Meta tags:
Headings (most frequently used words):
wikipedia, follow, the, leader, contents, see, also,
Text of the page (most frequently used words):
the (167), not (85), #wikipedia (83), don (66), and (60), are (43), you (35), article (35), your (31), notability (31), that (29), for (27), with (26), deletion (26), editors (22), this (19), policy (17), page (17), avoid (17), have (17), consensus (17), about (16), how (16), can (16), sources (16), who (16), afd (16), articles (15), may (14), should (14), first (14), editing (14), they (12), really (12), editor (12), one (12), will (12), what (12), out (12), good (11), their (11), there (11), discussion (11), essay (10), all (10), source (10), content (10), read (10), discussions (10), leader (9), essays (9), writing (9), policies (9), own (9), assume (9), make (9), arguments (9), view (8), from (8), guidelines (8), but (8), does (8), against (8), faith (8), edit (8), just (8), nominator (8), comments (8), those (8), search (7), encyclopedia (7), write (7), here (7), why (7), keep (7), change (7), other (7), has (7), right (7), others (7), some (7), guideline (7), kool (7), made (7), follow (6), was (6), personal (6), before (6), rule (6), please (6), ignore (6), every (6), single (6), give (6), main (6), rules (6), nothing (6), opinions (6), pov (6), civil (6), disruptive (6), help (6), most (6), comment (6), add (5), yes (5), talk (5), pages (5), template (5), cares (5), even (5), delete (5), revert (5), someone (5), community (5), call (5), process (5), commenting (5), civility (5), when (5), being (5), hide (5), more (5), important (5), than (5), aid (5), majority (5), contents (4), using (4), agree (4), use (4), shouldn (4), chatgpt (4), newcomers (4), ideas (4), pushing (4), get (4), edits (4), high (4), people (4), bad (4), two (4), world (4), coverage (4), must (4), opinion (4), everything (4), test (4), shortcuts (4), bias (4), neutral (4), points (4), state (4), spade (4), ashamed (4), attack (4), into (4), featured (4), position (4), way (4), following (4), administrator (4), feel (4), based (4), move (4), sidebar (4), legal (3), non (3), last (3), were (3), lists (3), according (3), bfdi (3), truth (3), five (3), garage (3), band (3), create (3), user (3), citation (3), take (3), counting (3), notable (3), deleted (3), assuming (3), news (3), links (3), run (3), lack (3), reliability (3), matter (3), because (3), common (3), wrongs (3), neutrality (3), point (3), npov (3), let (3), teach (3), controversial (3), too (3), fire (3), like (3), mind (3), creator (3), disagree (3), identifying (3), stub (3), status (3), our (3), written (3), deadline (3), fallacy (3), style (3), needs (3), history (3), formatting (3), house (3), build (3), humans (3), ten (3), thought (3), time (3), drink (3), speak (3), log (3), days (3), proposed (3), until (3), been (3), commented (3), reason (3), though (3), any (3), free (3), rather (3), whether (3), minority (3), tools (3), topic (2), languages (2), toggle (2), table (2), mobile (2), contact (2), privacy (2), text (2), available (2), under (2), additional (2), terms (2), registered (2), building (2), categories (2), contribute (2), cite (2), between (2), value (2), work (2), attacks (2), threats (2), things (2), pillars (2), rouge (2), admin (2), project (2), murder (2), bite (2), play (2), little (2), list (2), jokes (2), vandalism (2), ahead (2), templates (2), horse (2), warnings (2), win (2), war (2), vandalize (2), put (2), away (2), wikipedians (2), stop (2), day (2), thing (2), forks (2), case (2), much (2), party (2), bold (2), cycle (2), beware (2), fun (2), police (2), anti (2), wikipedian (2), alternatives (2), akin (2), laws (2), dog (2), isn (2), enough (2), place (2), include (2), topics (2), popularity (2), google (2), special (2), cannot (2), stubs (2), mean (2), independent (2), schools (2), presumption (2), works (2), significant (2), existence (2), information (2), coatrack (2), true (2), events (2), advanced (2), rationalwiki (2), earth (2), able (2), figure (2), absolutely (2), great (2), tendentious (2), systemic (2), pro (2), con (2), presentism (2), fields (2), myth (2), fiction (2), reader (2), decide (2), endorsements (2), controversy (2), criticism (2), criticisms (2), society (2), consistent (2), creating (2), cherrypicking (2), blind (2), men (2), elephant (2), form (2), thread (2), mode (2), academic (2), need (2), pronouns (2), trojan (2), horses (2), vandals (2), throw (2), part (2), expect (2), remember (2), problems (2), come (2), down (2), cruft (2), real (2), say (2), concise (2), drop (2), over (2), encourage (2), another (2), word (2), clear (2), zone (2), cool (2), gets (2), end (2), duty (2), comply (2), environment (2), advice (2), still (2), wrong (2), thank (2), philosophy (2), long (2), yourself (2), pace (2), standard (2), overzealous (2), encyclopedic (2), liar (2), merge (2), research (2), reviews (2), better (2), language (2), leave (2), tertiary (2), sham (2), reverted (2), problem (2), current (2), navbox (2), event (2), judged (2), link (2), bilateral (2), relations (2), itself (2), while (2), overkill (2), print (2), images (2), simple (2), purpose (2), levels (2), competence (2), proposing (2), foreign (2), precedent (2), see (2), also (2), however (2), done (2), only (2), speaks (2), koolaid (2), accounts (2), such (2), aware (2), least (2), cases (2), very (2), would (2), solution (2), panel (2), intimidate (2), valued (2), unpopular (2), show (2), think (2), power (2), propose (2), likely (2), after (2), looking (2), next (2), jump (2), best (2), knowledge (2), beliefs (2), makes (2), belong (2), sports (2), familiar (2), existing (2), congruence (2), making (2), board (2), vote (2), ultimately (2), closing (2), gives (2), thereafter (2), influenced (2), contributors (2), appearance (2), upload (2), file (2), changes (2), account (2), donate (2), menu (2), cookie, statement, statistics, developers, code, conduct, safety, contacts, disclaimers, apply, site, trademark, profit, organization, wikimedia, foundation, inc, creative, commons, attribution, sharealike, license, rendered, parsoid, edited, 2026, utc, retrieved, https, org, index, php, title, follow_the_leader, oldid, 1356091911, hard, guidance, quote, finding, redundant, difference, guide, meaningless, mad, falsely, wtf, omg, tmd, tla, arg, mmorpg, deletionist, watchlistitis, wikibible, surprising, night, wikimas, untruth, mark, shame, madness, spaling, muich, sausages, tasting, sarcasm, helpful, requirements, adminship, requests, medication, pledge, tranquility, newbies, giant, dick, ban, game, oops, defense, eternal, self, episcopal, climbing, reichstag, dressed, spider, man, lttautmaok, brother, did, delicious, them, local, pond, mess, stupid, beating, pulse, correctly, straight, pole, angle, upe, many, lightbulb, seven, ages, spear, shake, fart, emerson, embrace, signs, influence, editsummarisis, per, editcountitis, tempt, wrath, whatever, atop, stuff, beans, nose, fuckism, abbreviate, wiki, diffusing, conflict, crap, juntas, complete, bollocks, llm, generated, capitalization, butterfly, effect, boston, tea, category, barnstaritis, nonsense, wikilinks, preview, button, everyone, stupidity, wraith, asshole, john, articlecountitis, wikipedianism, ani, flu, warring, ain, says, basketball, adminitis, humorous, prongs, merit, post, résumé, tell, noble, cause, crunchbase, routine, blp1e, vanispamcruftisement, video, trivial, mentions, third, slow, subjective, importance, universe, comes, significance, formula, solutions, mixtures, else, mill, reducing, algorithm, red, flags, perennial, websites, overreliance, upon, sentence, offline, obscurity, considerations, donald, trump, deserves, vocaloid, songs, deserve, notabilitymandering, means, impact, relevance, level, playing, field, comparison, purchased, tornadoes, amount, overcome, decrease, minimum, masking, doesn, fancruft, insignificant, inherent, inclusion, indicator, historical, searches, numbers, extracting, meaning, prove, snowflake, unique, drafts, checked, sanity, discriminate, indiscriminate, diffpicking, clones, sourcing, mistakes, businesses, location, big, key, participants, bare, creep, alternative, outlets, searching, promotion, claim, flat, fringe, false, balance, partisanship, partisans, fault, proportionate, dispute, inaccuracy, describing, advocacy, activist, wikipeace, wikilove, wikilawyering, wikihate, wikiharassment, wikicrime, wikibullying, wikirelations, uppercase, squeeze, blood, turnip, guess, preferred, oracles, superhatting, sealawyering, railroad, passive, aggression, pony, racists, queerphobia, nazis, confederates, ableism, madmen, angry, mastodons, nationalist, jew, tagging, hate, griefing, insult, tilt, windmills, toys, pram, regulars, grandmother, suck, eggs, bait, spite, face, shout, resubmit, draft, same, declined, remind, past, misdeeds, smarmy, valediction, signature, knit, beside, guillotine, fuck, fight, pinging, eat, troll, food, demand, solve, identify, cry, coi, ton, bricks, kettle, black, name, bludgeon, rude, prejudiced, obnoxious, inconsiderate, maintenance, wikibigot, ostrich, jerk, fanatic, accuse, accusing, cyberbullying, settle, room, mutual, withdrawal, moby, business, imagine, complexly, lose, full, stick, back, slowly, carcass, discussing, desist, deny, recognition, candor, beyond, pragmatic, excellent, humble, vandal, remarks, clue, assumption, dos, opponent, monopoly, winning, clichés, sense, polite, discourse, divine, grey, staying