Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

Comment moved from vote page

 * Then I suggest you join the project to help us come up with a good standard, rather than deleting it because you think there should be no standard. I quote Florida Title XLVI Chapter 847 Section 11

''847.011 Prohibition of certain acts in connection with obscene, lewd, etc., materials; penalty.--

(1)(a) Any person who knowingly sells, lends, gives away, distributes, transmits, shows, or transmutes, or offers to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, or transmute, or has in his or her possession, custody, or control with intent to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, transmute, or advertise in any manner, any obscene book, magazine, periodical, pamphlet, newspaper, comic book, story paper, written or printed story or article, writing, paper, card, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, figure, image, phonograph record, or wire or tape or other recording, or any written, printed, or recorded matter of any such character which may or may not require mechanical or other means to be transmuted into auditory, visual, or sensory representations of such character, or any article or instrument for obscene use, or purporting to be for obscene use or purpose; or who knowingly designs, copies, draws, photographs, poses for, writes, prints, publishes, or in any manner whatsoever manufactures or prepares any such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character; or who knowingly writes, prints, publishes, or utters, or causes to be written, printed, published, or uttered, any advertisement or notice of any kind, giving information, directly or indirectly, stating, or purporting to state, where, how, of whom, or by what means any, or what purports to be any, such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character can be purchased, obtained, or had; or who in any manner knowingly hires, employs, uses, or permits any person knowingly to do or assist in doing any act or thing mentioned above, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who, after having been convicted of a violation of this subsection, thereafter violates any of its provisions, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) The knowing possession by any person of three or more identical or similar materials, matters, articles, or things coming within the provisions of paragraph (a) is prima facie evidence of the violation of said paragraph.

(2) A person who knowingly has in his or her possession, custody, or control any obscene book, magazine, periodical, pamphlet, newspaper, comic book, story paper, written or printed story or article, writing, paper, card, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, film, any sticker, decal, emblem or other device attached to a motor vehicle containing obscene descriptions, photographs, or depictions, any figure, image, phonograph record, or wire or tape or other recording, or any written, printed, or recorded matter of any such character which may or may not require mechanical or other means to be transmuted into auditory, visual, or sensory representations of such character, or any article or instrument for obscene use, or purporting to be for obscene use or purpose, without intent to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, transmute, or advertise the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who, after having been convicted of violating this subsection, thereafter violates any of its provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. In any prosecution for such possession, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove the absence of such intent.''
 * This worries me, if Wikipedia (being hosted in Florida) isn't careful, it could be shutdown, the project in question is attempting to find a standard through consensus to prevent this law from shutting Wikipedia down. Please try to put away your personal bias for a moment and instead of attacking this effort, join it. Agriculture 06:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It would never happen. Difference between school and Wikipedia: One is funded by the government. The other is not. Any nude image is used for literary and educational purposes. Wikipedia is in no danger from this law. -- A Link to the Past 07:21, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to be, also (note IANAL) that material such as Wikipedia, which is provided for educational purposes automatically fails the obscenity test. To be declared legally obscene, doesn't something have to be gratuitous? Vashti 08:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Any "obscenity" we should have would be at an article where you'd expect it. What the Supreme Court considers obscene is posting pictures of Pregnant women in leather being spanked on the side of a bus stop. Redwolf24 08:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote count
Currently there are 29 delete votes and 11 keep votes. &mdash; J I P | Talk 12:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Most recent vote count is 78 for Delete and 52 for Keep. -- CABHAN   TALK   CONTRIBS  03:05:11, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

Attempt to Keep Score
I know this isn't perfect, and it doesn't keep track of all the various levels of feeling and non-binary votes, as well as not including links to the user pages, but here's my attempt at keeping score on this vfd so far. Please let me know what you think, it's as of the writing of this edit. I have not been keeping track of the vote over time, but there seems to be a steady 60-40 split in favor of deletion. Karmafist 15:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC) Total 202 votes Delete 121 votes 59.9%


