Why on earth did you place a prod on
Chewbacca defense; i.e., on what basis do you believe it is a non-notable neologism? The article is amply sourced contrary to this assertion (although it's nowhere near the level of an FA).--chris.lawson21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)reply
By that logic, nearly everything in the See also section on the article is also a non-notable neologism. Google shows over 40,000 hits for "Chewbacca defense", while showing only 2,000 for "idiot defense" and about 47,000 for "twinkie defense". As far as quality of those hits, there are plenty of links that would count as reliable sources.--chris.lawson23:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Re : AfD on Chewbacca Defense
I physically checked the list of sources - they're reputable, reliable and relevant, so verifiability isn't a problem here and it isn't original research. This is the main argument by many who justify a standalone article beyond the episode, which is why the consensus is to have the article kept. Let's say even if it's a merge, it does not require deletion - it is best to initiate a second discussion to gain consensus on having the article merged. - Best regards,
Mailer Diablo14:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Send for cleanup is an old option that was more commonly used two years ago, and applied to particularly deal with such cases. I'm
assuming good faith that some editor is now willing to fix up the article and properly source it per the discussion, having brought to attention of the community via
articles for deletion for the first time.
If after a reasonable time you feel that the concerns are still not addressed, please nominate it for deletion again citing this message - if the article remains in this state I'm pretty sure by then there will easily be a consensus to delete. - Best regards,
Mailer Diablo13:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I understand that I could propose for the article's deletion under different reasons. However, I thought the matter was shaky at any rate and would need to be discussed and a consensus would need to be reached. Again, if you're interested, please begin the deletion process per the AfD policy. I am for keeping the article, and will not pursue it further. »
K i G O E |
talk02:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)reply
3RR Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Satellite images censored by Google Maps. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for
edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not
repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a
consensus among editors. Thank you. You are getting close now. Please stop, you are going against the consensus. --
MoRsE20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Accusing Google of censoring images that they may not have censored is libel unless it is sourced. Potentially defamatory information absolutely, positively must be sourced. There is an ongoing discussion on the
talk page concerning a renaming of this article that would satisfy all parties - I invite you to participate in that discussion. Until such a decision is reached, I will continue to remove unsourced, libelous information. This is an
exception to the three-revert rule. -
Chardish20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I have replied to your posting at the Administrator's Noticeboard, and await a judgment from them. Until then I see absolutely no reason to allow libelous material to remain in the encyclopedia. -
Chardish00:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The original research material isn't
biographical material, so I don't think there is an urgent need to delete it, especially since it was kept after an AfD. I added a reference column to one of the lists on the article
[1]. If the references are not supplied after a reasonable time, it might be acceptable to remove the unreferenced material after discussion. As for the term "censor", it does not always have a negative connotation. However, if you object to the use of "censor" in the article, please discuss it on the article talk page and work towards a consensus on its use in the article. As for the 3RR warning, it may help to provide the diffs of Chardish's reverts that prompted the 3RR warning. --
Jreferee16:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Unjustified article for deletionism!
Please do not list relevant and hard worked on articles for deletion. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean lots of others do not find use in the articles. You wouldn't like it if it happened to you. So, be respectful of your fellow editors. Thanks, --
24.154.173.24322:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't mark articles for deletion because I don't like them, I mark them for deletion because they are in violation of a Wikipedia policy (usually one pertaining to notability or verifiability). Also, if a lot of people have worked very hard on an article, and it hasn't met Wikipedia standards, that's a good sign that the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia to begin with. I have nothing against the articles themselves and, in the past,
have voted to delete articles I've liked. Thanks! (And, also, register an account!) : ) -
Chardish22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Well, I obviously still have to disagree with the whole deletionism thing, but hey if you are into video games, perhaps you could help answer the following: [video game questions trimmed] --
24.154.173.24318:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Please don't do that. Any closing administrator who notices may decide to discount your contributions to the discussion, on the grounds that they could have been altered from what you originally meant to write by other people editing the template. It's also ugly and widely frowned upon to use images in that way in AFD discussions.
AFD is not about the votes. It's the rationales that matter. We don't have tally boxes in AFD discussions, and we don't have little ticks and crosses.
Uncle G17:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
AfD is not about the votes, but images can make it easier to categorize opinions. Don't try to sow fear by claiming that closing administrators ignore comments with a small image categorizing them. -
Chardish18:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The previous debates were also about templates used for voting in deletion debates. Such templates do in fact stifle consensus building. Also, they fall in the same category as the "tally box pox" and "deletion criterion boxes", both of which were strongly disliked by the community. Despite what was stated in the debate, these do not usually "allow for a good summary of a comment" because comments cannot always be neatly pigeonholed, nor do they help "organize and categorize opinions" since deletion debates are not decided by vote count.
