104:'Per nom' is as she says pretty useless in most discussions (not just AfDs). Almost no discussion here is actually a vote (we often refer to it as a not-vote or !vote), it's a discussion, and your policy arguments matter more than your !vote. If you can't at least restate in your own words what you're dittoing, many closers may discount your contribution as a drive-by, especially when you're also voting Delete in nearly every discussion. No, there's no policy on that, although there is an essay at
536:
It's a quality vs quantity decision. Knowledge (XXG) doesn't need unreliable articles that will never grow in my opinion. With the advent of large language models, Knowledge (XXG) will not have a funnel of new editors in a few years. Search engines won't be sending traffic here. In my opinion, it will be more useful to have reliable articles instead of a badly sourced page for every proper noun in particular books.
592:
33:
seriously and most closers just ignore these remarks. You have now been participating in AFDs for a couple of weeks and I don't see any improvement in your contributions. Please raise the quality of your AFD participation or go do one of the million of other activities available to editors on this enormous project of ours. Thank you.
491:
I don't want to add to overall concerns, but I did want to understand more of your rationale behind your contributions here on the
English wiki. I have seen several dozen AFDs all related to Latter Day Saint movement topics, and while some of them have removed articles that are not necessary, some of
146:
There's no level of experience necessary, and you're welcome to participate there. Liz is just asking you to participate more thoughtfully, and I'm saying that you might want to read there (or in any other
Knowledge (XXG) space, such as noticeboards) for a while until you see what kinds of votes are
535:
As to rather removing parts of tge wiki that don't belong - I feel it is necessary. The wiki even has a set of processes around it, because it is needed. Editors can only perform so many edits. If they are updating categories on non notable pages, "we" lose actual meaningful edits to notable pages.
345:
If you'd like to talk about the "per nom" I said, I would love to continue that conversation. Liz never replied. I looked at the AFDs I participated in, and users with over 100,000 edits were also saying "Delete per nom". It still isn't clear to me why I was admonished for what looks to be the most
378:
It sounds like you know about criteria for participation I haven't found. What is required to say "keep per nom" specifically? In the afd I mentioned, the 100,000+ edit user said it after I did. We reached the same conclusion. Same inputs, same outputs, but my opinion was called thoughtless and a
24:
I'm going to say this as politely as I can but you are giving low quality, drive-by votes in the AFDs you participate in. I can tell you've read the deletion nomination statement but it is not apparent that you have even read the article must less conducted a thorough assessment of quality of the
191:
I am actually new to list articles. I imagined the list would need to be of a notable thing, backed by what
Knowledge (XXG) calls reliable secondary sources. I couldn't find any books about lists of places in the book of mormon that were not owned bybthe church. If you have some sources, that os
550:
Several of the pages that you have been working on are on my watchlist, and when these latest two AFDs showed up I thought to come here. I haven't had any conversations with anyone outside of those. I agree there are many cases where obscure proper nouns don't deserve a proper article -- I have
531:
Out of curiosity, how did you decide to come to my talk page today? I have had a lot of people stop by to talk in a short time period (under 24h). I'm actually not as active as I was a couple months ago, so it seems there must be another catalyst outside of my talk page edits today. Is there a
83:
Also, you personally deleted *most* of the articles I nominated. I'd like to see some diffs of what you consider edits that may have been disruptive, if you have some. I didn't know that "outline" articles were a thing, so I did flub by nominating one. Thanks again for your follow up to these
32:
If you do not want to put in the time and effort to participate thoughtfully in an AFD deletion discussion, then please find other activities on the project to take on. Useless comments like "Delete per nom" or "Fails GNG" with no elaboration is just a sign that you are not taking the process
117:
In general, it's best for newer editors to edit in article space, watch & listen in
Knowledge (XXG) space. Participating in Knowledge (XXG) space at your level of experience is not likely to be very productive for Knowledge (XXG) and is likely to be actively counterproductive for you.
555:. However, when someone comes along and does a massive deletion of content in that same sphere, it looks like POV pushing in the opposite direction. Does that make sense? In the process of seeking to clean up articles, rather than simply deleting content as
111:
It doesn't matter that you've seen other people do that at other AfDs. Those people may not be contributing thoughtfully, either. No, you shouldn't notify lots of other people who do this; you don't have anywhere near the experience to assess that behavior
68:
Also, would you be willing to link me towards the policy that says we can't say delete per nom? I didn't make that phrase up, I saw it on hundreds of AFDs. Are you notifying lots of people delete per nom isn't ok? Should I? .
25:
sources in the article and I can tell you have never tried to look for additional sources to help establish notability. In your deletion nomination when you start an AFD discussion, you apparently forgo the required step of
53:
Can you provide some independent reliable in depth sources on minor locations listed in the book of mormon? Thank you. I could only find Sunday school sermons and the occasional wp:fringe
Atlantis theories.