 * 1) Zscout370(defacto)
 * 2) drini
 * 3) Redwolf24
 * 4) Heathhunnicutt
 * 5) Raul654
 * 6) Nick Gordon
 * 7) Idont Havaname
 * 8) Radiant
 * Zoe
 * 1) A Link to the Past
 * 2) Project2501a
 * 3) Linnwood
 * 4) Eequor
 * 5) Lectonar
 * 6) Ryan Delaney
 * 7) Gateman1997
 * 8) Digital Thief
 * 9) Pilatus
 * 10) Rama
 * 11) A.J Luxton
 * JIP
 * 1) AlexR
 * 2) Proto
 * 3) -Ril-
 * 4) Harmil
 * 5) OpenToppedBus
 * 6) Veratien
 * 7) Ibyte
 * 8) Apyule
 * 9) horseboy
 * 10) Madchester
 * 11) Trilobite
 * 12) 172.130.8.51
 * 13) Sdedeo
 * 14) 194.216.55.225
 * 15) Splash
 * 16) Cabhan
 * 17) Several Times
 * 18) BillyCreamCorn
 * 19) Haunti
 * 20) Elfguy
 * 21) Texture
 * 22) Markaci
 * 23) KeithD
 * 24) the Epopt
 * 25) Dottore So
 * FOo
 * 1) Wynler
 * 2) 205.188.116.12
 * 3) Briangotts
 * 4) ManoaChild
 * 5) Randy Johnston
 * 6) Prosfilaes
 * 7) Barno
 * 8) Yuckfoo
 * 9) Outlander
 * 10) Slac
 * 11) Sabine's Sunbird
 * 12) Pavel Vozenilek
 * 13) Katefan0
 * 14) Karmafist
 * 15) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
 * 16) Carnildo
 * 17) Martg76
 * 18) DreamGuy
 * 19) LauraScudder
 * 20) Seth Mahoney
 * 21) 172.167.11.125
 * 22) Extraordinary Machine
 * 23) Sarge Baldy
 * 24) Exploding Boy
 * 25) 172.173.85.232
 * 26) ESKog
 * 27) Flyers13
 * 28) Ascetic Acid
 * 29) 23skidoo
 * 30) Zoop
 * 31) 68.236.34.82
 * 32) Irpen
 * 33) Cyberjunkie
 * 34) Barista
 * 35) JamesMLane
 * 36) GreatGodOm
 * 37) Conti
 * 38) DavidFarmbrough
 * 39) Viriditas
 * 40) Ken
 * 41) Zeno of Elea
 * 42) Darkfred
 * 43) The Land
 * 44) Arcuras
 * 45) Carlton
 * 46) Merovingian
 * 47) K1vsr
 * 48) Wiglaf
 * 49) Paul August
 * 50) Mel Etitis
 * 51) ral315
 * 52) nutjob
 * 53) Lomedae
 * 54) Heraclius
 * 55) Sketchee
 * 56) Gorgonzilla
 * 57) Tverbeek
 * 58) Geocachernemesis
 * 59) Stevey7788
 * Dmn
 * 1) Broken Segue
 * 2) Kaldari
 * 3) Toothpaste
 * 4) Friejose
 * 5) Christiaan
 * 6) DarkLordSeth
 * 7) Mysidia
 * 8) Davenbelle
 * 9) Vamp Willow
 * 10) Nineworlds
 * 11) Sandpiper
 * 12) Cursive
 * 13) Pete C
 * 14) Karl Meier

