930:
only way to contribute to this topic would be to join with the author in carving out article space for a forum controversy, for the sake of further elucidating his point of view. I recommend to the author that he should create a blog, link to it from userspace, and direct people to it who might be interested in his explanation of why
Christians will find it difficult to participate in Knowledge (XXG), and why he thinks this is not an accident. This would free him from the pretense of agnosticism, and enable him to write much more credibly about the problem. However, the best way to improve this article is to delete it from Knowledge (XXG). Some mention of the problem alluded to might make a good addition to
467:
of making a decision. The discussions that accompany the voting processes are crucial means of reaching consensus. For example, a very important
Knowledge (XXG) process is reaching consensus on what articles are not encyclopedic and should be deleted from Knowledge (XXG) entirely. The discussion by which that consensus is reached occurs in the context of a "vote" on the Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion page. That page is slightly misnamed since the discussion is more important than the actual voting."
740:
105:
222:. I believe that this article should be deleted because I concur with the reasons given by the nominee. I think it would be quite unneccessary if everyone had to repeat the same reasons for every vote, or even if they had to put "I concur" after each vote because that's what voting delete without any further reasons generally means. --
929:
My first inclination was to try to improve the essay - because I can sympathize with its theme. Any religious person who is never frustrated by the official and coercive agnosticism, enforced through
Knowledge (XXG)'s editing policies, is not religious in any sense that I can identify with. But the
466:
page: "Knowledge (XXG) is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. That is, majority opinion does not necessarily rule in
Knowledge (XXG). Various votes are regularly conducted, but their numerical results are usually only one of several means
599:
Someone here seems to be labouring under the delusion that you have to have a valid reason for your vote. More to the point that he/she is the judge of what is a valid reason. In fact there is no need for anyone to provide a reason for their vote, any more than you have to have a 'valid' reason for
914:
consists chiefly of a lazy wave of the hand in the general direction of a group of people, ominously called "internet ]" - well, let's just say it (and he does) - "Christians" - well, alright (which he doesn't say), "Me". This is how far an in depth exploration of the topic will take us at first
708:
If anyone has a legitimate reason for deleting, keeping, or redirecting, I encourage you to list it here. However, simply stating "delete" is not a valid reason for deletion. If the veracity, format, or POV of the article is in question, it should be discussed in the Talk section. So far, few
619:
Unless the article is revised to explain instead of argue. If it were re-written to document the arguments against
Knowledge (XXG) instead of actually making the arguments, it might be worth keeping. Of course, I'd also want to see what sources there are for these arguments (i.e. any magazine
961:"If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Knowledge (XXG), the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."
575:
is not actually an issue. The proposed policy there is about notability. Obviously "this does not belong in an encyclopedia" is a valid criterion for removing the content from our encyclopedia. Have it on Meta or in a user sub-page if you must, but don't litter the article namespace with
968:"The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean that material is bad – Knowledge (XXG) is simply not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Knowledge (XXG)."
924:, the relevance of which is not obvious, unless the point is to grant access to someone's (presumably not the author's) struggles with epistemological issues in a world without God. Finally, we are treated to an arm-chair analysis of what we might have learned from reading all this.
1017:
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.
521:. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Knowledge (XXG) are welcome at
816:, POV/original research, however some of those criticisms are commonly made of the Knowledge (XXG), so it may be worth digging up some sources and putting the more notable points in something like a
656:, as a litterbox, with a permanent deletion notice (just for show). It would be such a great place to edit when having hissy fits. If it can't be a litterbox, rats. The other thing, then. --
517:
that state your particular opinions about a topic. Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See
734:
I wasn't aware one needed a reason. Knowledge (XXG) is still a democracy, isn't it? Of course you'd need a good reason to vote
Conservative nowadays, but this article is silly, full stop.
540:
So could calling someone stupid and idiotic, their ideas shit, and threatening to assult them. ;-) But thank you for your vote, and your comments which add actual substance to this page.
910:
by design. It couldn't be made more clear to what pseudo-intellectual depths the article must go in order to investigate the issue under a pretense of neutrality. The exploration of
210:
Please do not attempt to discredit my vote, the admin which counts the vote at the end of this proccess can determine if any invalid votes have been made. I never claimed that my
676:-- original research... no, wait, that doesn't seem quite right... BJAODN... no, it isn't particularly funny... Eh, screw it. Delete just because I think the author is stupid.
820:
page or something. I don't know what the hell the creator was thinking, he could've actually defended some of that if he hadn't gone overboard on calling the encyclopedia
328:
Not a valid reason for deletion. It was not intended as a humor article, and the humor value of an article to any one party does not determine its informational value.
