| Revision as of 08:30, 11 August 2008 editBecky Sayles (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,452 edits afd← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:41, 11 August 2008 edit undoAnonymous Dissident (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users41,040 edits reNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| ::I have expressed logical explanations, as have many of the other keepers. I have seen the response; I was there as it was written, I watched the controversy that it caused. Some of my remarks may have been ''addressed'' to you, but it's ludicrous to assert they were statements of attack. Since my initial statement, I feel I have rationalised myself well. It may have been an err on my part to not express myself fully originally, but I have since articulated my reasoning well, and, as far as I am concerned, my keep vote is now considerably more "fully-fledged" than was ever necessary. Your view is your view; the view of the many keepers, which is in my opinion fully backed in policy, is their view. —<strong>]</strong>] 08:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | ::I have expressed logical explanations, as have many of the other keepers. I have seen the response; I was there as it was written, I watched the controversy that it caused. Some of my remarks may have been ''addressed'' to you, but it's ludicrous to assert they were statements of attack. Since my initial statement, I feel I have rationalised myself well. It may have been an err on my part to not express myself fully originally, but I have since articulated my reasoning well, and, as far as I am concerned, my keep vote is now considerably more "fully-fledged" than was ever necessary. Your view is your view; the view of the many keepers, which is in my opinion fully backed in policy, is their view. —<strong>]</strong>] 08:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::What controversy? this is simply a discussion about whether or not an article should be deleted. Even now you're calling my actions ludicrous, try ]. Discussing on an AFD is one thing, but when you choose to describe the nomination as "very poor" that is an attack. You could simply point out that some element of the nomination doesn't make sense to you, or attempt to refute the nomination by discussion. You chose a name-calling tactic instead. As for the reasoning behind keeping the article, it helps if you link to the policy you're referring to. I haven't seen any inclusion criteria that you mentioned. ] (]) 08:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | :::What controversy? this is simply a discussion about whether or not an article should be deleted. Even now you're calling my actions ludicrous, try ]. Discussing on an AFD is one thing, but when you choose to describe the nomination as "very poor" that is an attack. You could simply point out that some element of the nomination doesn't make sense to you, or attempt to refute the nomination by discussion. You chose a name-calling tactic instead. As for the reasoning behind keeping the article, it helps if you link to the policy you're referring to. I haven't seen any inclusion criteria that you mentioned. ] (]) 08:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Name-calling? This is becoming ridiculous. Not you; this discussion. You either misunderstand NPA, or are deliberately taking my remarks out of context. If I were to use an insult to refer to *you* directly, then that'd be an attack. Calling your nomination "poor", saying that your assertion of me attacking you is "ludicrous", and reference to your haranguing of the keepers - none of these things are ''personal '''attacks'''. They are my opinions, and the latter two are my actual advice. If you cannot become used to people being strongly opposed to your nomination of articles for deletion, then I suggest you refrain from participation of AfD. If you do not want to be called up on haranguing the keepers, then don't do it. Finally, if you don't want your false assertions of policy violations to be labeled as "ludicrous", then don't make these accusations. As to the "inclusion criteria": when I refer to an inclusion criteria, I mean to say that the article does not inherently violate ], and it doesn't. —<strong>]</strong>] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:41, 11 August 2008
AfD and my talk page
Becky, I'd like to suggest that pressuring people really will not produce your desired results. The article is very clearly within the inclusion crietria and belongs on Misplaced Pages. Chronicling world records and the general progress of the games, the article is a very pertinent to a high profile event and deserves to be in the encyclopedia. So calling up every separate keep and questioning the validity of each is just counter-productive. Aditionally, please do not misuse warning templates as you recently did on my talk page; I did not violate the personal attacks policy, and to assert that I did is folly and constitutes a near-abuse of the warning template. Discussion is the key, and templating me (or anyone else - this is why I'm telling you this: for the future) with a non-personal message will likely only aggravate the situation, especially if you are templating a regular. Cheers, —Anonymous Dissident 07:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- What inclusion criteria are you talking about? I'm not questioning the inclusion of the information, but the format and location. All of the information on the page belongs either on the main article or on individual articles created for the sports. The Olympics Wikiproject apparently decided not to have pages for each of the days of the games. If you'd like to change that consensus then discussion in the wikiproject would be appropriate. Readers can easily go to the main article, and if they want information about what happened in one particular sport then they can click on the link there or just type in the appropriate article name.