Keep 81	votes - 40.1%
 * 1) Tony Sidaway
 * 2) Titoxd
 * 3) FCYTravis
 * 4) MONGO
 * 5) Gracenote
 * Doc
 * 1) Banes
 * 2) PeteVerdon
 * 3) Rich Farmbrough
 * 4) Everyking
 * 5) Sjakkalle
 * 6) ObsidianOrder
 * 7) Geni
 * 8) Ryan Norton
 * JRM
 * 1) Noitall
 * 2) Carbonite
 * 3) Grm_wnr
 * 4) Shanes
 * 5) Geogre
 * 6) BD2412
 * 7) Mike Rosoft
 * 8) NoSeptember
 * 9) Hahnchen
 * 10) tomf688
 * 11) Kim Bruning
 * Dan
 * 1) Scimitar
 * 2) Eugene van der Pijll
 * 3) Sam Vimes
 * 4) Antandrus
 * 5) Canderson7
 * 6) Joe Beaudon Jr.
 * Ngb
 * WLD
 * 1) Johntex
 * 2) nobs
 * 3) Christopher Parham
 * 4) Voice of All(MTG)
 * 5) Tomer
 * 6) DavidsCrusader
 * 7) Gazpacho
 * 8) DJ Clayworth
 * 9) llywrch
 * 10) Jyolkowski
 * 11) zoneytalk
 * EDM
 * 1) Bobdoe
 * 2) Osomec
 * 3) Andycjp
 * 4) Aranel
 * 5) Hamster Sandwich
 * 6) Storm Rider
 * 7) Visviva
 * 8) I-2-d2
 * 9) Peter Kirby
 * 10) David Conrad
 * 11) Jimbo Wales
 * 12) James Teterenko
 * 13) Rhobite
 * 14) Lord Bob
 * 15) Robin Johnson
 * 16) Trodel
 * 17) Fire Star
 * 18) Awilliamson
 * 19) Mikka
 * 20) Erwin Walsh
 * 21) 152.163.100.7
 * 22) Judge Magney
 * 23) Rx StrangeLove
 * 24) jpgordon
 * 25) DS1953
 * 26) Dbachmann
 * 27) Abeo Paliurus
 * 28) Fernando Rizo
 * 29) JJLeahy
 * 30) Jmabel
 * 31) 67.101.68.103
 * 32) Evercat
 * 33) Matt Yeager
 * 34) Ihcoyc


 * Thanks Karmafist! -- Ryan Norton T 03:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * While it is good to keep somewhat of a vote count, I would go through each vote carefully. I seen a user vote twice already and that said user removed at least one vote . Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, voted twice?? I think you mean the 172s, not me, and as far as deleted votes, how can you possibly call this vote legit if you count un-signed anon votes?--I-2-d2 04:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Usually, the closing admin will discount votes from annons, and in this case, those with under 100 edits. As for the two votes from you, I was descrbing these: "Strong Keep, yet again someone has deleted my vote it seems, all in the name of "anit"censorship, I guess, you can never tell--I-2-d2 04:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)" . On this edit,, you also have the vote at the bottom "STRONG KEEP How ironic is it that you're all trying to censor someone for alleged censorship, heil comrade!--I-2-d2 03:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)", which was your original vote anyways. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey Karmafist, good work, mustve taken ages! Banes 08:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You'd be surprised what you can do with Excel and the CONCATENATE function. I just wish people would make their votes a little clearer though. As of this edit, there's been 159 votes of my count. Who knows? The death of this project may begin a new, "vote counting" project. Karmafist 14:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hehe, does anyone else find the 172's suspicious :) -- Dark fred Talk to me 14:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A bunch of anons from similar IP addresses voting to delete? Oh, please, you're overly suspicious. I bet noooooooothing untoward is going on! Nooooooothing! Lord Bob 18:58, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, you folks realize that with over 70 votes to keep, there's clearly not a concensus for deletion, right? And that's without actually looking at the contents of the votes. A lot of delete votes supply invalid (non-vfd) reasons. Kim Bruning 14:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I see a heck of a lot of invalid keep votes. I see an overwhelming vote to delete here. If 200 people vote and 60% are saying give it the boot that looks to me like a delete. We are not talking about an article here, we are talking about a campaign to impose a particular point of view on Wikipedia. I don't think that the 2/3rds criteria should apply in this case. A project or a portal should really be held to a higher standard. --Gorgonzilla 15:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of invalid delete votes, too (it's going to be a fairly lousy day for whichever bold admin tries to straighten this out), but since quite a few won't even consider a two-third majority as a rough consensus to delete, I imagine we'll be seeing this Wikiproject continue. Hopefully it will die out and become a husk of its former self, but... Lord Bob 16:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * lol! Gorgonzillan00b, lol! Erwin Walsh

