Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination)


 * The first two parts of this thread are copied from the project page.--chaser - t 03:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as it survived an earlier nomination as keep just a few months ago and because it is a sourced article as well and satisfies List by being coherently organized. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin. Consensus can change. Using the past AFD isn't a real reason to keep things. The same goes for "organized lists". Being organized falls under an I like it argument in my view. This user has posted similar comments in other articles that are in their 2nd nomination, and has been told of consensus can change (but just ignores it). RobJ1981 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The rest of this thread is moved from the project page.--chaser - t 03:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the above user had been warned about making accusations against me. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and you have been asked to take existing policies into account rather than solely aesthetics. (not necessarily saying you haven't, but the closing admin should get the full story) It has also been requested by other editors that you take legitimate criticism to heart instead of just brushing it off.  Cbrown1023    talk   21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why I also noted that the article is referenced and meets List. I do take legitimate suggestions to heart, which is why on my talk page I read and acknowledged those comments in a friendly manner and why I made it a point to provide more than just one reason for keeping here.  :)  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I made no accustations. It's no secret you've made very similar comments in AFDs are 2nd nominations. Stop ignoring comments, and stop assuming Wikipedia deletion debates should be anarchy and not follow policies. RobJ1981 01:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not ignore constructive and civil criticism and I believe that this article does indeed follow our guidelines particularly WP:LIST, because the article has a narrowly defined title, contains references, and is hardly indescriminate. Moreover, many editors agree that renominations in less than six months times are potentially problematic.  I am not the only one who feels that way.  Please do not turn a discussion about an article into a discussion about editors.  If you would like to discuss your disagreements with me by email, I would be happy to chat with you or if you would like to ease tensions by working together to expand and develop an article, I would be happy to do that to, but I kindly request that you refrain from posting further aggressive comments to or about me on Wiki as they distract from the actual discussion taking place.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) It's true that many people think there should be at least six months between consecutive AFDs on the same article. Others say three, and still others one. There's no consensus about an exact time, and that lack of consensus is reflected in deletion policy. The argument is fairly weak to begin with, especially when - as here - new arguments are raised about the inclusion criteria of the list and the result of another AFD. In any case, far more important than how many times something has been nominated for deletion (14 for the Daniel Brandt article) is whether it should be kept or deleted. My warning to Rob wasn't relevant in this case, although I will suggest to both of you that AFD would be less stressful if you concentrated on each other's arguments instead of continually trying to get the other in trouble.--chaser - t 03:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Chaser, I whole-heartedly agree that the discussion should be about the article and not each other. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there is no consensus on a correct time to nominate something a 2nd time (or 3rd time, or whatever): using "it survived an AFD in the past" still isn't a real reason to keep it. This isn't a matter of trying to get Le Grand in trouble. This is a matter of trying to get him to stop posting repetitive comments he uses almost all the time. His choice of ignoring many policies and making up things (such as some sort of time frame for nominating an article again), is disrupting many deletion debates. It needs to stop. RobJ1981 12:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am willing to listen to constructive and respectful criticism and suggestions. Please be willing to do the same.  I also encourage you to focus more on improving this website than continually commenting on or to me.  We would probably do best to just ignore/avoid each other at this point to remove any tensions.  I have several other editors who work with me and if they notice any problems, they will let me know and provide guidance; I respect their opinions and will continue to do my best to adjust my editing habits accordingly when they offer polite advice.  Thus, you need not worry about me, because all is good.  Have a Happy Halloween week!  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good excuses. From the looks of it, people aren't helping you much. Your repetitive AFD comments, and lack of following guidelines (and making up guidelines such as a time frame for nominating an article again) is a proof of that. RobJ1981 20:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not assume bad faith on the part of those mentoring me. They have been helping me just fine and a good deal of fellow editors are quite pleased with my contributions:, , , , etc.  We should just agree to disagree and move on.