294:
I don't have a previous account on this wiki, but I have edited another wiki for a few years. Some of the policies here I'm learning to navigate, but the actual mechanics I'm moderately experienced with.
174:
266:
I'll take that as a compliment. I've read a lot around here, but some people (see the thread above) think I'm too new. I guess I'm in the awkward haircut phase of not having a 10 year old account yet.
346:
common way of saying "I agree with the nominator and don't have anything else substantial to add", but other users are allowed to say "delete/keep per nom". Can you help me find the policy on it?
342:
No, I do not have any alternate accounts. I did read the guidance on them after seeing it linked in a thread about other editors, but alt accounts don't seem to be applicable to me.
559:, investigate whether independent sources can be found to substantiate what is being said. Also, rather than simply deleting every Book of Mormon place, why not redirect them to
680:, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee
703:
Why did you vandalize the Game of
Thrones character article by removing the dragons' descriptions? They are characters too! Have you not read the books or watched the show?
170:
317:
was inactive (March 25), in the same topic area, using similar or identical edit summaries (e.g. "Wp:undue"). The account's first edit was to !vote in an AfD you started,
551:
redirected and PRODed a number of these articles myself. I agree that when many of these articles were originally created, the creator(s) maintained a certain amount of
497:
650:
101:
Liz works very regularly at AfD and closes many AfDs, so it's completely irrelevant whether she's the one who deleted ones you nominated or !voted in.
628:
318:
532:
conversation about me somewhere I could or should be participating in? I searched the inbound links to this page and couldn't find anything obvious.
445:
You changed pain to harm. Cigarette smoke is harmful, but not what people who enjoy hurting animals are into. Zoosadism is about pain, not harm.
504:, rather than remove it. Many of the things you have been doing of AFDs, PRODs, redirects, and blanking and removing sections, are a pattern of
634:
463:
extreme "pain, suffering or humiliation" be ok? Are the other edits I made acceptable? If not, can we take this to the page's talk page?
379:
driveby. Is there a test you can take to get a badge? Another user above said there was no time limit to start being able to edit.
29:
which requires the nominator to look for those additional sources and to provide a careful assessment of the sources that exist.
564:
681:
560:
493:
177:
I see no evidence they did their due diligence or in fact if they are clear about the criteria for AfD or list articles.
672:
606:
663:
624:
325:, then went on to !vote in several more AfDs with the same "per nom"-type rationale that Liz warned you about above.
512:
and others might agree with me when I suggest writing articles, or working on other things that you don't consider "
500:, I see a pattern focused on deletion, rather than adding to the encyclopedia. Overall, I hope that we are here to
619:
614:
602:
105:
537:
486:
446:
380:
347:
314:
296:
267:
193:
133:
85:
70:
55:
310:
460:
659:
598:
708:
370:
286:
216:
183:
649:. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
704:
689:
667:
405:
552:
505:
501:
464:
431:
556:
513:
26:
572:
521:
468:
435:
152:
123:
207:
254:
677:
640:
365:
281:
211:
178:
686:
402:
330:
633:
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the
712:
692:
576:
545:
525:
472:
454:
439:
408:
388:
373:
355:
334:
304:
289:
275:
260:
219:
201:
186:
156:
141:
132:
Thanks for the info, how many years of experience is usual for participating in AFDs?
127:
93:
78:
63:
44:
568:
517:
162:
148:
119:
591:
249:
246:
Hi, do you have previous or alternate accounts? You don't seem like a new editor.
360:
And they have the experience to know whether the nominator is right. You don’t. @
398:
326:
637:, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
313:
an alternative account of yours? This account edited during in a period when
423:
662:
have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by
108:. You actually kind of make yourself look clueless when you vote like that.
509:
361:
166:
35:
623:
reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be
653:
to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
175:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Book of Mormon places
321:, using "in-universe" to describe a religious belief, which
322:
171:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Waters of Mormon
496:
debacle right now). In addition, when I look at your
430:
Can you help me understand why this is whitewashing?
601:indicate that this user account has been or may be
8:
319:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Amaron
609:indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
676:loosen or remove this block, or issue an
98:So, there's a lot to unpack on this.
7:
492:them have pushed too far (like the
666:due to the Wikimedia Foundation's
459:Ok, would the terminology used in
14:
506:things that we shouldn't focus on
613:Note that multiple accounts are
599:Knowledge (XXG)'s technical logs
590:
401:That account was also his, yes.
1:
651:Unblock Ticket Request System
561:List of Book of Mormon places
494:List of Book of Mormon places
21:Hello, Big Money Threepwood,
682:may be summarily desysopped
728:
713:22:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
693:02:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
577:02:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
546:19:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
526:18:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
473:02:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
455:01:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
440:00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
409:03:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
389:19:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
374:17:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
356:16:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
335:15:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
305:14:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
290:07:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
276:01:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
261:19:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
220:17:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
202:01:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
187:17:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
157:11:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
142:05:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
128:18:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
94:14:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
79:14:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
64:14:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
45:07:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
635:guide to appealing blocks
315:User:Big Money Threepwood
541:
481:Building an Encyclopedia
450:
384:
351:
311:User:The Trash Compactor
300:
271:
197:
137:
89:
74:
59:
147:considered productive.