Can anyone explain to me why my vote should be discarded? GreatGodOm 13:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Needs splitting
The votes section alone is 81 kilobytes long. I had to reload the page four times to get to see my recent edit. This discussion needs further splitting into sections. &mdash; J I P | Talk 04:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I cannot edit the page. I want to change my vote. This is ridiculous. David | Talk 08:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have split the votes section to "August 17" and "August 18" based on the dates in the signatures of votes (not replies to votes). &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Still not working for me. August 17 is 76K. David | Talk 09:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have split August 17 even further. &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. David | Talk 09:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Longest VfD ever?
Is this the longest VfD in the history of Wikipedia? It should be preserved in some special archive. &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. The one for the Vietnamese napalm image got fairly long, too.  But this is certainly one of the most amusing VfDs I've read in a while.  ("Kill it with fire" and "Delete creationists, prudes, and jesus freaks for great justice" made me laugh.)  --Ardonik.talk* 09:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you consider it as another part of the long-running arguments over having/deleting autofellatio, it's certainly become the longest... Shimgray 12:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * long-running arguments over having autofellatio... <-- That sounds almost rude! :p --Veratien 19:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Consulting magic 8-ball: "concentrate and ask again"
It's been mentioned, but I'd like to spell it out: the way I see it, the only possible outcome of this VfD is "no consensus". This is so regardless of whether either Keep or Delete votes manage to reach a "majority". Even if there should be a majority in favor of deleting the project page, for example, that doesn't close the discussion on the idea itself. Contrariwise, if the page is kept that doesn't imply the project in its current form is officially sanctioned by the community. (I already dread future discussions of the form "you are just editing this project page/article because you didn't get your way at the VfD", but that's unavoidable.)

