| Revision as of 19:23, 10 January 2006 edit67.171.38.176 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:00, 17 August 2021 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)Tag: AWB | ||
| (54 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == SP? == | |||
| The importance of The White Rose Society transcends anything its detractors post here. | |||
| What is the policy on Semi-Protecting AfDs? Was this ever discussed during the development of SEMI? --] ] 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The vandal IPs need blocking, not the AFD page. -]|] 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==So what exactly is the purpose of this page?== | |||
| ---- | |||
| What exactly is the purpose of this page, if not to discuss the rationale behind delete/keep/merge votes given on the project page? I keep seeing this huge delete/restore war and frankly I could care less. But it was indicated in the project page this is where discussion should occur ] | |||
| I use Misplaced Pages a lot, but this issue is the first time I am actively participating in a discussion so I apologize if I am ignorant to the convention for editing talk dicussions. I want to answer something stated on the project page:'' Keep. Ben is perfectly within his rights to ask for his friends at DU to help him defend his web site here. I download something from White Rose every day. Keep, keep, keep. On edit: Looks like the FReepers are getting in on the act, so expect a whole spate of deletes from them.'' | |||
| ::You comment on why this article needs or does not need deletion. No personal attacks, no edit warring, no discussion regarding other subjects not strictly about the current AFD. -]|] 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Was the deleted discussion guilty of any of these? I apologize if it seemed that way, but I was making my case for why I felt deletion should occur and only that. I can't speak for the other user involved, but he seemed reasonable enough ] | |||
| ::::Indeed. The other user, however, was, in fact, just recently blocked for vandalism and edit warring over the page. -]|] 22:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed eh? what was I blocked for? How can I still edit? What part of the discussion don't you want posted here? | |||
| :::::I was speaking of another user. And regarding your "discussion", none of it. Thanks for talking about first. -]|] 22:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Broader Problem== | |||
| Just because one uses a site is not merit for a Wiki article. I'm sorry. Misplaced Pages is a tool to be used as a launching point for research and information gathering. If anybody wanted to research the "White Rose Society Website" there are plenty of more appropriate ways to do this, namely going to the website. The article in question has no real content other than a link. There is no value add. What useful information could possibly be gleaned from a short synoposis and a link to the site? That people frequent another website is not good enough. This is Wikispam. | |||
| So, I'm going to attempt to restart the discussion. The problem I see is that this article is a battle in a larger war, where two political Internet factions are spilling over into Misplaced Pages. The article in question was nothing more a link to an external site with no substance, and to me it smacked of advertisement since there was no real useful information provided. My dispute was merely that it served no purpose as it was written other than to advertise for one side, given it had no relevant cultural, political, or historical merit. I personally do not appreciate Misplaced Pages being used as an apparatus for two political camps to duke it out through editing and vandalism. That this occurs is evident in this very AFD. I enjoy using Misplaced Pages and wish to keep it that way. If anyone really wants this specific article to be kept, perhaps they should add content that lends it merit. | |||
| Ben is NOT within is rights to ask people from an unrelated message board to flood keep. If you disagree, please tell me how the article would be in any way useful to them. What reference does it contain that they might ever need to look up? Why would anyone ever use the article? | |||
| Ultimately, I think every article dealing with Internet politics and the involved personas should be merged into a single article with subarticles so the defacement is at least kept in one place. ] | |||
| -m00 | |||
| Perhaps what is needed is a very different basic ruleset? A Misplaced Pages that cannot talk about anything that happened in the preceeding five years, for example. Yes people fight over cold political topics, but not to the extent that they fight over current events. ] 05:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Comment About Wikis == | |||
| ---- | |||
| I was in the process of writing a piece about how there is no automatic right to publish on Misplaced Pages, but the content I was referring to got purged. Anyway: | |||
| Most of the above (''now deleted'') isn't even relevant. This is Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages has policies regarding the notability of the subjects of an article plus a no advertising policy. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages is not the only wiki on the world wide web. The site in question can be adequately written up for the sake of 'history' somewhere else. (Yellowwikis, one of the IT wikis, Wikicities, my own forthcoming Wikiplanets). --] 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Agreed however I believe the advertising policy is in regards to advertising inside existing wiki pages. As I stated before a page about Ben or his site is in and of itself NOT advertising as nobody other than those navigating to it will ever see it. | |||
| ] 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) AA | |||
| : And I hardly need any advertising... The point here is that this deletion is not about the merits of either my page (also up for deletion) or the White Rose page, but about a political battle. If five million hours of audio served isn't notable enough for Wiki, fine, but under that sort of interpretation, sites like Conservative Underground don't deserve their pages, either... I could make quite an asshole of myself finding web page entries on wikipedia and citing them for deletion because I disagree with their politics, were I so inclined... ] 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd like to add that the user who initiated this delete request has not exactly distinguished himself or herself before or during this sequence by his or her actions. I did see this issue mentioned on Democratic Underground, and as a Wikicitizen I'm glad my attention was called to this matter by whatever board I visit. I don't actually give a hoot about the political views of users here, I'm more concerned about '''any''' attempt by '''any''' user to censor '''any''' article on the basis of disagreement with POV. I don't approve of animal mistreatment (some clearly don't share my POV), but I think it important that Misplaced Pages have at least a redirect to an appropriate article on that subject. ] 04:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:00, 17 August 2021
SP?