>Radiant<13:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Not really. Our
speedy deletion policy allows for the immediate deletion of recreated content. It's not that we object to forming consensus on the topic, but it's that said consensus already exists and there's really no need to discuss that again any time such recreations occur.
>Radiant<13:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The recreation may not have been identical, but it was substantially similar and failed to address the problems that got it deleted in the first place. CSD requires the latter, not the former. And I disagree with your assessment that the delete-commenters wanted the templates kept.
>Radiant<14:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)reply
AfD closure
I think my closure was correct. First of all, the overall result, "no consensus," is very hard to argue against given how closely split the debate was, and I don't remember seeing many if any comments that should be discounted as irrelevant arguments. Having looked again, a lot of the keep comments directly address the crystal ball concern, and their argument, generally, is that this may be speculation but it's sourced speculation. From
WP:NOT#Crystal:
Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced.
So you see, that argument really does trump the crystal ball argument, and it can't be answered by continuing to assert that this is crystal ballism. I didn't discuss your argument about sourceability in the closure, but that's mainly because it was a point only a couple people had made, whereas a lot of the keep comments included assertions that the sourcing was good. So, even assuming that argument is well-founded in policy (which I don't think it is: a quote written up in a magazine is a reliable source, isn't it?), I think it's fair to say that a lot of people felt the sourcing was good enough.
Mangojuicetalk12:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually, the quote above does apply, because it's the first paragraph under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." If you think it doesn't apply to this situation, I think that says a lot. Anyway, regardless, since the whole "not crystal ball" section of
WP:NOT very firmly makes it clear that it's unsourced material about future events that must be removed, it's fair to say that the keep commentors have a point when they argue that clause doesn't apply. Of course, the delete commentors argue the opposite, and the very fact that there are significantly many of them means that argument can't be simply dismissed. Hence, "no consensus." But I do think the keep arguments are more in line with that policy.
Mangojuicetalk02:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Besides my already stated opinion that my comment belongs directly under that which it is a response to, I'd like to remind you to please be a bit more careful. The first time you moved my comment, you retained the "#*" prefix, which disrupts the DOM (if implemented) when not under a "#" prefix (in the discussion section the burgeoning convention seemed to be to use solely ":"). The second time you moved my comment, you also inexplicably removed my signature from an unrelated comment elsewhere on the page. There is a rather nice
undo function in the wikimedia software, which would help avoid the latter error and its like. Also, even if you feel the need to move others' comments around on a page, I'd ask that you please not modify them, even if only to provide a contextual basis necessary in the new location you have placed it and which was not necessary in the original location of the text. That's basic etiquette, I should think. Thanks... —
flamingspinach |
(talk)18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks for letting me know about the undo function - really, I didn't know it existed! I've been using reverts for a very long time. Also, sorry if you were offended by the moving of your comments. I was simply
refactoring the page to improve readability, under the assumption that you missed the part about discussion-related comments going in the discussion section. I'm sorry if you didn't like the changes, and I won't revert them anymore, but I hope you consider keeping point-counterpoint discussion in its proper section. Thanks! :) -
Chardish19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't say I'm offended by your moving my comments about, but that you added words to my sentences without indicating that they were your words feels sort of like putting words in my mouth. As for the undo feature, glad I could be of help (hehe,
again - remember me? :P). As the editor who reverted your action stated in an edit summary, until it becomes a full-on discussion, it should be where it is - a tagged-on reply to a position set forth in the "vote". Now that
Random832 has replied to me, it is probably time to move the comments to the discussion section - in fact, he probably shouldn't have made that statement in the voting section anyway, as it is neither an argument for transclusion nor an explication of his voting motives, but rather just a stab at the voting process itself. —
flamingspinach |
(talk)16:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Re: IIDX Page
I'm not familiar with wiki user pages and messages, so let me know if I'm doing this wrong. Since you seem to be more involved with the whole wiki project- at least here, anyway- you would probably know what's best in terms of what to keep here and what to keep at RemyWiki. I'd trust your judgment on what to do; I'm just trying to get the information out there. What all exactly do you think I should move to RemyWiki? I could copy some stuff over and see how it goes and then delete it off here or something.
Taren Nauxen02:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Though those events seem notable, they use extensive
POV terminology (the one about the gay rights activists even goes so far as to deem the judgment of the police officers incorrect.) I removed them because there was absolutely no source backing them up - no wikilink to an article and no external link. As a result, I didn't know how I could edit them to remove their POV nature since I don't know the real stories behind them. See
Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Feel free to leave more comments. I have not reverted your changes, but added {{tl:lopsided}} tags to the offending pieces. I do ask that you reconsider your decision to restore them. Thanks! - Cheers,
Chardish03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply