User:VRKatta/Explanation of Votes and Decisions

Welcome to Bigvinu's Explanation of Votes and Decisions!

You can find out whether I thought my decision was a mistake or not be looking at the title. Mistakes will have "TITLE - MISTAKE" and things I thought to be O.K will have "TITLE - DO NOT REGRET"

What is This?
This is a user-subpage to explain any controversial votes and decisions I've made, and whether I would like to apologize for a stupid vote or whether I believe I made the right decision. As I believe in the past I have been pig-headed and stupid when dealing with working with fellow wikipedians and respecting their views, I feel it necessary to start a sub-page about why I made certain decisions to maintain Wikipedia Credibility.

Nomination of Stephen Colbert (character) - Mistakes
It was a stupid move, plain and simple. Even though the article had been nominated twice before, I charged in with stupidity by trying to get an article deleted as some stupid sign or Wikipedia clout. I don't know what came over me, but I nominated it twice. While the first time was not a legitimate concern, my second nomination was when I thought the article shouldn't belong. I tried to make my arguments concise to avoid a "i hate Colbert so delete the article" (for the record, I am an avid of Colbert Fan, but not a Papa Bear fan). However, instead of convincing others to delete, others convinced me to keep such as comments on my talk page. I thank them with all my heart. I think that gave me a lot of thinking about nominating an article. I was stupid, I didn't look at the arguments for keeping the article before trying to argue to delete it. I think that trying to nominate Colbert was a pig-headed move that taught me a lesson on AfDs. While it wasn't a smart decision on my part, I thank everyone for opposing my AfD because it taught a stupid and ignorant Wikipedian what it means to question Wikipedia and that he should have substantial evidence first.

I was going to leave it that, but I think I need to explain myself further. Let me say first that while I had good intentions, I can now see clearly that in fact I had become nothing more than a Wikipedia vandal. I was stupid, inexperienced and new to Wikipedia. I shouldn't have done it. So I have to say that I'm not going to take the easy rode out and never nominate an AfD so I won't get caught in controversy, but I'm going to have to look at the evidence for the article before saying that it should go. So to everyone that viewed me as a vandal, you were right and I'm deeply sorry.

Vote on Elementary School Musical (southpark) - Mistake
My vote to delete Elementary School Musical was a mistake I later corrected. In my original vote, I attempted to justify my vote with a personal vendetta against TV articles. For the record, I still keep those views somewhat, but don't let them interfere with upholding Wikipolicy.

My changed vote to reflect my "keep" sentiment was corrected on November 18th, and I said

"I would like to formally apologize for my initial vote of the matter. I was stupid and ignorant. I tried to use this vote to reflect my personal sentiment regarding Wikipedia Television articles. Disregarding Wikipedia Policy is not basis for a deletion, and I can now set aside personal feelings and look at this article for what it is. Though I hold the opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't be TV.Com, I know trying to delete one article is stupid. I cannot change Wikipedia Policy, and no matter how much I dislike it, as a wikipedian I must clear my conscience and change my vote from delete to keep. Wikipedia Policy has kept Wikipedia as the largest online encyclopedia and whether I dislike/like it, I will always uphold it and cannot reasonably keep my vote as delete."

Infobox for 2008 Democratic Primaries - Do Not Regret
During the editing process for Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008, a massive edit war during the summer occurred on whether or not to establish an election infobox for the particle. I am deeply sorry for readers who were rocked by the edit war between those like me who knew in their minds that "what works" and has been precedent for Wikipedia articles since the 1956 Primaries should go, and the handful that wanted a drawn out discussion on Wikipedia policy. I'd like to say that I don't need a lengthy discussion spanning weeks to know what's right and what works. I don't have to read pages and pages of discussion to know the right path and the wrong path when it is that painfully obvious.