, hot, shadowless, fists, death, notification, opt, profanity, old, fashioned, values, knows, nobody, forgive, forget, failure, dgg, revenge, tigers, glue, uncivil, poor, hotheads, weak, never, hurts, remain, silent, unblock, perspectives, truce, didn, relationships, obsessive, compulsive, disorder, negotiation, maintaining, friendly, space, thanks, enjoy, encouraging, retaliate, divisiveness, contributing, complicated, autistic, apology, accepting, users, basics, zombie, doubt, woodwork, tagged, speedy, created, whack, mole, unopposed, heymann, relist, relisting, abusive, pants, immunity, blatant, advertising, save, nominated, emptying, overuse, argument, confuse, merging, cleanup, junk, sorting, original, removal, confusing, repeated, image, adjectives, recommendations, women, radiation, words, turning, biology, reading, flow, proseline, metacoverage, gender, litter, onto, pile, coup, copyediting, reception, sections, additions, tomorrow, organized, fashion, progress, walled, garden, understanding, standards, reliable, try, now, temporary, versions, thon, makers, stublet, spoons, versus, specialized, plot, summaries, robotic, restoring, effort, publicists, printability, elegant, variation, principle, astonishment, potential, permastub, organizing, disambiguation, subject, area, obtain, peer, review, stone, story, disaster, biography, minors, persons, incompetent, mine, rot, introduction, structurism, woulds, strongnat, date, formats, guides, science, primary, law, gotfryd, custom, chance, fruit, poisonous, tree, commercial, mindreaders, devices, panic, hope, hung, minor, details, demolish, built, dictionaries, concept, cloud, underkill, children, lit, adult, new, readers, large, books, chesterton, fence, cargoculting, endure, discuss, beef, revision, mission, statements, autosizing, half, life, revisions, archive, unfinished, amnesia, expand, adding, improves, acronym, abandoned, 100k, construction, indeed, bureaucracy, brief, trifecta, principles, role, collaborative, anarchy, seniority, reasonability, product, parallelism, paraphrasing, pave, path, paradoxes, oversimplification, question, restriction, broken, ugly, experienced, galileo, complex, wikipedias, external, explanationism, eight, sometimes, visiting, country, objections, lie, dissent, disloyalty, philosophies, concede, lost, required, cohesion, vague, introductions, equally, disrupt, illustrate, prompted, apparently, took, totally, unacceptable, largely, established, speaking, having, conversation, vary, frequency, ins, watchlist, checks, several, times, daily, weeks, activity, interest, going, few, active, frequently, numerous, varying, schedules, specially, careful, posting, set, sure, later, chronological, order, close, possible, had, 2009, extended, prods, instant, messaging, service, differences, opportunity, civilized, rebuttals, shall, complying, wish, campaign, anger, toward, authority, records, highly, hold, instructions, different, step, whichever, affected, provided, poorly, given, encouraged, bandwagon, glance, belongs, familiarity, particular, knowing, pertain, judge, course, particularly, semi, protected, welcome, modified, without, unless, these, example, undergone, perfectly, acceptable, used, express, disagreement, intentionally, nominating, meet, its, considered, act, civilly, auto, confirmed, become, seem, contest, idea, conform, held, therefore, participate, swayed, provide, states, kept, vice, versa, outcome, fail, supposed, stand, final, decision, participating, interpret, reference, occurs, during, nom, then, strongly, mirror, skewed, among, especially, major, contributions, ones, judgment, result, positions, valid, participated, often, squad, soldier, necessary, nutshell, shortcut, contains, reviewed, projects, printable, version, download, pdf, export, switch, legacy, parser, shortened, url, permanent, related, general, actions, english, top, recent, portal, learn, random, navigation,
Text of the page (random words):
a this is an essay on the deletion policy it contains the advice or opinions of one or more wikipedia contributors this page is not an encyclopedia article or a wikipedia policy as it has not been reviewed by the community shortcut wp leader wp leader this page in a nutshell it s not necessary to agree with the nominator or the first editor to comment do not be ashamed to be in the minority following your squad leader is important when you are a soldier in wikipedia afd discussions though don t just follow the leader the editor who makes the first comment or is the nominator of the article follow the leader occurs during a deletion discussion such as an afd when the first editor to comment on the board or in some cases the nom gives their opinion and then most editors