User:Endomion/Orphaned content

IRC
I can often be found as Ruby on the #wikipedia channel in chat.freenode.net

#scripture Article Deletion
The following deletions to the Scripture-channel article are considered vandalism
 * Bullsh*t. There is no such guideline.  Any article is available for editing at any time.  An article liste don AfD has no protection against editing.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"By that logic, I can delete 80% of your favorite article, and re-delete it every time you restore it, and it is not vandalism, since under Zoe Rules I don't have to wait 5 days for the community to arbitrate my designation of your article as 'vanity'. Endomion 02:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)"

I think you're missing the point of Wikipedia and specifically the Articles for Deletion process. When it comes down to it, the article at can be edited at any time, and accusing others of vandalism for what is Wikipedia precedent (especially precedent like a vanity list) is not in the spirit of WikiLove. You need to assume good faith. RasputinAXP  talk  *  contribs  05:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"I am perfectly willing to accept the good faith judgment of other Wikipedians that is not a notable or encyclopedic article and should be removed. But the next time I see a banner that says someone's article is being considered for deletion and should not be 'blanked,' I will interpret that to mean at least one ASCII character must remain in the original article after it is 'edited', because the WikiLove message I've gotten this week is that 'AfD status does not preclude editing'. Endomion 05:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)"

"You have it right on the head, there. AfD status does not preclude editing. There have been many articles listed on AfD that were later voted to keep because of judicious editing, including removal of a large portion of the article. If you agree that the content is not notable, and that the article is unencyclopediac, then why are you fighting so hard for it? You're taking deletion of an article that you yourself plainly stated as an attempt to create a webpage for the channel as some sort of character assassination. Spend more time getting to know the other side of Wikipedia and I'm sure you'll get a better perspective on how it all works. RasputinAXP  talk  *  contribs  13:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)"

"Interesting example of recursion. Zoe has vandalized my vandalism report. I'm sure that must be frowned upon here. 01:48, 9 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress (→IP Moderate - deleting inappropriate listing)"


 * You're failing to see the issue: what was done is not vandalism, and as such your accusation of vandalism was being made in bad faith. RasputinAXP   t  *  c  20:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"Yes, now I am operating from bad faith. I don't even care what happens to the #scripture article now. I see that I can't even make my objections heard to be judged on because they are deleted five minutes after I make them.  This will color forever how I see Wikipedia.  A vandal doesn't get to decide whether or not her own vandalism is vandalism." Endomion 20:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you operated from bad faith by calling editing vandalism because you disagreed with it. If you're this upset over it and you feel you can't work it out, take it to ArbCom. RasputinAXP   T    C  21:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"Only if the situation escalates will I seek escalated remedies. Anything else would be a sign of bad faith. No further discussion on this topic will be accepted." Endomion 21:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

vrwc
Heh, when i created it I was tired... so I'll claim dyslexia, I'm certainly no liberal. -- Jbamb 07:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Track Titles
Track titles should always be listed in quotes, not bolded. Please see Albums for more information. Kaldari 20:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Endomine
I don't see how you can think my edits are POV, especially the ones you reverted. All I did was seperate masturbation, and abstainance into seperate categorys. Chooserr 02:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this edit is preaching: "But remember: The only fool proof way to avoid disease and pregnancy is to not have sex." Ruby 02:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, funny though that that was there before I even got to the article. The only thing I did was make it lower case and bold instead of upper case and not bold. Oh and it is quite a laugh that even in Sex Ed, and on these anti-life websites they say the same thing. Have a peek if you like. Chooserr 02:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nomination
 Merovingian would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Merovingian to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Thank you for nominating me to be an administrator! Unfortunately, I have raised some eyebrows by trying to bring a more neutral voice to the Intelligent design article. Some of these folks are administrators, and as you can see from their ability to round up votes in packs my nomination would be rejected in about five minutes. So it is with gratitude but with sorrow that I must decline. Ruby 04:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a shame, but I understand and will delete the nomination page. Perhaps one day they will be more willing to accept you.  Until then, happy editing.  --King of All the Franks 04:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)