User talk:Thesquire/List of annoying AfD behaviors

Since we seem to be jumping to conclusions! Wow, so I guess that I can't us a sarcastic phrase or word ever. I am a little annoyed with the amount of criticism that I have gotten over the Chimpo article, and I didn't even set it up! When I said "Undelete," it did not mean that I wanted the article undeleted. I am not that numbskulled that I thought it had already been deleted. I said undelete just as a word. Not a word to be taken literally. I feel slightly patronized after all of this. Why is it that everyone in Wikipedia seems to take everything in a literal sense? Why didn't anyone try to ask if we realized that it wasn't deleted? Does everyone need to jump to wrong conclusions? Wrong conclusions can make people very flustered (obviously), so I'd appreciate it if in the future it wasn't just assumed that newer editors must be just some kids trying to spam the nets, and they have no idea what's going on. I apologize, but please, you must understand that we're not actually dumb enough to think that way. I personally don't know anyone who's ever heard of Wikipedia who would believe the article was deleted. In my experience, Wikipedia users are mostly the smartest and nicest people I know. Please, please, don't just jump to conclusions about people you don't know. If you really want to know their intentions, ask them. --Driken 10:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I understand that the list is rather blunt, it a)is my own opinion and b)did, in your case, accurately describe your behavior. I assume that you got to the AfD page from the article Chimpo itself, where there was an AfD notification posted. On that notification are links to both Wikipedia:Deletion process and Wikipedia:Guide to Deletion. We can't make anyone do anything here, but you were given reasonable opportunity to learn about what was going on.

Also, if you'll read the paragraph at the intro to the list, it does say that it's "not a list of hard-and-fast rules" and that "Legit articles may rarely be nominated for AfD and have one or more editors display such behavior, though this is rarer for some behaviors compared to others."

Lastly, don't take anything on or relating to AfD personally. As part of the process of building an open-source encyclopedia, a deletion process is necessary to remove things which do not belong. We deal with hundreds of AfD nominations a day, and besides being rather terse in our reasoning, often employ numerous shortcuts in evaluating AfD nominations. (For example, the more detailed the nomination is, to a point, the more inclined I am to trust it.) The list is an attempt to record my own biases regarding AfD discussions. All the AfD editors have their own list in their heads, I'm merely being honest about mine. All the AfD editors have their own list in their heads, I'm merely being honest about mine. If you noticed that you stepped afoul of one of these, keep in mind that the only time I recommend an article be deleted sight unseen is when the title itself breaks one of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Articles on AfD are, or at least should be, judged on their merits: poor user behavior usually serves as a red flag or to nudge a Weak Delete vote more firmly into that category. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]