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please concentrate on the AFD at hand rather than personalizing the discussion. I suggest mediation to work out your differences, and some polite distance. Durova Charge! 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Durova, I'll do that. I'm willing to continue focusing on the discussions and improving articles.  I'll just ignore Rob and not feed into this any further.  Hopefully, he'll be respectful enough to avoid me as well.  If he is unable to agree to disagree and leave me alone, I'll let you know.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you've said that same thing in the past Le Grand. Then I've put one of the pop culture articles in AFD: in which you commented in. Your newest trend of posting the I like it essay in AFDs, is disruptive and hypocritical. Most of your keep comments lean towards I like it. Practice what you preach. RobJ1981 15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually deliberately avoided two "in popular culture" articles you nominated just to avoid you: and .  Yet, after not posting for a few hours, your next post was about me:
 * 04:34, 30 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture‎ (→Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture - comment) (top)
 * 23:42, 29 October 2007 (hist) (diff) NHL '94‎ (some cleanup) (top)
 * You also wrote this. I posted the Arguments to Avoid essay, which many editors use in AfDs, a couple or a few times, not "several" times to an editor who posted the same argument in multiple AfDs.  And I posted a friendly message on that user's page, which that user replied to in a civil manner.  How is that trying to start something with someone who disagrees with me?!  I didn't take him to ANI or anything.  Instead I tried to engage him politely and constructively.  What are you talking about?!  What do you care about stuff that does not concern you?  Making your first post after several hours or days of not posting be to or about me has been going on for a good portion of this month:
 * Consider this:
 * 17:03, 29 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balliol College in fiction‎ (→Balliol College in fiction - delete)
 * 05:49, 29 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:The Rub Rabbits!‎ (+ screenshot request) (top)
 * And this:
 * 20:29, 28 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination)‎ (comment)
 * 13:01, 28 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Pocket Pool‎ (+ screenshot request) (top)
 * And this:
 * 20:35, 25 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Otto4711‎ (→What do you think? - comment)
 * 04:56, 25 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Mars Attacks!‎ (→Deaths - removed section: trivial fancruft) (top)
 * And this:
 * 04:02, 25 October 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Otto4711‎ (→What do you think? - another issue.)
 * 23:12, 23 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mario Party DS‎ (+ screenshot request) (top)
 * And this:
 * 16:44, 21 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters (2nd nomination)‎ (comment)
 * 20:42, 12 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Darren Matthews‎ (→In wrestling - some move cleanup. These massive move lists need to end. Regular moves that many people use, aren't "signature" for Regal or anyone.)
 * And this:
 * 15:59, 30 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination)‎ (commenty) (top)
 * 14:17, 30 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Lego Batman: The Video Game‎ (removed wrong stub) (top)
 * You have even posted comments on items that don't concern you on ANI. If I do participate in any discussions you start or participate in, it is following this suggestion that it be on articles I feel strongly about, which tend to be the "in popular culture" articles for which I have contributed considerably, but even then there are several discussions I have purposefully avoided once I saw you posted in them.  Even so, there is no reason why we cannot participate in the same discussions without commenting about each other.  You claim that I am "disruptive" because you disagree with me and yet, a wider variety of editors have been complimentary and congratulatory of my efforts:, , , , , , , , etc.  You have been assuming bad faith and critiquing me since at least July even though I have offered to discuss our differences by email, to work together to improve an article, to avoid commenting about each other, etc.  I again extend those offers or after I return from my trip during this month, we can pursue mediation in either late November or earlier December, but there is no real reason why you should not be able to just forget about me and move on.  I have a mentor and admins who provide me with advice and I have pursued their feedback based on suggestions.  I have indeed read various policies and guidelines and again, a sizable number of editors agree with my arguments and have wrote really nice responses to them as cited above.  If I make an error or have somewhere where I can still improve, as we all can improve, good people have been and are willing to provide me with guidance.  Please stop insulting me and commenting on me and worrying about me in general.  If we post in the same AfDs that we feel strongly about, we can do so, as I have, without making snide and inaccurate remarks about each other.  I do not know how many olive branches I can extend to you that will be ignored, but I'm perfectly willing to either work to ease tensions, agree to disagree, or if all else fails seek mediation come late November/early December when I return.  Happy Halloween until then.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)