Poisoning the well 

This refers to an old comment you made, but which I just now saw? Could you please refrain from commenting on people's supposed motives and stick to the value of their actual comments? You are suggesting that people's opinions can be dismissed becaues they have initiated a lot of AfD's, and/or haven't created enough articles (an argument you wisely did not use in my case, since I created a lot more articles than you did, and none are "articles" which should never have been created in the first place and are now cross-namespace redirects like Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and Constructionism and reductionism (wiki).) 

You claim in that diff that "a policy which encourages editors to work together before deleting would hinder what editors who delete other editors hard work are trying to doing here": thanks for the blatant mischaracterization. I have worked together with many, many editors, and have achieved great results in doing so. I have also tried to upheld Wikipedia's policies in all cases, both when I deleted articles or nominated them for deletion, but also when I denied speedies, restored pages, or suggested to keep articles in AfD debates. Many of the AfD's I started were not "other editor's hard work" but blatant hoaxes, copyright violations, and so on. Other's were about someone's hard work, which was just not suited for WIkipedia. We are not a free webhost, even though we have nearly unlimited space: we are an encyclopedia, and not everything is suited for inclusion. To decide what is and isn't suited, we have discussions, and I abide by the consensus if it follows our core policies (I have , if I recall correctly, never started a DRV when an AfD by me did not end in a delete, and I have also tried to incorporate the decision from one AfD in my next nominations). 

I really hope that you will start discussing things in a more friendly and less personalized manner.