who give their opinions thereafter are strongly influenced by that first comment the majority of comments thereafter mirror the first and this gives a skewed view of the true consensus among those who are familiar with the topic and especially the creator and other editors who have made major contributions to the page who are really the ones who can best make a judgment the result is that any additional editors making comments and ultimately the closing administrator s positions are influenced by this majority rather than the valid points a minority of those who have participated in the discussion who are often just the creator or the main contributors have made according to wikipedia guidelines an afd discussion is not a vote the final decision is made based on the points made by those participating in the discussion and their congruence to wikipedia s existing policies the purpose of making a comment on an afd board is not to make a vote as to whether or not to keep or delete a page but to help the wikipedia community and ultimately a closing administrator interpret wikipedia s guidelines in reference to whether the page should or should not belong it is with this in mind that if ten editors state an article should be deleted and only one states that the article should be kept or vice versa but that single editor has really good points that in congruence with wikipedia policy show a good reason this should be the outcome but the comments of the other ten fail to do so the opinions of that single editor are supposed to stand therefore editors who participate in an afd discussion should not be swayed by how others have commented but rather should provide their own ideas based on their own knowledge of existing wikipedia policy or their own beliefs on how wikipedia policy should be when commenting on an afd please keep the following in mind do not be ashamed to be in the minority as a wikipedia editor your opinions are valued no matter how unpopular they may seem an afd panel is not a popularity contest and if your idea does not conform with the majority it will not be held against you become familiar with wikipedia policies in particular knowing those that pertain to what makes an article belong on wikipedia or not is important this will help you be a good judge of course editors particularly those who are auto confirmed as most wikipedia policy pages are semi protected are welcome to change wikipedia s policies most policy and guideline pages can be modified without administrator status though unless there is a consensus to make the change these edits will likely be reverted for example one guideline that has undergone significant change on wikipedia is wikipedia notability sports it is perfectly acceptable to speak out against this guideline on wikipedia talk notability sports if an article is in wp afd and that guideline is used feel free to speak out against that guideline in that discussion however if editors express disagreement with the guideline by intentionally nominating for deletion articles that meet its notability standard they may be considered disruptive even if they act civilly read the article first it is best before looking at the afd page to at least take a glance at the article itself and decide based on your knowledge and beliefs if you feel at that point whether or not it belongs based on your familiarity with wikipedia s guidelines do you think this article is encyclopedic would you propose it for deletion yourself read the nominator s comments next after looking at the article the next step is to read why the nominator proposed the page for deletion do you agree with the nominator you may feel free to agree or disagree whichever way you do feel your status as an editor will not be affected provided you are commenting in good faith your value as an editor will not be judged poorly after you have given more thought to your position you are encouraged to read other comments but your position should be your very own rather than a jump on the bandwagon the nominator is no more likely to be an administrator than you are you may assume that someone who is proposing an article for deletion and even those who are commenting are some authority who will keep records and will think highly of those who hold by their position this is not the case truth is that any registered user has the power to propose an article for deletion following the instructions on wp afd the nominator and those who have commented are no different than you are and they do not have any power over you do not intimidate or show anger toward others in this world and on wikipedia we humans have the right to disagree our differences will give us an opportunity to come up with a solution