| Revision as of 17:11, 27 August 2007 editLeuko (talk | contribs)Rollbackers22,563 edits →Opposition to stating []'s three notability criteria: reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:45, 27 August 2007 edit undoLeuko (talk | contribs)Rollbackers22,563 edits →Opposition to stating []'s three notability criteria: reply | ||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ::::Sorry, do you have anything to offer the actual discussion other than removing ]'s notability criteria via edit warring? ]<sup>]</sup> 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ::::Sorry, do you have anything to offer the actual discussion other than removing ]'s notability criteria via edit warring? ]<sup>]</sup> 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::It was 4,000 bytes of unnecessary text, which included both ] and ]. In participating in AfD discussions for over a year, I've never seen the text of ], ] etc. copied into the AfD debates because most everyone who participates here has read them, and if they haven't, then arguments not based on the relevant policies/guidelines will be ignored by the closing admin. ] 17:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | :::::It was 4,000 bytes of unnecessary text, which included both ] and ]. In participating in AfD discussions for over a year, I've never seen the text of ], ] etc. copied into the AfD debates because most everyone who participates here has read them, and if they haven't, then arguments not based on the relevant policies/guidelines will be ignored by the closing admin. ] 17:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::I copied three specific criteria only, not "the entire text." I ask again that you please correct your false statements. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It was greater than 4,000b of text, and pretty much all of ]. The only thing that was left out was an introductory sentence or two, and and the footnotes. But really, what does it matter. ] 19:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 13: | ||
| ::Do let me know when you retract your attacks and accusations of "canvassing," WebHamster. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ::Do let me know when you retract your attacks and accusations of "canvassing," WebHamster. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Do let me know when you are going to follow your own advice vis-a-vis "good faith"? The following is meant as advice and not as a criticism but petulance will not help your case along at all. You have referred people to ] but you don't have the right to force feed it to them. You are losing the strength of your arguments by your behaviour, behave like an adult and treat us like adults too and people will take you more seriously. Behaving the way you are at the moment will not do you any good and you won't achieve anything other than for people to roll their eyes when they see your comments. Please do yourself and your cause a favour, keep to the salient points and keep people's personalities out of it. ] 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ::Do let me know when you are going to follow your own advice vis-a-vis "good faith"? The following is meant as advice and not as a criticism but petulance will not help your case along at all. You have referred people to ] but you don't have the right to force feed it to them. You are losing the strength of your arguments by your behaviour, behave like an adult and treat us like adults too and people will take you more seriously. Behaving the way you are at the moment will not do you any good and you won't achieve anything other than for people to roll their eyes when they see your comments. Please do yourself and your cause a favour, keep to the salient points and keep people's personalities out of it. ] 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::People who are participating on AfD's '''need to be force fed''' ] and ]. "Keep people's personalities out of it" coming from you is a hearty oxymoron. If someone is incapable of strictly evaluating arguments without taking behavior(such as the behavior between you and myself), they should not be closing AfD's. I am here to make the most sound arguments, not win a popularity contest. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My advice is well meant, if you choose to ignore it, as is your right, then please feel free to enjoy the consequences, but please note that I am not ramming it down your throat. There's a possible lesson there. That was my last comment on this topic. ] 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your "friendly advice" is little more than veiled incivility, which has become so commonplace on Misplaced Pages as to not be taken seriously. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Links to all 3 of them are repeated several times on this page, none of them have been edited or removed. One man's edit war is another's correction of procedure. ] 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Let me just say that, as someone who thinks that the site is clearly notable and is leaning away from merging, adding a swath of text from WP:WEB is probably not appropriate and is probably not helping your case. That said, if he really wants it here, it doesn't seem worth removing and edit warring over, either. Just some thoughts. -] 17:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's the thing, why is it worth edit warring over to them? For that matter, why should it have any detrimental effect on the merits or arguments of my case whatsoever, unless someone is factoring "personality" into their decision-making upon close? ]<sup>]</sup> 17:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It all depends on the closing admin to determine how much weight to give the various arguments. However, in the real world, the manner in which a person debates their point does have an impact on how much weight there arguments have. IMHO, anyone can follow the links to the various policies to see the wordings, but the important part is not the wording, it is your interpretation of the wording and how you feel that interpretation should be applied to the article in question. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't care. The arguments for deletion or merger on this page are ''nowhere'' in line with ], and those who I have challenged on the point have ''immediately'' made it about personality instead of content. I have been accused of "canvassing" and "using Misplaced Pages as a tool" for Obama here (despite being accused of anti-Obama trolling in the past), been ]ed and voted against here by editors from uninvolved content disputes, and am now reading implications that my "style" is going to be weighed against my arguments. This is absurd. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:45, 27 August 2007
Opposition to stating WP:WEB's three notability criteria
