481:
analysis was done. Unfortunately the edit cannot be retrieved AFAIK. The page was of sufficient quality as 50% of the articles I read on
Knowledge on a daily basis. There were no positive arguments against it. Spartaz did not take part in the discussion and I suspect did not review the article in questions before deleting. I edit Knowledge all the time and cherish it but I'm new to creating pages. I was more interested in following something along the lines of DRV anyway, but did not know about that. I don't think the negative participants in the discussion were coming from a productive place. By these standards I'm sure half of Knowledge would be deleted, and probably the best parts. I did not think for a second the article would actually be deleted. If that's the actual consensus I suspect Knowledge won't be getting a whole lot of donations as time goes on...
441:. Neither is recreating a deleted article in defiance of an AFD closure. Civil disobediance doesn't work here so don't waste your time. Blocks ratchet up so I suggest you try DRV or even you know discussing the close rather then wasting your time in ineffective gestures. I wouldn't have blocked you for the recreation but your comment on the now deleted talk page was too much. Oh, if you want to appeal the block try {{unblock|your reason here}} to get another admin to review this.
245:
142:
297:
466:
I wouldn't have blocked you for saying "fuck"; I say it any time I fucking want, and so can you, as long as you do it within
Knowledge's civility guideline. So, "This article is fucked up" is one thing; "get the fuck off Knowledge" is directing the harsh language toward other users, and that's what's
451:
I was not aware that any language is unacceptable on
Knowledge. Since nothing else is. I simply shamed users who would argue for the deletion of a page that is clearly valuable by any standard of basic information (like at least 50% of the content on Knowledge I am aware of) and even properly sourced
480:
For the purposes of people reading this talk page... I think editors should be given the freedom to express themselves. I did not address any editor in particular, and I did not tell anyone to not use
Knowledge. I did say (IMO) said editors are not helping Knowledge -- Ie. if an actual cost benefit
452:
in an attempt to appeal to their better nature. The course language was an effect to demonstrate that I am not going to dignify such a deletion with actual argument. PS: People say "the F-word" all of the time on
Knowledge!! Isn't that per some language bias guideline or something?! --
271:
until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
268:
275:
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
490:
467:
not tolerable. And, if you're not going to "dignify such a deletion with actual argument", you're not going to be welcomed around here either; we operate on something we call
393:
Spartaz's relatively short block was appropriate. While
Knowledge is not censored, there is a line, and that line is directing said uncensored content towards other editors.
431:
template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.
257:
337:
78:
48:
209:
83:
416:
188:
471:
here, which means this is a cooperative project, and if you insist on having your own way, you won't be able to work well with us. --
112:
on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out
332:
26:
252:
236:
149:
135:
30:
213:
68:
73:
64:
on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
42:
22:
201:
153:
131:
309:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
205:
34:
351:
310:
261:
304:
382:
since when does
Knowledge censor? And I'm not sure I said "get the fuck off" but I do remember saying fucking
29:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as
285:
88:
105:
109:
468:
217:
113:
281:
225:
121:
98:
229:
184:
494:
453:
425:
315:
57:
161:
The article fails to indicate why the subject is notable, and I suspect the game fails
52:, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type
438:
Telling other users you disagree with to get the fuck off wikipedia is not acceptable
472:
394:
277:
221:
171:
162:
117:
93:
442:
170:
While all contributions to
Knowledge are appreciated, content or articles may be
194:
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing
269:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Sword of
Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool
502:
475:
461:
445:
406:
125:
40:
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called
491:
User:Truth_Glass/Sword_of_Moonlight:_King's_Field_Making_Tool
46:. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
295:
140:
413:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
433:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
439:
365:
361:
355:
346:
342:
328:
324:
320:
250:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
212:
process can result in deletion without discussion, and
177:
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the
165:. The article also fails to cite any outside sources.
303:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
256:
is suitable for inclusion in
Knowledge according to
489:PS: Content of said article upon deletion is here,
234:
8:
253:Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool
237:Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool
150:Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool
136:Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool
116:or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
31:Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool
104:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
33:, may not conform to some of Knowledge's
183:notice, but please explain why in your
7:
258:Knowledge's policies and guidelines
172:deleted for any of several reasons
156:because of the following concern:
14:
267:The article will be discussed at
130:
243:
1:
89:The five pillars of Knowledge
79:Biographies of living persons
84:How to write a great article
37:, and may soon be deleted.
25:to Knowledge! Thank you for
307:, who declined the request.
216:allows discussion to reach
197:{{proposed deletion/dated}}
180:{{proposed deletion/dated}}
49:New contributors' help page
518:
503:19:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
476:02:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
462:01:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
446:20:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
417:guide to appealing blocks
407:03:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
286:23:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
230:08:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
202:proposed deletion process
126:08:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
498:
457:
260:or whether it should be
21:Hello, Truth Glass, and
189:the article's talk page
300:
145:
352:change block settings
299:
214:articles for deletion
154:proposed for deletion
144:
114:Knowledge:Questions
69:Starting an article
301:
206:deletion processes
146:
74:Your first article
43:Your first article
27:your contributions
132:Proposed deletion
509:
430:
424:
371:
369:
358:
340:
338:deleted contribs
298:
247:
246:
199:
198:
182:
181:
143:
62:
56:
517:
516:
512:
511:
510:
508:
507:
506:
436:
428:
422:
421:, then use the
410:
384:
359:
349:
335:
318:
311:blocking policy
296:
293:
248:
244:
241:
210:speedy deletion
196:
195:
179:
178:
141:
139:
60:
54:
12:
11:
5:
515:
513:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
411:
402:
399:
391:
387:Decline reason
380:
376:Request reason
373:
294:
292:
289:
242:
240:
235:Nomination of
233:
220:for deletion.
200:will stop the
168:
167:
138:
129:
110:sign your name
102:
101:
96:
91:
86:
81:
76:
71:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
514:
505:
504:
500:
496:
492:
479:
478:
477:
474:
470:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
450:
449:
448:
447:
444:
440:
435:
434:
427:
420:
418:
409:
408:
405:
404:
403:
400:
397:
390:
388:
383:
379:
377:
372:
367:
363:
357:
353:
348:
344:
339:
334:
330:
329:global blocks
326:
325:active blocks
322:
317:
312:
308:
306:
305:administrator
290:
288:
287:
283:
279:
273:
270:
265:
263:
259:
255:
254:
238:
232:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
192:
190:
186:
175:
173:
166:
164:
159:
158:
157:
155:
151:
137:
133:
128:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
75:
72:
70:
67:
66:
65:
63:
59:
51:
50:
45:
44:
38:
36:
32:
28:
24:
19:
18:
488:
437:
432:
414:
412:
396:
395:
392:
386:
385:
381:
375:
374:
347:creation log
314:
302:
274:
266:
251:
249:
239:for deletion
204:, but other
193:
185:edit summary
176:
169:
160:
148:The article
147:
103:
53:
47:
41:
39:
20:
16:
15:
495:Truth Glass
454:Truth Glass
316:Truth Glass
208:exist. The
343:filter log
106:Wikipedian
94:Help pages
35:guidelines
469:consensus
415:read the
362:checkuser
321:block log
218:consensus
152:has been
108:! Please
473:jpgordon
333:contribs
278:Inks.LWC
222:Inks.LWC
118:Inks.LWC
99:Tutorial
17:Welcome!
443:Spartaz
426:unblock
356:unblock
291:Blocked
262:deleted
23:welcome
187:or on
163:WP:GNG
58:helpme
419:first
499:talk
458:talk
401:fold
398:Hers
282:talk
226:talk
122:talk
366:log
313:).
134:of
501:)
493:--
460:)
429:}}
423:{{
389::
378::
360:•
354:•
350:•
345:•
341:•
336:•
331:•
327:•
323:•
284:)
264:.
228:)
191:.
174:.
124:)
61:}}
55:{{
497:(
456:(
370:)
368:)
364:(
319:(
280:(
224:(
120:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.