| Revision as of 17:11, 27 August 2007 editLeuko (talk | contribs)Rollbackers22,563 edits →Opposition to stating []'s three notability criteria: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:13, 27 August 2007 edit undoItaliavivi (talk | contribs)2,551 edits I'm here to state the most consistent arguments, not win a personality contest.Next edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| ::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) | |||
Revision as of 17:13, 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)
- 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)