Participants in this discussion have ignored my comments about WP:WEB, and two editors have prevented me from providing the criteria here on the page through edit warring. Italia 16:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Because copying the entire text of WP:WEB into an AfD is unnecessary. As I said before, you are free to link to WP:WEB and point out what you feel are arguments made that are not in line with WP:WEB. Leuko 16:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was not the entire text at all, it was just the three notability criteria and nothing more; please correct your remarks. You achieved your means through edit warring. I have nothing to discuss with you here. Italia 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Um, WP:KETTLE? Leuko 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, do you have anything to offer the actual discussion other than removing WP:WEB's notability criteria via edit warring? Italia 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was 4,000 bytes of unnecessary text, which included both WP:N and WP:WEB. In participating in AfD discussions for over a year, I've never seen the text of WP:N, WP:WEB etc. copied into the AfD debates because most everyone who participates here has read them, and if they haven't, then arguments not based on the relevant policies/guidelines will be ignored by the closing admin. Leuko 17:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I copied three specific criteria only, not "the entire text." I ask again that you please correct your false statements. Italia 17:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was greater than 4,000b of text, and pretty much all of WP:WEB. The only thing that was left out was an introductory sentence or two, and and the footnotes. But really, what does it matter. Leuko 19:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I copied three specific criteria only, not "the entire text." I ask again that you please correct your false statements. Italia 17:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was 4,000 bytes of unnecessary text, which included both WP:N and WP:WEB. In participating in AfD discussions for over a year, I've never seen the text of WP:N, WP:WEB etc. copied into the AfD debates because most everyone who participates here has read them, and if they haven't, then arguments not based on the relevant policies/guidelines will be ignored by the closing admin. Leuko 17:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, do you have anything to offer the actual discussion other than removing WP:WEB's notability criteria via edit warring? Italia 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Um, WP:KETTLE? Leuko 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was not the entire text at all, it was just the three notability criteria and nothing more; please correct your remarks. You achieved your means through edit warring. I have nothing to discuss with you here. Italia 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. WebHamster 16:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do let me know when you retract your attacks and accusations of "canvassing," WebHamster. Italia 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do let me know when you are going to follow your own advice vis-a-vis "good faith"? The following is meant as advice and not as a criticism but petulance will not help your case along at all. You have referred people to WP:WEB but you don't have the right to force feed it to them. You are losing the strength of your arguments by your behaviour, behave like an adult and treat us like adults too and people will take you more seriously. Behaving the way you are at the moment will not do you any good and you won't achieve anything other than for people to roll their eyes when they see your comments. Please do yourself and your cause a favour, keep to the salient points and keep people's personalities out of it. WebHamster 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- People who are participating on AfD's need to be force fed WP:N and WP:WEB. "Keep people's personalities out of it" coming from you is a hearty oxymoron. If someone is incapable of strictly evaluating arguments without taking behavior(such as the behavior between you and myself), they should not be closing AfD's. I am here to make the most sound arguments, not win a popularity contest. Italia 17:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- My advice is well meant, if you choose to ignore it, as is your right, then please feel free to enjoy the consequences, but please note that I am not ramming it down your throat. There's a possible lesson there. That was my last comment on this topic. WebHamster 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your "friendly advice" is little more than veiled incivility, which has become so commonplace on Misplaced Pages as to not be taken seriously. Italia 17:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- My advice is well meant, if you choose to ignore it, as is your right, then please feel free to enjoy the consequences, but please note that I am not ramming it down your throat. There's a possible lesson there. That was my last comment on this topic. WebHamster 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- People who are participating on AfD's need to be force fed WP:N and WP:WEB. "Keep people's personalities out of it" coming from you is a hearty oxymoron. If someone is incapable of strictly evaluating arguments without taking behavior(such as the behavior between you and myself), they should not be closing AfD's. I am here to make the most sound arguments, not win a popularity contest. Italia 17:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Links to all 3 of them are repeated several times on this page, none of them have been edited or removed. One man's edit war is another's correction of procedure. WebHamster 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Let me just say that, as someone who thinks that the site is clearly notable and is leaning away from merging, adding a swath of text from WP:WEB is probably not appropriate and is probably not helping your case. That said, if he really wants it here, it doesn't seem worth removing and edit warring over, either. Just some thoughts. -Chunky Rice 17:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's the thing, why is it worth edit warring over to them? For that matter, why should it have any detrimental effect on the merits or arguments of my case whatsoever, unless someone is factoring "personality" into their decision-making upon close? Italia 17:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- It all depends on the closing admin to determine how much weight to give the various arguments. However, in the real world, the manner in which a person debates their point does have an impact on how much weight there arguments have. IMHO, anyone can follow the links to the various policies to see the wordings, but the important part is not the wording, it is your interpretation of the wording and how you feel that interpretation should be applied to the article in question. --Bobblehead 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't care. The arguments for deletion or merger on this page are nowhere in line with WP:WEB, and those who I have challenged on the point have immediately made it about personality instead of content. I have been accused of "canvassing" and "using Misplaced Pages as a tool" for Obama here (despite being accused of anti-Obama trolling in the past), been WP:STALKed and voted against here by editors from uninvolved content disputes, and am now reading implications that my "style" is going to be weighed against my arguments. This is absurd. Italia 18:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- It all depends on the closing admin to determine how much weight to give the various arguments. However, in the real world, the manner in which a person debates their point does have an impact on how much weight there arguments have. IMHO, anyone can follow the links to the various policies to see the wordings, but the important part is not the wording, it is your interpretation of the wording and how you feel that interpretation should be applied to the article in question. --Bobblehead 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's the thing, why is it worth edit warring over to them? For that matter, why should it have any detrimental effect on the merits or arguments of my case whatsoever, unless someone is factoring "personality" into their decision-making upon close? Italia 17:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)