Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VegKilla/List of Zeitgeist Claims


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:VegKilla/List of Zeitgeist Claims
This was an article that was userfied after an AfD so that the author could work on the article. After a month, the article has not been worked on and the author is nowhere to be found. Furthermore, it is my belief that there could be no possible way that this article could be encyclopedic. It is a list of zany claims made in a barely notable conspiracy film. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI: Ice Cold Beer was part of the  AfD discussion on this page where the consensus was to userify the page.  (see below) VegKilla (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The user appears to be have been active as recently as March 2. Perhaps they merely forgot about it or got pressed for time? Perhaps we should ask whether they still intend to do anything with it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Much too short of a time, considering that it's an active and reliable editor. DGG (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - article topic isn't remotely encyclopedic, and no improvement in over a month. Addhoc (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI: Addhoc was also part of the  AfD discussion on this page where the consensus was to userify the page.  This discussion has already happened, and these two users (Ice Cold Beer and Addhoc) are obviously going to keep revisiting the topic until they get the consensus they want. (see below)VegKilla (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I feel like I am being personally targeted.  Ice Cold Beer was part of  the debate in the AfD for the page, and the consensus of that discussion was to userify the page.  Some people (like me) only have time to work on Wikipedia once or twice a month, and the AfD for this page was so insulting to me, and made me so sad and dissilusioned about how open minded I thought the average Wikipedian was, that the last two times I logged in, I just didn't feel like working on it so I looked for vandals all day instead.  Ice Cold Beer is lying when they say that I am "nowhere to be found."  (Ice Cold Beer has since struck this statement, claiming that it was a misunderstanding, which it very well might have been.  See below.VegKilla (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC))  Ice Cold Beer never attempted to contact me, and if they had I would have responded within a week.  It is possible that Ice Cold Beer is hopping that I log in seldom enough that I will miss this MfD altogether.  As far as the movie being "barely notable," maybe that was true last summer when the main article (one that I never contributed to or saw) was deleted, but by now it is notable enough to have an  article.  Furthermore, I am not sure if I agree with the following logic, but I have heard it argued that any video that many millions of people have seen, is notable for that reason if for no other.
 * I may never know why Ice Cold Beer or other users seem to want to keep this issue out of Wikipedia, but I am sure that this is not an attempt to improve Wikipedia. My guess ( this is just a guess, not an accusation ) is that some of these editors (maybe Ice Cold Beer, maybe not) are targeting me, and the Zeitgeist movie in general, because they are religious, and both me and the Zeitgeist movie denounce religion and point out the dangerous conditions that religion fosters.  Ice Cold Beer, if you are an atheist, then please forgive me for implying that you might be supersticious.  However, Ice Cold Beer, if you are not an atheist, then please ask yourself whether you can remove atheist content without it posing a conflict of interest.  It is up to you alone to decide if what you are doing is ethical or not.  Thank-you,  VegKilla (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I had been planning on MfDing this for a couple days. When I glanced at your contributions at that time, you hadn't edited for nearly a month. While I probably should have checked your contibutions again before MfDing this page, I cannot stand for having the words "Ice Cold Beer is lying" in big and bold font. Please redact that statement. Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have logged in several times, and having little time and no messages waiting, there were many sessions where I logged in but made no edits. In order to accuse me of being "nowhere to be found," you need to try and contact me first.  Now that I realize that you were basing that statement on my contributions, I can understand how you may have been mistaken.  You were lying (what you said was not true), and I am not going to "redact" anything.  Since I understand how you could have been mistaken by seeing my contribution log and thinking that meant that I was not present, if you apologize, then I will forgive you, and I will forgive you in letters that are just as big and just as bold.  