276:
Not a valid reason for deletion. It was not intended as a humor article, and the humor value of an article to any one party does not determine its informational value.
620:
articles, webpages or books). I am guessing that it's not a wide-spread movement (perhaps only a movement of one person) and thus lacks significance.... --
345:
Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today.
155:. heh. Are you sure this can't be speedied? hehe."A unique criticism, however, is that the system actually exhumes evil based on its design." --
894:
A unique criticism, however, is that the system actually exhumes evil based on its design. This view is explored in depth in this article.
611:
If people voted for things arbitrarily, democracy would be in a lot of trouble. But considering we only get two choices, isn't it already? ;-)
300:
86:, POV title. Opinion masked as facts, not an article but an essay/rant/column. Any criticism can be put in existing articles on the issue.
452:, I don't believe there is any policy requiring reasons to be given with votes; if there is, I'd appreciate if you could point it out.—
17:
952:
518:
31:
Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
303:
872:
486:" is only a proposed guideline and it is not current Knowledge (XXG) policy. The title can be altered and more sources added.
931:
850:
318:
817:
437:
568:
483:
384:
456:
501:
Technically all entries on
Knowledge (XXG) advocate one or more views of how something should be properly defined.
321:, so that those who refuse to see why Knowledge (XXG) is so great will not go re-create this non-funny article. --
753:, but you don't need to supply the reasoning behind your vote, especially if your reasons are already listed. --
564:
591:
413:: The "technically no valid votes" person has a section on his user page that makes light of vandalism. He is
295:
529:, your wikilawyering replies to each and every vote on this page could be considered a breach of etiquette.
418:
50:
145:
91:
72:
572:
137:
124:
555:
422:
322:
600:
how you vote in an election. If there was, democracy would be in a lot of trouble. (No vote by the way)
453:
336:
1008:
915:
thrust. I shudder to think how much farther in that direction things might go with a little more work.
428:
Making light of vandalism was not my intent. Your interpretation of my user page is your personal view.
868:
828:
785:
744:
637:
444:: original research, propaganda or advocacy, critical reviews, and personal essays. And throw in a
289:
109:
41:
890:, Its style exposes its lack of real potential. This article is typified by sentences like these:
824:
and putting those images on, but as it stands it's blatantly just a personal attack on the place.
724:
It's self-referential, it's original research, and it's mostly nonsense. How's that for a reason?
285:
938:
667:
567:. Incidentally, being unencyclopedic is a perfectly valid criterion for deletion. The fact that
260:
185:
163:
141:
87:
601:
551:
358:
270:
739:
372:. Utterly stupid. Now, lest that be labelled as "Not a valid reason for deletion", I'll add
104:
27:
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below.
750:
510:
463:
441:
808:
697:
657:
530:
709:
techincally valid votes have been posted as far as I can see, for reasons listed below.
577:
864:
825:
780:
770:
735:
716:
677:
632:
526:
476:
449:
414:
100:
38:
550:
and move to meta: it's a piece of opinion, which includes a lot of original research.
975:
935:
840:
795:
495:
395:
377:
179:
157:
128:
987:
725:
687:
346:
879:
854:
581:
246:
875:) has been harassing voters, dismissing votes that do not provide reasons (see
805:
754:
645:
621:
223:
201:
390:
Jesus H. Christ, I'm sick of hearing shit like this. Unencyclopedic material
387:" is only a proposed guideline and it is not current Knowledge (XXG) policy.
61:
57:
644:
Is a recommendation of violence as bad as a threat of it? (chuckling) --
376:
as well. And give contributor the old bar of soap in the sock routine. -
394:
does not belong in an encyclopedia. Someone get me my sock and soap. -
1003:
page to a user subpage of whoever started that article. Or move to
769:: this is a personal essay/rant, not an encyclopedia article. --
986:. Or move to the "Knowledge (XXG):" space if decided to keep.
666:, as per so-called "not valid" reasons as stated above. =D -
522:
256:
242:
898:
The article establishes the parameter for the topic as, an
563:
Inherently POV; unencyclopedic; personal essay; duplicates
140:
seems to be redirected to "Why wikipedia isn't so great".
218:
I think this article should be deleted. It was merely a
876:
701:
934:, but there are only themes, no actual content, here.
479:. Not encyclopedic, POV title, original research etc.
804:. POV by defition, original research, unverifiable.
731:Hard to critique an article that isn't up anymore.
696:on grounds of being self-referential nonsense. --
71:before people find out about our fiendish plot.
8:
123:for reasons already stated. What about the
630:. Delete and beat up those responsible. —
200:. We need to keep this fact quiet... --
60:, I hardly think this is encyclopaedic.
