A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SkypeMorph is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkypeMorph until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC) reply

The writing was aready on there wall... Here is the raw story as to why WP lost me... no need to take my word for it.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/04/wikipedia-losing-english-language-editors-study-says/

Themoother ( talk) 07:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello! Themoother, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!   dalahäst ( let's talk!) 03:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

If you think you can address the problems in the deletion discussion, you can recreate the article with those changes.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

The problems were all addressed at the time... The article was deleted by some overzealous admin who was keener to click the delete button than to actually bother to check the evidence.

If my contributions to this site are going to be treated in this fashion and I'm expected to do a whole lot of extra work to undo the mistakes of others then I guess I wont be so keen to offer my time to the community.

-- Themoother ( talk) 03:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Don't blame this on administrator. Without being able to see the article, I disagree that the problems were addressed. Your article suffered from only having one reliable source, when multiple reliable sources are required. As Ron Ritzman said, blogs don't count, because anyone can write anything on a blog. Surely you can understand why they can't be used. You also said that you wanted to make the article because it's valuable and because Wikipedia should be a counter force to authoritarian censorship. Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a soapbox either. The expectations are that you remain neutral when making articles rather than trying to promote something. If that's too much "extra work" for you, then I don't expect your time will be helpful. But, if you can understand why these values matter in this project, I expect your contributions will be much better in the future. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

All referential concerns were met before deletion. There were at least 2 references that I recall. One was in Dutch and maybe the editors were not thorough enough to get it translated. Non-English references are permitted.

The article was neutral - WP:NEUTRAL applies to the article, that was met... very poor form of you to try and conflate my good intent with a soap-box accusation.

But this seems to be par for the course from you lot judging by your attitude and several accusations levelled at me of self-interest and creating this account just to add the article.

Well, I'm glad we've had this discussion because now I know what kind of community this is.

-- Themoother ( talk) 11:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Here's a link to the text: http://wikibin.org/articles/skypemorph.html

As you can see, neutral as could be. As far as the soap-boxing is concerned, there are people in this world that lack information due to censorship and Wikipedia is a project that is concerned with the distillation of information around the world. Just ask Mr. Wales.

Tools that help people access this information are in the spirit of the WP project - that was the point of my argument. If you see this as soap-boxing you are either sorely lacking logic or intellectual integrity - or both.

-- Themoother ( talk) 11:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Like I said, you can remake the article anytime, and request the last-good version to be userfied from the closing admin PhantomSteve, and mention this. Admins will listen to you, just like I responded to your feedback. You can also bring it up for deletion review if you felt that the admin came to the wrong conclusion given the state of the article. The text is indeed neutral, but you were engaging in poor argumentation in a deletion discussion, which wasn't helpful. If you want to continue to tell me I lack logic or intellectual integrity or whatever because I agree with the rationale behind the deletion, that's fine. I'm giving you your options. I don't like what everyone said at the deletion discussion (e.g. not giving you time to develop the article), but, not being able to see the sources, I can't tell you whether they were decent, and I also disagree that Wikipedia should have an article on something because a user believes it is valuable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Are you really serious? Like I said, I wasted enough time on that deleted article. About as much time as I am prepared to waste in the mire of bureaucracy that is Wikipedia. The slack attitudes and poor input of the admins makes me weary of making further contributions other than correcting minor spelling and grammar mistakes.

I spent plenty time familiarising myself with the mark-up, reference building, AfD protocols etc. and I shan't be wasting any more of my time on that, thank you very much.

The Afd revolved around 2 claims:

1. You are new here or self promoting

2. Notability

PhantomSteve's decision was substandard for 3 reasons: First, I met the notability requirement. Second, another admin had already mentioned in the discussion page of the article that all conditions were met and the AfD would not be upheld. Obviously PhantomSteve was too lazy/incompetent to check the discussion page and too trigger-happy with the delete button. Third, he made no mention of his name and his decision in the AfD and my crystal ball is broken so I have no way of knowing. Even if this last point is not part of the Wikipedia Bureaucratic Edifice, it still is a professional and thorough way to close things off.

Maybe I should have added a line to the AfD stating that notability issues have been resolved but it really is the admins job to check and confirm. Isn't it? Not just to delete according to the consensus in the AfD - it's in the rules, isn't it?

Then you toddle along here and add a soap-boxing accusation to the chorus of hand-waving. Just which of the 5 points on soap-boxing does my statement/view fit into? That's right! The answer is none.

Then you back-pedal and toss in a "Poor Argumentation" for good measure, Because you realise the soap-boxing claim is baseless. And which of the 50 or so points would you say makes my argumentation poor? You will notice in the deletion thread that I was thorough enough to address AfD concerns specifically:

If notability is the only concrete reason for the AfD please review and verify the validity of the complaint in the guidlines - specifically B.2., C.2. and D.1. through D.3.

Too much effort for you to do the same? It's a lot easier just to paste yet another link to yet another guideline to try and bolster your stance and scare away the newbs with more "protocol". I think a civil servant in Mumbai is faced with less bureaucracy than this place.

Your concerns are moot in any case. This is all about a paragraph I started with "On a side note" and further mentioned that it "seems fitting" to include it. This was not an argument for inclusion... this is just my point of view. Clearly my perspective is too advanced for you to follow. Take it. Or leave it.

The only (valid) reason for deletion was notability - which had been met. Argumentation was never part of the deletion discussion - why should it be now? Or are you now adding "poor argumentation" as a reason for deletion just to cover for your buddy the admin guy?

Also, I did not say that you are illogical or lacking intellect "because [you] agree with the rationale behind the deletion". I said it because your accusation of soap-boxing is invalid. Nice way to (try) turn an argument around. Are you mad? Clearly your weakness is, if not reading ability, comprehension. Read the sentence again. And then ask yourself if you are competent enough to be an admin here.

It is abundantly evident that my entire experience with Wikipedia boils down to a few disappointing phrases. Finger pointing. Baseless accusations. Earnest incompetence. These are just three that slide quickly off the keyboard.

I was asked what my experience was like. I answered. It was crap. You came and confirmed it.

I think I'll stop there.

-- Themoother ( talk) 23:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• This WP:WALLOFTEXT says more about you than it does anybody else. Your experience was crap and you confirmed it all by yourself, I'm afraid. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Yeah, because if you ever bothered to read WP:WALLOFTEXT you'd notice that it doesn't mention User Talk pages... This is mine, I guess I can type what I want here without some ignoramus posting yet another inconsistent link to yet another WP:BUREAUCRACYCLUSTERFUCK.

If you can't be bothered to read and respond to (or even understand) any of my points, I don't really care. But I'm wondering why this says something about me and nothing about you?

-- Themoother ( talk) 09:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

The writing was aready on there wall... Here is the raw story as to why WP lost me... no need to take my word for it.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/04/wikipedia-losing-english-language-editors-study-says/

Themoother ( talk) 07:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The 
Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Historicity of Jesus". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. 
Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the 
request page, the 
formal mediation policy, and the 
guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 August 2014.

The 
request for formal mediation concerning Historicity of Jesus, to which you were listed as a party, has been 
declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the 
mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the 
Chairman of the Committee, or to the 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see 
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.