"

Thanks!
for the *. NawlinWiki (talk) 

My pleasure. I think I have to apologize for subjecting you to the diatribe it engendered but, as I think you might agree, it tends to prove the point in an ironic way. I just looked at your talk page and decided that the minor whining *I* get from new page patrol is relatively polite compared to what you seem to have attracted  hence the *. Accounting4Taste:talk  
NalinWiki, you deleted my article while I was still writing it on the basis that it contained ""no references whatsoever"" but allow your own article to stand even though it contains ""no references whatsoever"". Please, please explain how your point been proven in ""an ironic way"". Go ahead. Explain it. All I have seen so far from you is reckless deletion of other people`s work followed by pathetic back-slapping from like-minded wreckers. If you are going to have a dig at me, why not do it on my own talk page? You weren`t shy to destroy four hours of my work, so why be shy now? Kont Dracula (talk) 

I think you've confused the two of us; I must take credit for some statements that have apparently offended you, having signed them, so feel free to express yourself here about them. If you want the contents of an article that was deleted, in order to work on adding citations in a ""sandbox"" page, you can either ask me or another administrator for assistance. If you have any other questions about Wikipedia policies, I'll be happy to direct you to the relevant pages. And if you'd like to work on contributing to Wikipedia in a worthwhile way, in accordance with our policies, I think everyone here will try to assist you. Accounting4Taste:talk  
No, I haven`t confused anything. There is not very much to confuse between you two drones anyway. I see that you are not very good at answering specific questions about specific articles. Evidently, you feel much safer describing deleted articles that you have not even read as ""steaming crap"" than you are actually discussing the actual merits of said articles. A really positive, worthwhile contribution there. Is that the kind of ""contribution"" you want me to make? Hardly surprising that you prefer the classic politburo repsonse of ""directing me to the relevant"" regulations rather than discuss the merits of the case in question. Yet you have the arch hypocrisy to highlight the ""assume good faith"" legend on your page.

Well I do have some questions about wikipedia policy, as you mention it:

1) Is it an acceptable practice for a wikipedia adminstrator to delete articles which are in the very process of being written without consultation or clarification on the basis that they do not contain references when the very same administrator has himself posted less relevant articles which do not contain references himself?

2) If the answer to the above is yes (and I have to conclude that it is, as that is precisely what has happened) would it be fair to conclude that wikipedia administrators feel themselves above and not subject to the same criteria for notability and verification as non-administrators? After all, my article contained no references and was deleted. NawlinWiki`s contained no references and was amended when I pointed it out. Please refer me to the relevant pages. Kont Dracula (talk) 

1. Yes, to the first part of the question; administrators can delete articles without consultation or clarification. Articles that are being considered for deletion are assessed entirely on their own terms, and not with reference to any other article, so comparison of your article (which I have read) with any article created or edited by anyone else is not a relevant consideration. You can read the relevant policy at WP:WAX. 
Well I didn`t expect you to be so candid about it. So you believe that it is entirely acceptable for an administrator to completely ignore the very regulations that he is so dogmatically enforcing onto others. You still haven`t referred me to the ""relevant"" page on that one.

But no, you have not ""read"" my article because it was in the very process of being written when it was deleted. I am sure that there was a great deal of improvement that it required. There were some slightly whimiscial and humourous details which were possibly not appropriate for a wikipedia entry. It wasn`t perfect. You see, that is why I was editing it and indeed still writing it.

Of course, in reality we know that you have not actually expressed your own opinion. You were pretty forward with your opinion the other day though, weren`t you? You described other people`s articles as ""steaming shit"". Now though, you are not quite so forward with your opinion. Instead, you try to retreat behind ""guidelines"" ""r