Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myle

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Myle
This isnt' an article about "Myle" (¿?) but just reposting of Rktect's  already deleted content content all over again. See and  for evidence. Delete -- &lt; drini | &part;drini &gt; 01:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC).
 * Keep on grounds of False accusation. This page shows the history of the Myle, as it existed prior to the statute Mile with reference to earlier examples of the Greek Milion and Roman Milliare and the revisions to the Milion and Milliare that made it something similar to its predecessors but also different from its descendant the Mile. Unsigned vote by Rktect at 02:29 22 August 2005
 * By the way Rktect is removing Vfd Notices in order to hide them. -- &lt; drini | &part;drini &gt; 01:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A Second False accusation. see below -- Unsigned comment by RkTect
 * Probably the result of an edit conflict, due to someone adding the original vfd tag while he was in the middle of adding in all those (spurious?) references --Mysidia (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In other words some of you are in such a hurry to delete pages you can't wait for them to be put up before you mark them for deletion -- Unsigned comment by RkTect
 * As a separate and related point all of these pages are being edited with references content and wikification being added, but then reverted by the people voting against them (Egil, Ken, Gene, Drini and Zoe) to fraudulently give the impression that they are insubstantial. Egil was supposedly to have been constrained from changing them because we entered into mediation on this issue but he has contacted, Ken, Gene and Drini among others to ask them to act as his agents in deleting and reverting these pages. -- Unsigned comment by RkTect
 * The previous are misleading and unsubstantiated claims, as I was never contacted with Egil before my vote casting. I wasn't aware of a mediation existing until Egil dropped me a single message on my talk page long after this controversy had started. -- &lt; drini | &part;drini &gt; 17:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Apparently Rktect has decided to put everything he "knows" into every article he edits, and because those changes are generally reverted on the grounds of relevance, comprehensibility, a deliberate disregard of all the rules of editing, dishonest use of minor edit tag, and various other reasons, to create a few new ones of the same thing just for good measure.  Gene Nygaard 02:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Gene has systematically removed content, wikification and references from pages, Egil and Ken have marked 27 for deletion since August 5 and Ken is engaged in marking them in groups of up to four at a time so individual pages can't be voted on separately. -- Unsigned comment by RkTect


 * Delete; Imcomprehensible evil | Celcius 02:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apparent vandalism. MCB 06:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anything relevant that remains should be moved to a history section within Mile and Myle should redirect Ian Cairns 09:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * With all due respect a Myle needs to be discussed both on its own and in relation to the Milion, Milliare and Mile. -- Unsigned comment by RkTect
 * Delete for vandalism. --Agamemnon2 11:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The herd mentality is alarming Rktect 02:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. There may be some content worth moving into the historical section of Mile, when that article is unprotected (which I don't recommend until this battle has played out in RFC or arbitration (wherever it finally winds up, as I fear it must inevitably do). Of particular interest to me is the 1593 date, when Queen Elizabeth I of England changed the definition of the foot, and added a number of feet to the mile so that it would remain the same absolute size. (Which is what my quick research into the statutes says actually happened. The redefinition of the mile was incidental.) And there may be other content that's worth moving into an article on something like the topic of Pseudoscientific metrology. (Which is a title I hate, BTW.) I don't see any of those moves happening anytime soon, though, and the content is unencyclopedic as presented. Myle, by the way, is an archaic spelling of mile. I see nothing to indicate that it was a separate word used for a separate measure. Ken talk 22:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe that would be a good thing to check out before establishing a POV Ken.Rktect 02:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, good Lord. I went to the library and checked OED before I wrote that. Is that a good enough reference for you? If I say "I see no evidence..." or "I see nothing to indicate..." it means that I checked, usually multiple sources. Ken talk 03:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. If I'm going to be accused of being a member of a cabal, I might as well vote with the rest of the cabal. Delete, more of Rktect's incomprehensible original research.  Zoe 23:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * As a group of vandals you are all coming along nicely and probably deserve your own page to give you the credit you deserve for all this good work you have been doing. You could call yourselves the Super Ekgdz wear lots of lyca and strike fear into the hearts of pseudo villians everywhere. Rktect 23:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Drini puts a possible copywrite image tag on an image that has written permission to use it on its main Wikipedia image page Rktect 23:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * In what possible way does that comment have anything to do with this VfD vote? Zoe 20:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see. We have Egil, Ken, Gene, Drini and Zoe working together to destroy Wikipedia content in any way possible, making patently false allegations of original research and throwing around unsubstantiated lables of pseudo science, marking dozens of pages for deletion, then systematically stripping them of their content, removing images, references, tables, repeatedly reverting them to earlier versions so that what is voted on is never the best or latest version of a page, and misusing administrative powers to mark as copywrite infringements quotions from free source sites, or images already registered with wikipedia with written permission for their use. I know that might be standard operating procedure here but that doesn't make it right.Rktect 02:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Although the previous paragraph has nothing to do with the vfd process I want to add a comment (I've post this on some other pages but you keep spreading misinformation):
 * I'm not an admin. Any user can add copyright notice tags into nonfree resources. No administrative powers being misused. *Once again* Please check your facts before making unsubstantiated claims. And as I've told you before :
 * If you refer to then the copyvio is not a false statement. It's taken from  where it states:
 * Copyright Screen prints may be made of these maps for non-commercial educational and private purposes. Written permission must be obtained in advance to reproduce any digital material from the Library's collections, whether in hard copy or electronic forms.
 * Obtaining written permission is not fulfilled with copying and pasting that paragraph. It means you need to provide a real paper permission form. And second, after the ruling of Jimbo a few months ago, free for noncommercial and educational is not free enough for wikipedia. Read  where it clearly states that noncommercial and "with permission only" MUST be deleted in sight. And you are now also claiming the image is registered with wikipedia which is a nonsense. I won't comment further on that. -- &lt; drini | &part;drini &gt; 19:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.