User talk:Zaggs

Welcome!

Hello, Zaggs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Eats Dogs deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog), Wikipedia doesn't have a "tit for tat" rule, where just because one article is deleted, we have to delete the other. It may not seem fair, but such is life. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about a "equal implementation of our rules", does Wikipedia have that? Or maybe a "We don't care about political leanings, just facts rule"? Constantly asking for donations while becoming nothing more than a well talked about propaganda speaker just seems so, unseemly.Zaggs (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop recreating deleted talk pages like you are at Talk:Obama Eats Dogs meme, if you think that Seamus (dog) should be deleted, take it up on Talk:Seamus (dog), but I explained above where the discussion took place to delete the Obamadog article. If you think that Obamadog should be recreated, there are places to discuss that, however a deleted article's talk page is not one of them.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion was completely bogus. Just because someone notices just how bogus it was slightly late does not mean the truth should be buried. In fact the deletion would violate Wikipedia's second pillar. If the admins themselves are willing to violate one of the 5 principles of Wikipedia, just what exactly is the point?Zaggs (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, there are venues to object to the deletion of the article, however recreating the talk page of said deleted article is not one of them. Quite frankly, I think that one more person voting keep based on the rationale of "if we keep the Seamus article we have to keep the Obamadog article" would not have had much impact on the closing admin's decision while closing, but that is just my opinion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---And I would agree. Which brings us back to the problem. A much less stringent criteria was used to justify deletion of the Obama article than was presented to delete the Seamus article. "One is notable because one side talks about it, but the other is not because the other side talks about it" seems to be the reasoning. My hope was not to bring the page back, but perhaps keep something about it alive a little bit longer and help expose the hypocrisy of Wikipedia in this regards. If people can arbitrarily delete an article simply because it does not fit ones view, people should be able to see that in action. Zaggs (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion was both articles should be deleted, so you are preaching to the choir. Having said that, the means of getting the Obama article restored would be via deletion review, simply recreating a talk page comes off as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. In the closing admin's eyes, there was consensus to delete, which I accept at face value. The same is true for the Seamus article. There was nothing arbitrary about it, you disagreeing with the closure doesn't mean someone is pushing an agenda, it just means you disagree, which is bound to happen here. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]