563:? As we already know,
461:Sexual sadism disorder
280:Ok, but is that a no?
502:build an encyclopedia
538:Big Money Threepwood
487:Big Money Threepwood
447:Big Money Threepwood
381:Big Money Threepwood
348:Big Money Threepwood
297:Big Money Threepwood
268:Big Money Threepwood
194:Big Money Threepwood
134:Big Money Threepwood
86:Big Money Threepwood
71:Big Money Threepwood
56:Big Money Threepwood
565:redirects are cheap
364:what do you think?
678:IP block exemption
658:
323:you have also done
656:
258:
719:
648:
645:Your reason here
594:
508:. I think that @
368:
284:
259:
252:
214:
181:
43:
727:
726:
722:
721:
720:
718:
717:
716:
701:
696:
695:
685:
657:Administrators:
638:
595:
587:
483:
428:
366:
282:
247:
244:
212:
179:
106:WP:PERNOMINATOR
34:
19:
12:
11:
5:
725:
723:
700:
697:
668:privacy policy
664:administrators
655:
654:
632:
617:, but not for
612:
611:
605:. It has been
603:used abusively
596:
589:
588:
586:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
533:
482:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
427:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
343:
340:
243:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
115:
114:
113:
109:
102:
51:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
724:
715:
714:
710:
706:
698:
694:
691:
688:
687:Moneytrees🏝️
683:
679:
675:
674:
669:
665:
661:
652:
646:
642:
636:
630:
626:
622:
621:
616:
610:
608:
604:
600:
593:
584:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
549:
548:
547:
543:
539:
534:
530:
529:
528:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
498:contributions
495:
489:
488:
480:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
457:
456:
452:
448:
444:
443:
442:
441:
437:
433:
425:
422:
410:
407:
404:
403:Moneytrees🏝️
400:
396:
390:
386:
382:
377:
376:
375:
372:
369:
363:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
344:
341:
338:
337:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
307:
306:
302:
298:
293:
292:
291:
288:
285:
279:
278:
277:
273:
269:
265:
264:
263:
262:
256:
251:
241:
221:
218:
215:
209:
205:
204:
203:
199:
195:
190:
189:
188:
185:
182:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
159:
158:
154:
150:
145:
144:
143:
139:
135:
131:
130:
129:
125:
121:
116:
110:
107:
103:
100:
99:
97:
96:
95:
91:
87:
82:
81:
80:
76:
72:
67:
66:
65:
61:
57:
52:
49:
48:
47:
46:
42:
40:
39:
30:
28:
22:
16:
702:
671:
644:
620:illegitimate
618:
597:
490:
484:
429:
245:
192:great Doug!
169:Looking at
37:
36:
31:
23:
20:
705:HiGuys69420
553:POV pushing
367:Doug Weller
283:Doug Weller
213:Doug Weller
180:Doug Weller
84:questions.
660:Checkusers
585:April 2024
242:Precocious
699:Vandalism
557:WP:FRINGE
514:WP:FRINGE
424:Zoosadism
27:WP:BEFORE
673:must not
625:reverted
569:Rollidan
518:Rollidan
465:Subanark
432:Subanark
208:WP:LISTS
163:Valereee
149:Valereee
120:Valereee
641:unblock
629:deleted
615:allowed
607:blocked
250:Awilley
690:(Talk)
670:. You
647:~~~~}}
426:revert
406:(Talk)
339:Hello,
485:Hey @
399:Jfire
327:Jfire
206:Read
709:talk
573:talk
542:talk
522:talk
469:talk
451:talk
436:talk
385:talk
371:talk
352:talk
331:talk
301:talk
287:talk
272:talk
255:talk
217:talk
198:talk
184:talk
173:and
153:talk
138:talk
124:talk
112:yet.
90:talk
75:talk
60:talk
17:AFDs
627:or
516:".
510:Liz
362:Liz
309:Is
167:Liz
50:Hi.
711:)
639:{{
575:)
567:.
544:)
524:)
471:)
453:)
438:)
387:)
354:)
333:)
303:)
274:)
210:.
200:)
155:)
140:)
126:)
92:)
77:)
62:)
41:iz
707:(
684:.
643:|
631:.
571:(
540:(
520:(
467:(
449:(
434:(
397:@
383:(
350:(
329:(
299:(
270:(
257:)
253:(
248:~
196:(
165:@
161:@
151:(
136:(
122:(
88:(
73:(
58:(
38:L
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.