so on an afd panel though we may give civilized rebuttals we shall not intimidate others into complying with the majority opinion or what we wish for the majority opinion to be this is a place for editors to talk out a solution not to campaign for one remember all good faith edits and discussions are valued on wikipedia no matter how unpopular wikipedia is not an instant messaging service editors vary in frequency of log ins user talk reviews and watchlist checks while some may view their accounts several times daily others may go days or even weeks between such activity and may not be aware of an article they have interest in being proposed for deletion until the afd discussion has been going on for at least a few days or in some cases until it is done even some very active editors may not and are frequently not aware of an article s proposed deletion until numerous other editors have commented as people have varying schedules of available time to view their accounts it is for this reason that editors must be specially careful not to let the first comments that are made following an afd s posting set the pace and to be sure that comments that are made later in chronological order be made as close as possible to the way they would be had they been first it is for this reason that in 2009 deletion discussions and prods were extended from 5 to 7 days don t drink the consensus kool aid all the time as long as you speak out against consensus in a civil way shortcuts wp kool wp kool wp koolaid wp koolaid wp kool aid wp kool aid do not drink the consensus kool aid an event at this afd discussion has prompted some thought in this discussion an editor and apparently a wikipedia admin took a position that another editor thought was totally unacceptable and disruptive wikipedia is run largely by consensus and established policies however speaking out against consensus and policy is not disruptive if it is done with civility it s not disruptive consensus can change and the only way it can change is if someone speaks against it so don t drink the consensus kool aid all the time and if someone is civil and speaks out against consensus they re not being disruptive they re just having a conversation see also edit wikipedia overzealous deletion wikipedia consensus consensus can change policy wikipedia do not disrupt wikipedia to illustrate a point guideline wikipedia don t be ashamed essay wikipedia ignore all precedent essay wikipedia sham consensus essay v t e wikipedia essays building editing and deletion philosophy articles are more important than policy articles must be written all five pillars are equally important avoid vague introductions civil pov pushing cohesion competence is required concede lost arguments content philosophies dissent is not disloyalty don t lie don t search for objections duty to comply editing wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country editors will sometimes be wrong eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia explanationism external criticism of wikipedia foreign language wikipedias are not precedent galileo complex here to build an encyclopedia leave it to the experienced let it cool before proposing a rule levels of competence levels of consensus most ideas are bad need not broken is ugly not editing because of wikipedia restriction not every article can be a featured article the one question oversimplification paradoxes pave the path paraphrasing parallelism pov and or from editors sources and fields process is important product process policy purpose reasonability rule systemic bias there is no seniority ten simple rules for editing wikipedia tendentious editing the role of policies in collaborative anarchy the rules are principles trifecta we are absolutely here to right great wrongs wikipedia in brief wikipedia is an encyclopedia wikipedia is a community wikipedia is not rationalwiki wikipedia is written by humans for humans yes wikipedia is indeed a bureaucracy article construction 100k featured articles abandoned stubs acronym overkill adding images improves the encyclopedia advanced text formatting akin s laws of article writing alternatives to the expand template amnesia test a navbox on every page an unfinished house is a real problem archive your sources article revisions articles have a half life autosizing images avoid mission statements be neutral in form beef up that first revision blind men and an elephant bold revert discuss cycle build content to endure cargoculting cherrypicking chesterton s fence children s lit adult new readers large print books citation overkill citation underkill common style fallacy concept cloud creating controversial content criticisms of society may be consistent with npov and