Strong Delete. This essay misrepresents Wikipedia policy and also itemizes the creator's specific complaints with one editor (namely me), making it, in my opinion, an attack page. I refer users to this section of my talk page, in which the essay's creator accuses me of virtually everything he has itemized within this essay, prompted by my delete vote (note: not the initial nomination, a vote) in the below-mentioned "don't be lazy"/"don't be a snob" essay below, all stemming from the editor still holding a ... wait for it ... grudge ... (the irony is not lost on me) ... over a fewAfDnominations conducted in mid-June. In said section, when I responded with policy cites and, finally, a well-meant and courteously phrased offer to go through the dispute resolution process (again, see the aforementioned talk page section), the essay's creator indicated he had no desire to continue the discussion and then proceeded to create this attack essay. Aside from the issue of it being a disguised attack page, its content is also confusing to readers and in many places contradictory to Wikipedia policy, in that it attempts to argue against (a) citing policy (skirting a policy by citing policy? and it is somehow acceptable for one party to cite policy, but not for the respondent to cite policy in response?); (b) referring to past incidents of an editor's behavior (oftentimes relevant in many Wikipedia venues); and (c) remaining civil (see "pretending there's not a problem" section), all items that should be considered positives in the Wikipedia process. This is a cleverly disguised attack page created out of frustration following a debate in which the essay creator failed to embody the very equalities he champions in his first paragraph — staying cool, assuming good faith, remaining civil, and, ironically enough, not holding a grudge. — Mike(talk • contribs) 02:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