In short, this VfD is a waste of time, but we already knew that. I expect much less people to be interested in actually working towards constructive consensus on this issue, which is good, since it'll mean less flamewars. Meanwhile, sit back and enjoy the opinion show. JRM · Talk 12:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion
The VfD itself was nominated for deletion. The result was speedy keep. &mdash; J I P | Talk 13:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually it was closer to oh God no please don't do that when does the hurting stop, but yes, this attempt at recursion was nipped in the bud. JRM · Talk 13:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It would appear from theis VFD that the consensus is that things in the wikipedia name space can be listed on VFD. Therefore technicaly VFDs can be VFDed.Geni 14:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And those Vfds will themselves be nominated for deletion, Now your recursive logic is attempting to suck my brain dry, arghhhh! -- Dark fred Talk to me 14:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The initial VfD process itself can do exactly the same as 'VfDing a VfD', with speedy keeps (as indeed was the case with the VfD of the VfD being as good as VfDed). To allow such recursion would just lead to never-ending arguments dragging on for months and years as they continued to be nominated for fresh VfDs, long after the issue would have been resolved otherwise. KeithD (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It would appear from theis VFD that the consensus is that things in the wikipedia name space can be listed on VFD. Therefore technicaly VFDs can be VFDed. No. It establishes that some things in the Wikipedia namespace can be VfD'ed. VfDs cannot be VfD'ed, even though they happen to be in the Wikipedia namespace. Why this must be so is left as an exercise to the reader, but while said reader is figuring it out, I'll make sure they're killed immediately regardless. JRM · Talk 19:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, a VfU on a VfD nomination itself would not be recursive if it failed. And I do hope Wikipedia has enough sanity left to ensure such VfUs would fail, but if not, I guess I'll just have to become one of those rouge admins I hear so much about! JRM · Talk 23:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * so can deleted vdfs be listed on VFU? This leads to a whole new opertunity for recursion.Geni 23:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but VFU is not trying the vote on the VFD, but rather only for questioning the legitimacy of the decision to delete based on the vote. The merits of the article are not considered, only the merit of the way the VFD was conducted.  Tomer TALK  23:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tomer's reasonable interpretation notwithstanding, I would answer no to that as well. I seriously hope nobody is going to demand I write up a guideline for this. You do not VfD VfD's, period, because it's either pointless or WP:POINTful. They shouldn't be created; likewise no discussion of undeletion should be taking place when they are speedied. None of this is explicitly forbidden, of course, just like it's not forbidden to put the Main Page up for deletion or redirect your talk page to a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head. That doesn't mean such actions must be tolerated.
 * This is probably not the best place to be discussing this. That notwithstanding, I was speaking in more general terms of files of any sort that have been deleted.  I neglected to point out, however, that VFDs don't get deleted unless they're frivolous, which is, AFAIK, never a result of a VFD request on a VFD itself.  Every VFD (except for those lost possibly several months ago in "the crash") is still out there.  Regardless of how this one ends, the record of it will still be out there.  Even if the project itself is deleted, the VFD will still hang around for posterity.  Tomer TALK  00:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've generally given up on trying to get discussions to their proper place, unless they are really of some importance. That notwithstanding... No, let me try that again... :-) For clarity: I am only speaking of the only issue pertinent to the discussion: deleting VfD nominations of VfD nominations. I'm not talking about your regular, run-of-the-mill, everybody-understands-what's-going-on VfD nomination. You are right: in general a VfD nomination isn't deleted, ever, even if it's patently absurd, like Votes for deletion/Jesus. The VfD of the VfD was deleted with extreme prejudice not because it was frivolous but because it was just plain wrong as an application of procedure. A gateway to infinite recursion. An abhorrence. A freak of nature. VfDing VfDs is just something that ought to be impossible. I took Geni's remark as referring only to VfUs of VfDs on VfDs (oh dear), not VfU in general, which works as you outlined. JRM · Talk 01:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * hmmm yes this line does appear to end rather than become an infinite recursion one you have listed on VFU the vfd on vfd that got speedied I can think of any way to deal with you loseing there (assuming no one lists the VFU on VFD which since VFU doesn't use sub pages could be tricky).Geni 01:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * HELP! SOMEBODY!  PLEASE!  I think my brain is stuck in the spin cycle!!! Tomer TALK  01:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea, Geni. If we reform VfU to use subpages, we could VfD VfUs. If we tentatively accept that VfDs can be VfDed, we could hence VfD VfUs of VfDs of VfUs of VfDs... Mutual recursion at its finest. I note at this point that the infinite recursion I hinted at isn't really possible, though&mdash;only if you insist on adding new levels. The process isn't self-perpetuating and you can stop at any time. Probably when you go absolutely bonkers, decide Wikipedia is a silly place, and go back to reading paper encyclopedias like the rest of the world. JRM · Talk 01:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Subpages of VFU are clearly unnecessary. When a VFU for a VFD on a VFD fails, obviously the natural thing is propose a VFD on the VFU process.  If that fails, you then VFD the VFD on VFU, and start again.  Dragons flight 01:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, subpages of VfU are clearly necessary. If there is just the one monolithic VfU page, and it is VfD'd, where would we be able to place the VfU of the VfD'd VfU? Eugene van der Pijll 07:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Perhaps we should hold a vote on it? WP:VfDoVfUoVfDoVfU... Shimgray
 * If the VfU of the VfD was about something entirely different, and wasn't about WfD, but was about VD, or worse still, an image of VD viewed on a VDU, would that be an FU to the WfD, or only those WfD members who come from UF and play the Ud? KeithD (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ROFL. The above exchange needs to be copied to SoM 00:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It has been! ^_^
 * &#8227; &#5339;&#5505; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 16:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * On a lighter note, the Jesus VfD gives a whole new meaning to the term "bad faith nomination" ;-P IByte 00:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Can we delete the discussion of whether VfDs can be VfD'd? I'm not trying to be silly, but BJAODN might like this discussion here.

It is already thereWikipedia:WARNING:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense ahead.Geni 22:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Vfd is atrocious
People are pasting too much text and long sections in; the sections currently labelled points of interest, and pasting of large comments such as legalese by some users particularly stands out: there must be a way to post sufficient information to explain a vote without flooding the Vfd page: by using the talk page, for instance...

And with this tally box that has shown up? Will surely have lots of spurious non-vote edits to update it. Whichever admin will decipher the edits and properly close this Vfd when it's over will deserve a prize, at this rate... --Mysidia (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I see the tallybox as an attempt to pre-empt the conclusion. It is basically a way of saying 'see this is the count'. of course there are going to be a huge number of fraudulent votes and it is going to be very difficult to know what the situation really is. The count is also suspiciously just short of 2/3rds and has remained there despite the relatively small number of votes. There should have been a lot more variance for a small sample size. --Gorgonzilla 14:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "suspiciously"? You're welcome at any time to count up the votes yourself. I think it irrational and a violation of Assume Good Faith to get suspicious about something so easily checkable. Perhaps your intuition is wrong, or perhaps it just happens to have a unusually low variance, or perhaps there's other effects going on. To have suspicion of a set of easily checkable results without checking them just isn't fair. --Prosfilaes 18:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Is Profanity decent?
The reason I ask is that I found the following posted to my user page by one of the self appointed decency monitors pushing this proposal. I think that it is indicative of the manner in which they are likely to be implementing their little scheme. --Gorgonzilla 22:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The conversation can be perused here. Agriculture 22:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Come on, don't censor the conversation now! What you wrote was:


 * It's not appropriate here, people who want to see it can go look on your talk's history page. This is not the place to push your personal agenda of character assassination, but feel free to continue on your own page. For the record, I consider my Wikipedia self completely and absolutely nuts, so go ahead and try to assassinate my character there, I admit to having none to assassinate. Agriculture 22:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not think that people who post that sort of thing to user pages should be mounting decency crusades. --Gorgonzilla 22:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And given that I never have mounted such a crusade nor never will, you seem to lack a point. Agriculture 22:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As a note, I am not a self appointed decency monitor as Gorgonzilla suggests, I was (note past tense) trying to encourage discussion on the topic, but have given it up as a loss. There are too many trolls here to even try.  I fully support nudity and hardcore pornography in the correct context, and Vandalpedia may be the right context in hindsight. Agriculture 22:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So you're deleting other people's posts on the talk page, and calling Wikipedia Vandalpedia. How are you not a troll? --Prosfilaes 23:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How can posting something someone posted to a public forum be 'character assasination'? I think that your problem with it being posted here has much more to do with the fact that it shows the type of person who wants to become decency a monitor. Besides your link does not actually link to what you wrote. Since you keep censoring your own post here, I'll give the real link . --Gorgonzilla 01:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Gorgonzilla is a well known troll amongst VFD regulars. Erwin Walsh

