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 accounting taste 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 accounting taste 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 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 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 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