Or, if you retract every comment you have made on this page (including the one where you lied about me) then I will retract every comment I have made on this page (except for the one where I am responding to Addhoc).  The reason it bothers me so much that you lied is because this entire MfD is based partially on that lie.  The truth is that I have been really busy, and so when I do have a couple minutes, searching for vandalism is easier to start and stop than working on an article, which is why all I have done recently is patrol for vandals.  Since you have followed me from the last AfD to this MfD, it is obvious that you are following and targeting me.  I am worried that it might be possible that you are targeting me because you are a religious person.  No matter why you are targeting me, even if it was accidental (and I'm sure it probably was) I would like to ask you to please do not contact me after this MfD has concluded.  If either you or Addhoc attempt to contact me after this MfD has concluded, or attempt (for a third time) to delete a page I have created, I will consider it harassment.  I am working very hard to make Wikipedia a better place, where atheism can be addressed without being marginalized by superstitious people.  I will never know if the two of you are following and targeting me intentionally or not, but you are wasting huge amounts of my time (more than 90% of the time I have spent editing Wikipedia in 2008 so far has been in this MfD and the previous AfD for the same article).  Whether or not you two are targeting me intentionally or not, what you are doing is wasting the time of an open-minded, well-educated, and well-spoken editor who is making a good-faith effort to improve Wikipedia.  I am busy in the real-world, and if all of my free time is consumed with AfDs and MfDs, then I will be unable to have any time to create actual articles.  It is ironic that you two would waste so much of my time trying to get an article deleted (in the AfD), and then  when that fails and the consensus is to userify, by that point you have wasted so much of my time that I have to spend a few weeks catching up in school and at my job.  So then because you wasted so much of my time that I have to take a short break from Wikipedia, you use the fact that I seem to be absent as an excuse to waste more of my time by trying to have the exact same page deleted again.  If I had changed the page then you might have an argument for deleting it, but since the page hasn't changed since the AfD, this is just the same discussion all over again.  THIS DISCUSSION HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.  CONSENSUS WAS TO USERIFY THE PAGE.   VegKilla (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. Also, I will not apologize for lying because I did not lie. I made a little mistake and it has been corrected. Also, I did contact you on your talk page to let you know that this page was being considered for deletion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How is the consensus going to change in one month on an article that hasn't changed?
 * You're mistake has not been corrected. It still says at the top of this page that I was "nowhere to be found" and you have not struck it.
 * When you notified me that this page was being deleted, that was after you lied about me being "nowhere to be found," and furthermore, when you did finally notify me, I responded promptly. I have obviously been attending to my account, and just because I do not make edits every time I log in is no reason to lie about me and tell people that I am no where to be found.  It is obvious that you hopped I would never see this MfD and that I would miss out on this conversation altogether.  You have been watching my contributions and waiting for a period where you thought I was not active, and that is creepy.  It is obvious that you are being manipulative in at least 3 ways:
 * You are saying things about me that are not true, and then refusing to strike them or apologize for them because they were "mistakes." Well, ... they were your mistakes, so take responsibility for them.
 * You waited to create this MfD at a time when you thought I (the sole contributor to this article, as of this point) was not active in Wikipedia and thus would not be able to defend it.
 * You accused the movie that my article is about of making "zany claims" and being "barely notable." This movie is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.  Maybe my article is not notable enough, which is why it was userified, but the movie itself is no doubt very notable.  As for the "zany claims," I think you're vague conclusions are a way to distort and confuse a serious inquiry into the actual facts.  The very page that I am creating (and that this MfD is trying to delete) is an attempt to, in an organized manner, provide a way for people who have seen this movie to quickly find the sources that the movie cites so that they can decide for themselves how zany the claims the movie makes are, instead of trusting people like you.