- As for using templates, please see the response. Specifically, your use of phrases like "very poor nomination" with no actual address of the nomination, "haranguing the keepers" and "should not have been nominated in the first place" was clearly directed at "the nominator", me. If you follow WP guidelines for Afd, then discussion should be limited to the article and it's faults, whether they can be addressed, and if not then whether or not they should be deleted. Afd should not be used to address a users conduct.
- I'm not attempting to pressure you, but to find logical explanations for the opinions you've expressed. Writing "keep" with nothing else that talks about the article doesn't help the discussion. Becky Sayles (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have expressed logical explanations, as have many of the other keepers. I have seen the response; I was there as it was written, I watched the controversy that it caused. Some of my remarks may have been addressed to you, but it's ludicrous to assert they were statements of attack. Since my initial statement, I feel I have rationalised myself well. It may have been an err on my part to not express myself fully originally, but I have since articulated my reasoning well, and, as far as I am concerned, my keep vote is now considerably more "fully-fledged" than was ever necessary. Your view is your view; the view of the many keepers, which is in my opinion fully backed in policy, is their view. —Anonymous Dissident 08:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- What controversy? this is simply a discussion about whether or not an article should be deleted. Even now you're calling my actions ludicrous, try assuming good faith. Discussing on an AFD is one thing, but when you choose to describe the nomination as "very poor" that is an attack. You could simply point out that some element of the nomination doesn't make sense to you, or attempt to refute the nomination by discussion. You chose a name-calling tactic instead. As for the reasoning behind keeping the article, it helps if you link to the policy you're referring to. I haven't seen any inclusion criteria that you mentioned. Becky Sayles (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Name-calling? This is becoming ridiculous. Not you; this discussion. You either misunderstand NPA, or are deliberately taking my remarks out of context. If I were to use an insult to refer to *you* directly, then that'd be an attack. Calling your nomination "poor", saying that your assertion of me attacking you is "ludicrous", and reference to your haranguing of the keepers - none of these things are personal attacks. They are my opinions, and the latter two are my actual advice. If you cannot become used to people being strongly opposed to your nomination of articles for deletion, then I suggest you refrain from participation of AfD. If you do not want to be called up on haranguing the keepers, then don't do it. Finally, if you don't want your false assertions of policy violations to be labeled as "ludicrous", then don't make these accusations. As to the "inclusion criteria": when I refer to an inclusion criteria, I mean to say that the article does not inherently violate WP:NOT, and it doesn't. —Anonymous Dissident 08:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- What controversy? this is simply a discussion about whether or not an article should be deleted. Even now you're calling my actions ludicrous, try assuming good faith. Discussing on an AFD is one thing, but when you choose to describe the nomination as "very poor" that is an attack. You could simply point out that some element of the nomination doesn't make sense to you, or attempt to refute the nomination by discussion. You chose a name-calling tactic instead. As for the reasoning behind keeping the article, it helps if you link to the policy you're referring to. I haven't seen any inclusion criteria that you mentioned. Becky Sayles (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have expressed logical explanations, as have many of the other keepers. I have seen the response; I was there as it was written, I watched the controversy that it caused. Some of my remarks may have been addressed to you, but it's ludicrous to assert they were statements of attack. Since my initial statement, I feel I have rationalised myself well. It may have been an err on my part to not express myself fully originally, but I have since articulated my reasoning well, and, as far as I am concerned, my keep vote is now considerably more "fully-fledged" than was ever necessary. Your view is your view; the view of the many keepers, which is in my opinion fully backed in policy, is their view. —Anonymous Dissident 08:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)