I hate cruft. Please leave my user page as a red link. Cruftbane.

Sorry, but I am not an expert on the history of Georgia/Dagestan, and the term "Lekianoba" is completely unfamiliar to me. Why not ask the person who created the article?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... When you did this, were you trying to renominate TrueOrigin Archive for deletion? If so, you didn't do it the right way. I can't remember how you should do it, but deleting the archived discussion is certainly not right. I suggest a trip to WP:AFD to check on the procedures! Snalwibma 08:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• TW screwed up, and there was no note of the AfD on the talk page (still isn't). The article itself is canonical vanispamcruftisement, inflating the importance of a generic "we're right so there nyer nyer" website designed to take Usenet arguments to a venue where they can control the message. Cruftbane 11:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree absolutely, and well expressed - but with one AfD having failed it had better be done by the book the next time... Snalwibma 11:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. Maybe better link the debate from the article. Cruftbane 11:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage seems a good place to ask if you or any other user is interested in focusing & co-ordinating our efforts on the merger, redirection or deletion of articles containing the worst excesses of Fancruft. If so, I am interested to know what articles fall within the scope of work programme, and whether you would be interested in a joint approach to this subject. --Gavin Collins 09:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha! WiukiProject Cruft! Not a bad idea. But likely to attract a bit of kickback, though, so probably better to hook into the existing projects and stress that it's not about deletion, it's about building a better encyclopaedia. Cruftbane 10:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, as it is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to attract users with known views and bias in order to strengthen one side of a debate. However, what would be useful is if you do plan in nominating an articles for AfD, could you have a glance at WikiProject Deletion sorting, as adding certain tags helps with identifying deletion debates such as

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This example is done by adding this tag to the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Game-related}}<small>—~~~~</small>. This way we can all keep a tab on current deletions --Gavin Collins 11:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify -- in this comment was it your intention to imply I engaged in some kind of game-playing?

I assure you I created two articles because, based on my experience, when there are two topics that are related, but distinct, it is a far better idea if each is in an article of its own. I'll happily explain in detail.

Yours for a civil wikipedia Geo Swan 15:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, only that it appears to be a placeholder. Cruftbane 18:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Feder. Turns out she is much more distinguished than the incompetent original article let on. I was about to !vote delete on the original when I fortunately checked, so I rewrote it entirely. DGG (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight: you and several other administrators have the right to open socks to run away from your RWI's, but I don't? I don't much like this arrangement, as it seems, well, concocted for your benefit and not mine. Please clear this up, collective you, before I feel compelled to do it myself. And I know many things.Proabivouac 10:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any user is allowed to have a non abusive sock. Provided they aren't being used to game the system ie 3RR double vote etc, then socks are specifically allowed per WP:SOCK: "Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on his/her interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity. Users with a recognized expertise in one field, for example, might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects.". Viridae^Talk 10:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]