Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rape in the United States of America

Canvassing
Wildhartlivie, no need to threaten other editors. You canvassed, per the first sentence definition:
 * "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion."

The question is not whether you canvassed or not, but whether it was inappropriate canvassing. That is what Dream is leaving other editors to decide. Notifications that editors notified others happen all the time in these discussions.

Personally, I think your post to Collectonian was acceptable canvassing.

Ikip (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not making threats, I'm quite serious. The editor first made a point of announcing that I had posted to Collectonian when he responded to her post, and in my response, I clearly stated "Please read WP:CANVAS so you can learn the difference between one post and inappropriate canvassing in order to sway an outcome." And to an editor who is quite active in AfD discussions, so I would expect him to know what constitutes a violation. He then backs right into clearly saying my post was a violation by saying "If you thought she'd vote opposite of you, would you have alerted her talk page? I don't think so." That's quite clear too. Given that Dream has had ongoing issues against Collectonian, I think calling him out on his implication, then outright statement, that I had violated WP:CANVAS is not out of line. And honestly, I first read the AN/I and WQA posts, so thanks. As to the questions and comments you removed, some of which you removed:
 * Positive reactions when I have nominated something for deletion? Yes, most every time, unless it is something that is incendiary all around.
 * He knows the policies and guidelines. I don't believe he didn't know there was no issue with my notifying her.
 * You commented at WP:CRIME regarding the bottomline issues including the AN/I and WQA issues, where you posted against Collectonian too, so I'm not given to thinking you're an unbiased outside observer.
 * Given that you came in to attack Collectonian at that project talk page, if you want to find out if I've worked with him before, ask him. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You did not contact everyone who commented in that section, on the Wikiproject crime page, but instead just the one person you knew would be certain to share your delete view. That is canvassing.  You can't just contact some people, based on how they'll vote, instead of everyone.   D r e a m Focus  15:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My feelings about the other issues surrounding this have already been posted and discussed.
 * Again Dream, it is canvassing, the question is only whether it is inappropriate canvassing, not whether it is canvassing.
 * As far as: "You can't just contact some people, based on how they'll vote, instead of everyone." that is definitely the case when contacting editors of past AFDs. With wikiproject discussions, the rules are not as clear. Usually editors who feel it a posting is inappropriate canvassing, even the playing field by contacting all editors in the discussion, which is your option.
 * I disagree that it is inappropriate canvassing. If either of you want to widen this discussion, which I personally don't think is necessary or wise, I would suggest posting a question on WP:Canvas. Ikip (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, feel completely free to take me to WP:AN/I and see if I did something inappropriate by contacting one editor to notify her, only her and no one else. I can already tell you that I did not violate WP:CANVAS by telling her I nominated the article for deletion. I would suggest that it would decidedly more inappropriate to have notified everyone, the other 2 or 3 editors involved. I'm thinking this is just an extension of the conflict that already existed, but knock yourself out. I probably won't be around to respond there until late tonight, but I would like to comment there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)