reliability dictionaries as sources don t cite wikipedia on wikipedia don t demolish the house while it s still being built don t get hung up on minor details don t hope the house will build itself don t panic don t teach the controversy editing on mobile devices editors are not mindreaders encourage the newcomers endorsements commercial featured articles may have problems formatting bilateral relations articles formatting bilateral relations templates fruit of the poisonous tree give an article a chance gotfryd custom how to write a featured article identifying and using independent sources history sources law sources primary sources science sources style guides tertiary sources ignore strongnat for date formats into the woulds introduction to structurism link rot mine a source merge test minors and persons judged incompetent murder of articles not every story event disaster needs a biography not everything needs a navbox not everything needs a template nothing is in stone obtain peer review comments organizing disambiguation pages by subject area permastub potential not just current state presentism principle of some astonishment the problem with elegant variation pro and con lists printability publicists put a little effort into it restoring part of a reverted edit robotic editing sham consensus source your plot summaries specialized style fallacy spoons versus forks stublet stub makers run an edit a thon temporary versions of articles tertiary source fallacy there are no shortcuts to neutrality there is no deadline there is a deadline the deadline is now topics to avoid try not to leave it a stub what is a reliable source understanding wikipedia s content standards walled garden what an article should not include wikipedia is a work in progress wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion the world will not end tomorrow write the article first writing better articles content additions avoid thread mode copyediting reception sections coup don t throw more litter onto the pile gender neutral language metacoverage myth vs fiction no trojan horses proseline reading in a flow state turning biology research into a wikipedia article use our own words we shouldn t be able to figure out your opinions write the article first writing about radiation writing about women writing better articles deletion adjectives in your recommendations afd is not a war zone arguments to avoid in deletion discussions arguments to avoid in deletion reviews arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions arguments to make in deletion discussions avoid repeated arguments before commenting in a deletion discussion but there must be sources confusing arguments mean nothing content removal counting and sorting are not original research delete or merge delete the junk deletion is not cleanup does deletion help does merging help don t attack the nominator don t confuse stub status with non notability don t overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument emptying categories out of process follow the leader how the presumption of notability works how to save an article nominated for deletion i just don t like it identifying blatant advertising identifying test edits immunity keep it concise liar liar pants on fire no encyclopedic use notability is not everything nothing nothing is clear overzealous deletion relisting can be abusive relist bias the heymann standard unopposed afd discussion wikipedia is not whack a mole why was the page i created deleted what to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion when in doubt hide it in the woodwork zombie page civility the basics accepting other users apology autistic editors being right isn t enough contributing to complicated discussions divisiveness don t retaliate editors pronouns edit at your own pace encouraging the newcomers enjoy yourself expect no thanks how to be civil maintaining a friendly space negotiation obsessive compulsive disorder editors please say please relationships with academic editors thank you too long didn t read truce unblock perspectives we are all wikipedians here you have a right to remain silent philosophy a thank you never hurts a weak personal attack is still wrong advice for hotheads an uncivil environment is a poor environment be the glue beware of the tigers civility warnings deletion as revenge dgg s two comment rule duty to comply failure forgive and forget it s not the end of the world nobody cares most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals on wikipedia no one knows you re a dog old fashioned wikipedian values profanity civility and discussions revert notification opt out shadowless fists of death staying cool when the editing gets hot the grey zone...
|
