`    ==Magnum Crimen== This article and AfD discussion might interest you.       == Talkback ==        -    == Smears ==  Hi Turqoise127  A number of your recent edits (the AfD for Boba Phat, Cyclopia's talk page) state or imply the existence of editors ganging up to game Wikipedia's processes, and further imply the inappropriateness of such.   First, if you want to talk about inappropriate ganging up, you should be aware of a formal body that exists in practice almost solely to vote in blocs against deletion. The Article Rescue Squadron works by tagging articles with a template, so that other editors are alerted to the existence of a speedy, prod, or AfD nomination. The usual result is vote packing at AfD discussions without improvement to articles (the nominal goal of the squadron). This leads to far more ``unfair advantage`` by virtue of ``block votes`` and ``sway[ing of] opinion`` than a few editors who occasionally show up at the same AfD discussions.   Here's the great thing about AfD discussions. Anyone (except sock puppets and blocked users) can show up and opine. All someone needs to do is go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Current discussions and start browsing. You may think that when a number of editors show up opining ``delete`` for an article, and none on the other side show up to opine ``keep``, it's an indication of unfair voting blocs. But in fact, it generally indicates that: * editors who have a predilection to stringent interpretation of WP:N agree it's not notable; * middle-of-the-road editors agree it's not notable; and * editors who have a predilection to a lenient interpretation of WP:N either believe in their hearts that it's a clear-cut case, or realize that the obvious weight of the consensusnotwithstanding their disagreementmakes it not worthwhile to bother opining.   The same occurs where ``keep`` is either obvious to all, or so widely supported that editors with limited time don't bother to tilt at windmills. I don't know how other editors do it, but when I browse through AfD discussions, I tend not to bother with snowball cases in either direction unless I have some knowledge of the subject or believe an important principle is being illustrated.   In any event, your continued smear campaign against ``certain groups`` as ``plainly unfair`` is against policy and has become more than tiresome. Cut it out.      :Hi Bongomatic, it is flattering how you stalk me and react to every single contribution I make. However I think you are over-reacting a bit. I mentioned no names in any of my comments; they were general. If expressing my views on certain events that I witness is against policy, please tell me how so, because it reaks of censorship. I do stand by my views, I think you know that. And even though I like and respect you, I am not really looking for friends here. Your article rescue squadron comment and illustration is definitely a valid point, but you must take into account that they (squadron) are reactionary, so they (at least I think, could be wrong) react to deletionist strong-arming of marginal or worthy articles that really could/should be kept. Be that as it may, if you ever feel something I do is against policy, do what you gotta do, caus I will not be changing anytime soon. I am still looking at my options regarding my issues; do nothing and attempt to soften influence with my presence on here, write essays, discuss at water pump, arb com, whatever. I don't know enough about Wiki yet. I will learn though...    :Bongomatic, while what you say is formally true, and I agree that ARS can be kind of questionable -even if I like it and even tag ARS sometimes- it is also true that the same names often come out at AfDs, in both camps -including myself recently. Especially BLPs attract a regular bunch of strongly minded editors in both camps, but for example software-related discussions have their regulars too. The reason, of full good faith, is simple: AfDs naturally attract people (like me) who happen to care about the problem of inclusion or deletion of articles, and sometimes of particular article categories. This might give the impression our fellow Turquoise has. Also, there is the Wikipedia Review jolly, which sort of complicates the thing.  :In short: It is probably true that there is no ``gang`` (or relevant one at least -there has been indeed a recent AN/I about two editors regularly joining to push software-related deletions and stalking editors). It is however true that a newcomer can have this impression and react consequently -I risked to end into the same pitfall. :To Turquoise: I am not a particularly relevant, good or skilled editor (quite the opposite). However I want to give you some little common sense advice (which I myself not always follow, alas). First, read a lot around. Policies and their talk pages, see what policies/guidelines are cited at AfDs, village pump etc. Second, try to always stay cool and be humble. Bring your ideas forward without fear, but avoid heating debates always and do all your best to AGF. Otherwise there is the risk of spiraling up unnecessary flames and your WP experience will be much less pleasurable. You give me no reason at all to think you are not keeping cool ) but it is all too easy for all of us to get emotional and suspicious, so that's just my 2 cents.  -    ==Lucia Gorea== Notable?    :Okay. Thanks for the note. No one had voted when I dropped you my question, but it's good that Wikipedians are on top of things! ) Have a good week.    Do you celebrate Halloween?  Have a good weekend.     ==Good news!== As the official Croatian delegate to the bacon cabal, you are hereby put in charge of the Croatian cuisine articles related to . Thank you for leading efforts on Trijesce, Primoštenske fritule, Fritule, Istarski cukarini, Kroštule, Krafne, Krofna, Krafna. I know you're going to do a fantastic job. Feel free to coordinate with other editors and those from nations less well-endowed with notable doughnuts who may want to be a part of this international effort.    :I should probably mention that article subjects need to meet notability guidelines. So consider whether the subjects should be merged into one article on Croation doughnuts or whether some varieties can be included with the existing articles on simlar types (ie. jelly doughnut). Please let me know if you have any questions.    Should krafna be redirected to krafne? Is this a good picture of them ?     :::Hi CoM. I think I kind of like you, despite other editors apparent distaste of your antics and draggings to ANI. You are a good guy who just a few entries above offered me kind words (and yes, I do celebrate Halloween, I live in the US). Also, I appreciate your heads up notices on certain afd’s and articles, I will always check out your recommendations and offer my objective opinion (which seems to be similar to yours quite often). And, you know what, I kind of like your sick humor (sometimes even your votes on afds make me laugh). I also think you are a valuable editor here and your opinions on issues are always spot on and relevant. Regardless, as flattering as it would be to be the official Croatian delegate to the bacon cabal, I must respectfully decline because I do not wish to be in cohoots with anyone. I wish to be an island. A tropical one preferably. Or a peninsula. As far as the donuts are concerned; in Croatia, these pastries are simply not as beloved as are in the States. “krafne” is a plural form of “krafna”, and “krofna” is a variant spelling used in Bosnia. On your user page is a great picture of them, that is exactly it (the mesmerizing picture above her