Request Information

Request made by: Kevinbeds 11:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

...In the Articles for deletion page of Pussing

Who's involved?

...Somebody called Danny Lilithborne who is questioning everything I am trying to do, calling me a fake and even implying that others who have contributed to the discussion are fakes

What's going on?

...I wrote a new article and received comments, which led me to make a number of revisions to the article in direct response to these constructive biews. I have also endeavoured to provide what proofs I am able and are open to other suggestions but whatever I do does not please this particular chap who is really causing me chagrin

What would you like to change about that?

...Nobody else seems to have a problem with my article except this chap but it appears that no matter what I do I still won't be able to convince him so I either need to understand what I can do to convince him and how to do it (short of sending him my passport!) or have him suppressed from making such comments and thereby influencing other readers detrimentally and, incidentally, bringing down the good name of Wikipedia

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...You may e-mail me at pussing@pussing.co.uk but I don't mind your presence being known

IN ADVANCE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP

Mediator response

I was going to take this, but I have to recuse myself as I am involved. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response here is going to be a bit unorthodox, but then almost everything in the Mediation Cabal tends to be. To start with, I'm just going to make a few observations and comments on what I've seen; if you have any questions about anything I'm about to say, I'll be more than happy to answer them to the best of my ability -- I strive to be an approachable person. First and foremost, I'm impressed with the effort you put into the pussing article, and I'd like to thank for the time you've put into it, and for any time and effort you may continue to put into this project as a whole.

The core of Wikipedian philosophy can be found in the five pillars of Wikipedia. There's a few things to take note of, here. First, from the core guideline on verifiability, "information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources... the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As a corollary of that, all of us are barred from posting our own original research; in large part, this is because it's difficult or impossible to establish our own credentials in any given field. If it makes sense, we should strive to avoid making our own statements, but should rather quote and paraphrase the reputable work of others. The amnesia test can be a useful rule of thumb. Likewise, since neologisms tend to consist of OR (original research), or lack reliable sources, they're often unverifiable. It's sometimes very helpful to look at this page: What Wikipedia is not.

That said, one of our cultural guidelines is simple and important: Don't bite the newcomers. Wikipedia has a very steep learning curve, and it takes time to learn; it's unfortunate, of course, that many people find it difficult to be patient, but I truly hope you don't let that hold you back. Try to let it be a learning experience, if you will; as with all things in life, some people will accept you, and others will reject you. Just do the best you can, learn from your mistakes, and keep going. The most important part of falling down, I like to say, is learning how to get up and dust yourself off.

I can't tell you which way that AfD is going to head; to maintain my own neutrality, I'm probably going to avoid joining that discussion unless it becomes necessary. Mostly, I just want you to understand why some of these people are voting and talking the way they are. Notability can be subjective, but it is an important standard many users work with, when considering AfDs. One other thing you should know, the AfD nomination wasn't what we call a "speedy," (see WP:CSD), which means you have a chance to debate, discuss, and defend your opinions.

One thing I like to keep in mind, during conflicts in general and especially during heated arguments: we're all in this together. All of us are here to build the best Wikipedia we can, together. At times we may disagree about how to do that, and that's natural. But when things start to heat up, it's sometimes best to take a step back and remind yourself: these other people are just like me, we all want to build this encyclopedia together, we're just disagreeing about how to do it. Editors are always supposed to refrain from personal attacks; it's best to respond only to a user's arguments, and avoid commenting on the user specifically unless it's absolutely required. I see that you've made some very uncivil comments in that discussion, but I also see you aren't the only one, and for what it's worth, you weren't the first. In the future, please try to keep a cool head, even when other editors don't -- this is, more or less, the same advice I'd give almost anyone in almost any situation on Wikipedia, so please don't feel I'm singling you out in that regard. We all make mistakes, and I myself am no exception.

So, like I said, if you have any questions, comments, or anything in general to say, feel free to reply here or at my talk page. Cheers, and have a good day. Again, thanks for your time. I hope I've cleared up a thing or two. Luna Santin 07:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

Discussion

• I wonder why this case was opened without notifying me. Danny Lilithborne 05:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying on your talk page in a moment. Luna Santin 08:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it all seems acadamic now because the article has been deleted and I have been left with an extremely poor impression of WikipediaKevinbeds 11:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Because it won't accept an article about the strategy of spying on girls peeing? Danny Lilithborne 04:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In line with the comments you made on the discussion page, you have got it wrong yet again. Pussing is NOT, repeat NOT, about spying; it is about what CONSENTING couples get up to.Kevinbeds 10:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]