an article, inserting comments ("Hi mom!") into articles, etc.
:These aren't all inclusive lists, and exceptions to all of the above apply.
:I should probably add that my philosphy is "When in doubt, leave it for others to look at."
:User:Xcali 22:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Vanity is not an accepted reason for speedy deletions, especially on almost decently written articles like Semper Tyrannis. Sorry, but you'll have to list it on VfD. -- User:Cyrius|User talk:Cyrius 06:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
==Sockpuppet limit==
My personal limit is 3. If less than 3 sockpuppets have voted, I'll either not vote or vote based on article content. But if an article has to rely on sockpuppet votes then by my personal definition, it doesn't deserve to be kept. Personal "attack limit" was just a throwaway in that one particular edit. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 21:57, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
== tyrants ==
Can you help? Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of tyrants user:Philip Baird Shearer is asking what category of deletion under Wikipedia:Deletion policy I am arguing under. The list is, of course, inherently POV, but he's pointing out (correctly it seems) that this isn't a deletion category in itself, and that POV should be argued in the talk page. If he wins this argument - then 'list of horrible people' and 'list of great holiday destinations' would also be legit (and that's just moronic). But I don't know how to answer him... --User:Doc glasgow User talk:Doc glasgow 12:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== VfD Nominations ==
Annoyingly, nominating an article for deletion is actually a three step process. Please follow the steps at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. Also, make sure to use the vfd2 and vfd3 tags listed there to enter your reason for deletion and place the page on the deletion log. That's how other people will be able to see the nomination even if they don't happen to go to the page in question. I've gone back through your edit history to format the entries you've already tagged and added them to the log for July 8. Thanks for helping to keep the place clean.
:--User:Xcali 23:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry about that- ah its all changed since my day when you just stuck candidates for deletion on a special list page... seems very involved nowadays... I'll try to follow procedure in future... User:Quercusrobur 19:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Keep up the good work - kill the rubbish! User:Brookie 18:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Stubbery ==
Thanks! In the ten minutes it took me to figure out why
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Xcali:
Xcali
Xcali
Xcali/helpful
XCalibur
Xcalibur
Xcali
Feel the urge to vandalize this page? Keep it clean and #Vandalism, and be creative: the current theme is haiku. :Yes, I borrowed the idea from User:Geogre. ---- ==Mission Statement== On a campaign against vandalism, vanity pages, patent nonsense, and malformatted pages. You probably won't find me writing long articles, though I may add tidbits of information to existing articles from time to time. Basically, I'm just trying to keep the place clean. ==Philosophy== I tend toward being a m:Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians. I think an encyclopedia should contain only notable entries. No one should have to turn to another source such as [http://www.google.com/ Google] to determine if a topic is notable. It is an author's responsibility to establish notability, not the reader's. I'm also not in favor of most stubs (exception made for new articles). An encyclopedia entry should cover its topic in detail. As such, I'll tend vote to delete or merge in a Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion unless the content of the article itself can convince me that its topic is important and relevant to a large audience. ==Other stuff== User:Xcali/helpful ==Vandalism== :To express oneself :In seventeen syllables :Is very diffic - :Oh why won't he be :Taste the secret of my hat :Tuppence for your work :If my article :Does not seem very notable :Then never you mind
Xcali
== Vandalism and vanity == what denotes vandalism and vanity in your opinion??? * A fair question. I'd call vanity anything that a person enters about themselves. As a general rule, any entry about a person with two sentences or less is probably vanity. Anything about someone born in the last 20 years is likely to be vanity. Anything describing someone/something as "up and coming" or "budding" is likely to be vanity. Articles listing only hobbies/activites without accomplishments are vanity. Anything falling under Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. :Vandalism is deleting housekeeping tags from pages such as the
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
X
Words begining with Xcali:
Xcali
Xcali
Xcali/helpful
XCalibur
Xcalibur
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