Um..??
...no one had even hinted at closing the VfD, then all of a sudden an anon declares the vote over, and *poof* how did that happen?
 * That was reverted. Plus, no matter what happens, there will not be a 2/3's majority needed to vote for the deletion of the project. Though, most will want to see it fail on it's own accord. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If no one else does I'll renominate it in a few weeks or a month after all the little censorship trolls have gotten bored. It may have a new fancy name but it's the same basic project. Gateman1997 16:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And hopefully some admin will shut it down instantly. People tried your apraoch on GNAA it coused trouble there it will cuase trouble here.Geni 22:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well considering this project violates several wikipolicies most notably WP:NPOV and WP:NOT I seriously doubt anyone would shut down a legit VfD done in a month or two.Gateman1997 22:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Renomitating stuff for deleteion just becuase you didn't get the result you want is not good practice.Geni 23:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What result would that be? The vote was no consensus, which means technically the issue is still very much open. And if I'm not mistaken the majority of 60% said to delete.Gateman1997 17:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, renominating articles with no consensus is allowed, afaik. However, nominating articles which received a "keep" vote is frowned upon.   ral  315  23:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to look at it this way: there were more delete votes than keep. However, we did not have a deletion because we did not have the 2/3rd majority. What we could is a compromise: keep the page, but if the project is inactive in 6-7 months, then a VFD could be suggested. Most inactive projects are deleted on occasion. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6-7 months I can live with a few weeks is just asking for trouble.Geni 00:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Just as a reply to Gateman1997: this VFD was an utter trainwreck. Zscout370 can be excused, because no-one knew what would happen. However, we know now.


 * Just to be sure you realise this, if you do try to renominate, I figure you'd probably suffer -like- multiple overlapping blocks as admins scramble to stop you. (and that's for starters)


 * It's a really bad idea, so Don't Do ThatTM.


 * Kim Bruning 18:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Kim frankly I doubt they would do that. There is no legit reason this can't be put back up for VFD in a month or two. It was a no consensus vote that leaned heavily toward delete. That means it's still up for grabs what happens to it.Gateman1997 18:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * on the basis that both kim and I are admins and we have both suggested that this is likly to happen you confidence may be missplaced.19:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well if that's your attitude about it I'd suggest you'd be abusing your admin privilages and might need to have them revoked.... if you infact did engage in such activity, not that you would because that would be wrong and might even constitute a personal attack.Gateman1997 20:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * *Sigh*, nooooo. I did not say I would block you, I did not say I would use any admin privileges, in fact I did not say I would be on wikipedia at all on that day, and might in fact be sitting under the shade of a nice palmtree in honolulu. Now whilst I'm sitting under a palmtree in honolulu, drinking my tequila, (and no I wouldn't have a laptop on me, let alone wifi), you'd still get blocked from 10 sides at once. Why? Kim Bruning 21:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * my admin powers revoked? again? no matter give it 6 or 7 months or list it on december the 23rd.Geni 21:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It is curious when people desire to discuss an issue that could possibly be construed as censoring that others feel compelled to censor them. What is even more amazing is censoring becomes acceptable as long as it is "you" who is doing the censoring. We all lose credibility when we argue without taking into consideration the affects of our own arguments. Conversely, it is gratifying to read how many of of the editors realize that to censor a group wishing to discuss the viability of having some degree standards is unacceptable. Yet, the rest of you feel so righteous in censoring the same gruop.

We humans are such an incredible lot; we so willingly feel justified calling someone else wrong while we exhibit the exact same quality for which we accuse "them" of being. The challenge in working with the WIKI is our inability to distinguish between those who are simply young and should be understood to be growing and those who are just plain idiots that should be ignored. Storm Rider 06:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Stopping people who's sole goal is to censor others is not censorship. Trying to construe it as such is both wrong and dangerous. This is the same logic groups like the Parents Television Council use to protect themselves and looks at the mess they've caused.Gateman1997 17:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Gate, it really is not that important, but when you look in the mirror and can't see yourself then there is a problem and it is not everyone else. Once you learn to call things as they are and not as you want them you will realize that everyone else is not "wrong", but they simply have a different perspective.  DANGEROUS???  Dangerous is people claiming they are right, attempting to enforce their will on others, and doing the exact same thing they accuse everyone else of doing.  The lengths they will go to enforce their position can be extreme.  You might want to spend some time looking at history.  Don't be afraid of seeing yourself in the actions of some our most notorious historical groups.  I am not saying you are the "enemy", but that the seeds of such are in each of us.  Storm Rider 23:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)