920:This is followed by a section entitled
134:No specific reason listed for deletion.
357:, lest the Cabal make you dissappear
174:Yo mama's listed for deletion, Nevre.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
519:Knowledge (XXG):No original research
932:Why Knowledge (XXG) is not so great
851:Why Knowledge (XXG) is not so great
319:Why Knowledge (XXG) is not so great
751:Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy
24:
818:Knowledge (XXG):Common criticisms
628:Not a valid reason for an article
207:Not a valid reason for deletion.
922:Man-Based Thought in Information
738:
511:Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox
364:Not a valid reason for deletion.
103:
78:Not a valid reason for deletion.
438:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy
171:No reason listed for deletion.
839:, Knowledge (XXG) is not E2. —
569:Knowledge (XXG):Unencyclopedic
309:No reason listed for deletion.
127:article that it is linked to?
115:No reason listed for deletion.
56:Apart from the title being an
1:
342:No reason listed for keeping.
33:The result of the debate was
1021:Please do not edit this page
747:) 16:20, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
565:Criticism of Knowledge (XXG)
112:) 13:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
29:This page is no longer live.
1041:
849:reasonable arguments into
728:16:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
704:] 16:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
580:, unencyclopedic rubbish.
573:Knowledge (XXG):Importance
990:02:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
978:10:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
773:16:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
690:05:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
641:17:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
498:09:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
459:06:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
448:in for good measure. And
425:06:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
398:15:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
380:05:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
361:20:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
339:19:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
325:19:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
306:18:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
273:17:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
226:14:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
204:14:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
168:14:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
147:14:41, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
131:14:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
93:13:19, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
75:12:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
64:12:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
46:08:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1011:23:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
943:05:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
882:05:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
857:04:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
843:03:12, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
833:16:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
810:15:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
798:22:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
788:16:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
757:14:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
719:02:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
680:02:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
670:00:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
660:18:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
648:17:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
624:17:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
604:14:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
594:14:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
584:13:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
557:13:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
533:12:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
349:21:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
263:16:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
249:15:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
190:13:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
686:. It's not even funny.
419:Knowledge (XXG) is Evil
51:Knowledge (XXG) is Evil
906:that, Knowledge (XXG)
177:It's not verifiable --
794:. POV by definition.
417:, the creator of the
138:Knowledge (XXG) Sucks
125:Knowledge (XXG) Sucks
592:Preacher King of Mao
440:, and by extension,
902:exploration of the
853:, jettison rest. —
590:Opinion piece. --
401:Then don't listen.
73:Capitalistroadster
953:Original research
941:
44:
1032:
1022:
939:
904:unique criticism
783:
742:
715:And you are...?
578:self-referential