 * VegKilla (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is motivated by Wikipedia policy, and not by religion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is good to know. Please note that I was careful to say that you might have been motivated by religion, but did not ever say anything about you that was not true because I really do not know why you are doing this.  I hope you will follow my lead in being careful not to accuse people of things if you are not sure they have done them.  If you suspect someone of doing something, there are other ways to bring it up other then just stating that they have done it when you really are not sure, and if you say something that isn't true accidentally, you can apologize for your mistake without conceding that you lied.  Even though I am glad that you are not motivated by religion, I would still respectfully ask you to not contact me or recommend my pages for deletion after this MfD has concluded.  If I create a page that warrants deletion, then don't you worry about it; there will be plenty of editors standing in line to nominate it in your stead.VegKilla (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(<-)I have taken responsibility for my mistake and I notified you of this discussion two minutes after I created it. The continued assaults on my character are ridiculous, and I ask that they stop. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you notified me about this discussion; that's why I am here. But it is also true, by your own account, that when you did notify me, you were under the impression that I had not logged-in in over a month, which I think would lead any reasonable person to assume that, knowing that I had not logged-in in over a month,  you were hoping I wouldn't log-in for another 5 days.  Saying that I think you hoped I would miss this MfD is not attacking your character, it's just saying what I think.  And it makes sense.  I still believe that when you created this MfD you thought I would never see it until it was over.  I think that you watched my contribution list waiting for this.  I may be wrong, but if you don't want people to assume you are out to get them, then don't treat people the way you treat me.VegKilla (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding your comment on my talk page, I have read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF many times, and at your recommendation I will read them again today. I have been a Wikipedia editor for quite some time, and your "warning" is the only one that I have ever received for any reason, so I really don't understand why you are saying this is my "final warning."  As long as you respect my request to leave me alone after this MfD is over, then I will never say another word about you, and if you read over my comments on this MfD and the AfD for the same article, I am sure you will be reminded that I have gone out of my way to be civil, and that I am the one who other people needed to be assuming good faith towards.VegKilla (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the closed AFD and the editors desire to work on it. That work should start now even before this AFD closes. Calling and editor a lier is never a good idea and saying an article is a list zany claims is not much better. I will add however, I doubt that the article can be salvaged.  Gtstricky Talk or C 16:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sticking up for me. Work on this article will not begin before this MfD is over because I am too busy in the real world.  Once again thank-you for standing up for me, but can I humbly make these corrections to your comment:
 * This is an MfD, not an AfD. The AfD for this article already happened, and the consensus was to userify the page.  The only people on this MfD who are voting to delete where part of that AfD and are aware of this.
 * I am the editor. No one accused me of lying.  It was the editor (me) who accused the person who created this MfD of lying.  And I was accusing them of lying, not "calling" them a liar (I was not name calling, I just wanted to make sure that other people who were unfamiliar with the history of this article knew that what they were saying was not true).
 * But those are small corrections...you got the point! Thank-you for seeing this topic with an open mind, and thanks for mentioning the "list of zany claims" accusation!  It is exactly because of these vague (and probably religiously motivated) attacks on the movie's creditability that I have created this page in the first place.  By calling the movie a list of "zany claims" but not being able to point to any particular facts that support such an insulting review of a movie, these users are only proving that an article like "List of Zeitgeist Claims" should exist (although when it is finished, it will be much shorter and not in list format). VegKilla (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - no idea what the list is about or where it might be headed but the editor should be given a liberal amount of time to work on this. There is no other effective place to draft articles but userspace and it should be encouraged rather than discouraged to avoid editors putting poorly formed articles in the mainspace.  I reserve any judgment as to whether this could ever be suitable for the mainspace as I can't foresee the future and have no idea what the editor might be going to add.   The article is not self-aggrandizing, advertising, or any of the other WP:BAD things that it could be and at this point it's not even really an article but a list - hopefully it will eventually explain itself with a lead but until then I can't even say it's an archive of an article.  Although irrelevant to this MfD, both the editor and the nominator should review Etiquette as neither has helped his or her cause by the level of incivility shown here and both are experienced enough to know better.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you please point out where I've been uncivil? I think that I've been rather nice. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your initial nomination contained uncivil characterizations, I appreciate the fact that you have stricken those, but the initial tone set the stage - incivility begets incivility. I also consider the claim that there could be no possible way that this article could be encyclopedic to be uncivil or at least a breach of general wikiquette. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, just to strike a blow against deletionism. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2008 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.