What is the policy on Semi-Protecting AfDs? Was this ever discussed during the development of SEMI? --LV 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- The vandal IPs need blocking, not the AFD page. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
So what exactly is the purpose of this page?
What exactly is the purpose of this page, if not to discuss the rationale behind delete/keep/merge votes given on the project page? I keep seeing this huge delete/restore war and frankly I could care less. But it was indicated in the project page this is where discussion should occur M00
- You comment on why this article needs or does not need deletion. No personal attacks, no edit warring, no discussion regarding other subjects not strictly about the current AFD. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Was the deleted discussion guilty of any of these? I apologize if it seemed that way, but I was making my case for why I felt deletion should occur and only that. I can't speak for the other user involved, but he seemed reasonable enough M00
- Indeed. The other user, however, was, in fact, just recently blocked for vandalism and edit warring over the page. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Was the deleted discussion guilty of any of these? I apologize if it seemed that way, but I was making my case for why I felt deletion should occur and only that. I can't speak for the other user involved, but he seemed reasonable enough M00
- You comment on why this article needs or does not need deletion. No personal attacks, no edit warring, no discussion regarding other subjects not strictly about the current AFD. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed eh? what was I blocked for? How can I still edit? What part of the discussion don't you want posted here?
- I was speaking of another user. And regarding your "discussion", none of it. Thanks for talking about first. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed eh? what was I blocked for? How can I still edit? What part of the discussion don't you want posted here?
Broader Problem
So, I'm going to attempt to restart the discussion. The problem I see is that this article is a battle in a larger war, where two political Internet factions are spilling over into Misplaced Pages. The article in question was nothing more a link to an external site with no substance, and to me it smacked of advertisement since there was no real useful information provided. My dispute was merely that it served no purpose as it was written other than to advertise for one side, given it had no relevant cultural, political, or historical merit. I personally do not appreciate Misplaced Pages being used as an apparatus for two political camps to duke it out through editing and vandalism. That this occurs is evident in this very AFD. I enjoy using Misplaced Pages and wish to keep it that way. If anyone really wants this specific article to be kept, perhaps they should add content that lends it merit.
Ultimately, I think every article dealing with Internet politics and the involved personas should be merged into a single article with subarticles so the defacement is at least kept in one place. M00
Perhaps what is needed is a very different basic ruleset? A Misplaced Pages that cannot talk about anything that happened in the preceeding five years, for example. Yes people fight over cold political topics, but not to the extent that they fight over current events. BenBurch 05:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment About Wikis
I was in the process of writing a piece about how there is no automatic right to publish on Misplaced Pages, but the content I was referring to got purged. Anyway:
Most of the above (now deleted) isn't even relevant. This is Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages has policies regarding the notability of the subjects of an article plus a no advertising policy. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages is not the only wiki on the world wide web. The site in question can be adequately written up for the sake of 'history' somewhere else. (Yellowwikis, one of the IT wikis, Wikicities, my own forthcoming Wikiplanets). --kingboyk 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed however I believe the advertising policy is in regards to advertising inside existing wiki pages. As I stated before a page about Ben or his site is in and of itself NOT advertising as nobody other than those navigating to it will ever see it. 72.136.206.89 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) AA
- And I hardly need any advertising... The point here is that this deletion is not about the merits of either my page (also up for deletion) or the White Rose page, but about a political battle. If five million hours of audio served isn't notable enough for Wiki, fine, but under that sort of interpretation, sites like Conservative Underground don't deserve their pages, either... I could make quite an asshole of myself finding web page entries on wikipedia and citing them for deletion because I disagree with their politics, were I so inclined... BenBurch 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that the user who initiated this delete request has not exactly distinguished himself or herself before or during this sequence by his or her actions. I did see this issue mentioned on Democratic Underground, and as a Wikicitizen I'm glad my attention was called to this matter by whatever board I visit. I don't actually give a hoot about the political views of users here, I'm more concerned about any attempt by any user to censor any article on the basis of disagreement with POV. I don't approve of animal mistreatment (some clearly don't share my POV), but I think it important that Misplaced Pages have at least a redirect to an appropriate article on that subject. BusterD 04:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)