525:." Also, FYI,
454:Knowledge Seeker
446:not encyclopedic
298:
293:
182:
160:
107:
42:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1020:
895:
878:for evidence).
781:
515:Personal essays
296:
291:
180:
158:
54:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1038:
1036:
1027:
1026:
1013:
1012:
992:
991:
980:
979:
971:
970:
964:
963:
957:
956:
945:
944:
926:
925:
917:
916:
893:
892:
891:
884:
883:
858:
844:
834:
811:
799:
789:
774:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
732:
722:
721:
720:
706:
705:
691:
681:
671:
661:
651:
650:
649:
625:
614:
613:
612:
606:
605:
596:
595:
585:
558:
544:
543:
542:
541:
535:
534:
527:User:Nevreware
504:
503:
502:
489:
488:
487:
484:Unencyclopedic
477:User:Nevreware
475:to subpage of
470:
469:
468:
450:User:Nevreware
431:
430:
429:
423:Idont Havaname
415:User:Nevreware
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
385:Unencyclopedic
374:unencyclopedic
367:
366:
365:
352:
351:
350:
343:
331:
330:
329:
323:Idont Havaname
312:
311:
310:
279:
278:
277:
264:
250:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
195:
194:
193:
192:
191:
175:
150:
149:
148:
135:
118:
117:
116:
94:
81:
80:
79:
53:
48:
32:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1037:
1025:
1023:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
993:
989:
985:
982:
981:
977:
973:
972:
969:
966:
965:
962:
959:
958:
954:
950:
947:
946:
942:
937:
933:
928:
927:
923:
919:
918:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
896:
889:
886:
885:
881:
877:
874:
870:
866:
862:
859:
856:
852:
848:
845:
842:
838:
835:
832:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
812:
809:
807:
803:
800:
797:
793:
790:
787:
784:
778:
775:
772:
768:
765:
764:
756:
752:
749:
748:
746:
741:
737:
733:
730:
729:
727:
723:
718:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
703:
699:
695:
692:
689:
685:
682:
679:
675:
672:
669:
668:Mailer Diablo
665:
662:
659:
655:
652:
647:
643:
642:
640:
639:
635:
634:
629:
626:
623:
618:
615:
610:
609:
608:
607:
603:
598:
597:
593:
589:
586:
583:
579:
574:
571:redirects to
570:
566:
562:
559:
556:
553:
552:bogdan ʤjuʃkə
549:
546:
545:
539:
538:
537:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
505:
500:
499:
497:
494:- advocacy -
493:
490:
485:
481:
480:
478:
474:
471:
465:
461:
460:
458:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
427:
426:
424:
420:
416:
412:
409:
400:
399:
397:
393:
389:
388:
386:
382:
381:
379:
375:
371:
368:
363:
362:
360:
356:
353:
348:
344:
341:
340:
338:
337:Jinkleberries
335:
332:
327:
326:
324:
320:
316:
313:
308:
307:
305:
302:
299:
294:
287:
283:
280:
275:
274:
272:
268:
265:
262:
261:Ian Pitchford
258:
254:
251:
248:
244:
240:
237:
228:
227:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
208:
206:
205:
203:
199:
196:
189:
187:
183:
176:
173:
172:
170:
169:
167:
165:
161:
154:
151:
146:
143:
139:
136:
133:
132:
130:
126:
122:
119:
114:
113:
111:
106:
102:
98:
95:
92:
89:
85:
82:
77:
76:
74:
70:
67:
66:
65:
63:
59:
52:
49:
47:
45:
40:
36:
30:
19:
1019:
1016:
1009:68.23.97.244
1004:
1000:
996:
983:
967:
960:
948:
921:
911:
908:exhumes evil
907:
903:
899:
887:
860:
846:
836:
829:
821:
813:
801:
791:
776:
766:
707:
693:
683:
673:
663:
653:
636:
631:
627:
616:
602:DJ Clayworth
587:
560:
547:
514:
506:
491:
472:
445:
433:
410:
391:
373:
369:
359:Project2501a
354:
333:
314:
281:
271:ConeyCyclone
266:
252:
238:
219:
215:
211:
197:
178:
156:
152:
120:
96:
83:
68:
55:
34:
28:
26:
999:to meta or
421:article. --
284:and put on
269:Not funny.
698:Francs2000
658:Mothperson
531:Soundguy99
392:ipso facto
997:transwiki
912:this view
865:Nevreware
771:The Anome
717:Haikupoet
678:Haikupoet
462:From the
286:WP:BJAODN
253:Transwiki
239:Transwiki
229:I concur.
39:Sjakkalle
976:Edcolins
936:Mkmcconn
900:in depth
873:contribs
841:Ashley Y
796:carmeld1
496:Skysmith
396:R. fiend
378:R. fiend
315:Redirect
290:King of
214:was the
181:Phroziac
159:Phroziac
129:23skidoo
58:oxymoron
43:(Check!)
995:Either
988:roozbeh
861:Comment
786:focused
726:Rhobite
688:Rhobite
436:. From
411:Comment
347:Tobycat
220:comment
212:comment
1005:BJAODN
984:Delete
949:Delete
940:(Talk)
888:Delete
880:Alphax
855:Ghakko
837:Delete
814:Delete
806:Jayjg
802:Delete
792:Delete
777:Delete
767:Delete
736:Craigy
694:Delete
684:Delete
674:Delete
664:Delete
617:Delete
588:Delete
582:smoddy
561:Delete
548:Delete
507:Delete
492:Delete
473:Userfy
464:WP:NOT
442:WP:NOT
434:Delete
370:Delete
355:Delete
282:Delete
267:Delete
247:Alphax
216:reason
198:Delete
153:Delete
121:Delete
101:Craigy
97:Delete
84:Delete
69:Delete
35:delete
847:Merge
826:Socka
755:Habap
646:Habap
638:Welch
622:Habap
513:: "
509:From
257:meta:
243:meta:
224:Joolz
202:Joolz
16:<
1007:. -
1001:move
869:talk
830:tume
822:evil
745:talk
702:Talk
654:Keep
633:Phil
523:Meta
334:Keep
259:. --
186:talk
164:talk
110:talk
317:to
255:to
241:to
142:Mgm
88:Mgm
62:Deb
974:--
951:.
871:•
863::
782:Un
779:--
700:|
554:|
288:.
245:.
99:.
37:.
1024:.
955:.
867:(
743:(
482:"
457:দ
383:"
304:♠
301:♣
297:♦
292:♥
188:)
184:(
166:)
162:(
144:|
108:(
90:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
