Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Checkerboard Nightmare

82.40.230.252 tampered with Dragonfiend's original text, changing it from "Delete this non-notable webcomics" to "keep this beloved webcomic." I assume this is not typically allowed? --Dd42 01:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope, not especially. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Was there any rationale at all for discounting so many votes? I can get discounting unsigned votes, but I don't understand why so many signed votes were discounted. I've participated in many AfD votes before, and I've never had my vote discounted before this one. Maybe I don't have eight grillion major edits to my name, but I try to help out around Wikipedia to the best of my ability, and anyway I still feel that as somebody who makes extensive use of Wikipedia I have as much a stake in how it is run as anyone else. RMG 02:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. My vote, is apparently not important, my points not worth considering, because I'm just a user with slightly more than 70 edits, rather than one with 8 gajillion? Something seems flawed here, and I'm not quite sure what to do about it. I've not seen this sort of behaviour before here, and it's worrisome. Where does one appeal this sort of thing? It's certainly not the sort of warm embracing sort of welcome one hopes for, rather, it seems elitist... Votes_for_deletion/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster, the last VfD I participated in, didn't have this sort of action. If there is an elite or a secret cabal that wants to reduce the number of people passionate (in a positive way) about Wikipedia, this certainly seems an effective way to do it. But I hope, rather, that it's just misguidedness on someones part. ++Lar 15:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I was irritated that only certain people had their edit counts listed. Why weren't Dragonfiend and brennenmon outed with the rest of us? I'm sure their counts would have put ours to shame, but they should have been listed anyway, out of fairness.
 * Also, appearantly, the only way to find someone's edit count is to 1) Click on their name, then 2) Click on "User contributions" on the left side of the screen, then 3) Go through the list counting the number of edits. Actually, you just count how many pages of edits there are, as there are 50 per page, but it's still a time-consuming process. Wikipedia needs a macro or something that can be run against a page to instantly make everybody's edit counts appear.
 * Or, alternatively, ignore edit counts altogether, since this seems to be some sort of elitism. Ravenswood 18:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly hope no one is actually going to that much trouble to get edit counts. If anyone feels a compelling need to get this information (and I don't really agree that it was terribly pertinent here), I would suggest using kate's tool. I imagine this is how the counts in question were calculated... although the tool isn't displaying correctly for me, at the moment.
 * Fox1 (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "You are, of course, welcome to vote and comment," it said, which was made slightly difficult to take seriously, due to the huge strikethrough lines over what a lot of people are saying. Just ridiculous. Seriously, though, that FSM VfD was really interesting.  Plenty of unsigned votes were counted, users with only a few edits, "User's first contribution"...what the hell was going on here that made it so different? I mean, even if you're not going to count it, why the blatant "we don't listen to lowly people with only 70 edits" strikethrough? 128.135.219.132 20:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't mind me. I'm just dropping some text in here to make it easier to find.

For a while, the project page had this at the top:

If you're here because of a websnark posting: Please understand that this is not a vote, this is a discussion. Please refer to WP:SOCK. Multiple comments by very new users to the effect of "OMFG don't delete, are you kidding?" that fail to provide evidence per WP:CITE and WP:V are highly likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. Many Wikipedians have been known to react unfavourably to attempts to alter the course of a nomination in this manner, and may in fact recommend to delete based upon it. If you wish to prevent this comic being deleted, the way to do so is to provide verifiable evidence.

The "websnark posting" referred to is here:

http://www.websnark.com/archives/2005/11/however_the_ent.html

OK, I just wanted this stuff here so we could all see it without having to dig through the history. As you were. Ravenswood 00:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Stand down the alert, call back the scrambled fighters, try to fish the secret files from the fire. It's only Ravenswood. brenneman (t) (c) 01:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)