Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/James Combs: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:27, 23 January 2006 editArbustoo (talk | contribs)12,546 editsm →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 05:47, 23 January 2006 edit undoSycthos (talk | contribs)2,985 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 7: Line 7:


*'''Rebuttal''': Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted ''only'' because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Misplaced Pages. --] 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC) *'''Rebuttal''': Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted ''only'' because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Misplaced Pages. --] 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
**Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per ] it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. ]] 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


---- ----

Revision as of 05:47, 23 January 2006

James Combs

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Rebuttal: Everything above was posted to skew the voting and make people turn against me and bias their viewpoint of the nomination and the entry. It's a pretty sick tactic. It shows they care little about the actual strength of the entry; which should be the only thing considered. Since the "warnings" have been posted, some people have even said that they've voted only because of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, they and the people who are engaging in this witchhunt should be ashamed of themselves. They've done irreparable damage to their integrity and to Misplaced Pages. --Jason Gastrich 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Very untrue. The comments posted above were to question the strength of your argument, as per WP:SOCK it is prohibited to use a sockpuppet to create a illusion of a broader support for your side of the argument. Your "campaigning" comes from you and your sockpuppet, and you even admitted that you use sockpuppetry to aid yourself in AfD. Sycthos 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor figure "notable" mainly as the provost of a diploma mill. Delete. A.J.A. 05:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. Editor has nominated 10 Christian biography entries for deletion, today. It's hard to assume good faith. Combs is very notable for his work on the Prophecy Study Bible, his television appearances, his work in the field of Bible prophecy, etc. --Jason Gastrich 05:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
comment resorting to personal attacks on the editor isn't helping your case. Mark K. Bilbo 19:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Number of deletion nominations are not an indicator of anything other than "good faith" simply because one person doesn't care to see his articles nominated. Subject is not "very notable" because he has a little-known Bible program and is not all that well known in the field of prophesy except within a small segment of Christendom. Not "very notable" because of one person's opinion. Notability is a result of concensus. - WarriorScribe 05:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well documented? There no citations in the body of the article. And Louisiana Baptist University is not well known by any stretch.
There have been no good reasons to delete Mike Randall. He's the president of a regionally accredited university, a pastor for 22 years, and a long-time editor of two publications. Please don't tell me that you are one of the ignorant ones still saying that his university is a diploma mill. --Jason Gastrich 05:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ATTENTION

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29 "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Misplaced Pages. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"

Hello,
I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.
Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Misplaced Pages, please see our site!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich


http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. Itake 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Itake, that is "meatpuppetry" at its finest. As for the complaints about the admin, we're right back to Argument by insinuation. I also received the same email, and frankly felt it was in bad faith--skirting the edges of honesty. Stow the complaints and cut the foul language. The article has been nominated: let the nomination take its course without raising personal issues. Justin Eiler 01:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Meatpuppetry would be the user having all his friends register and then vote. ENLIGHTENING other wikipedian users about this problem is in no way meatpuppetry. The one who raised personal issues here was Cyde, accusing the author of using multies and cheating. That's bad, and it needs a counterreaction. There is nothing dishonest about that mail, not in one place does the author of the letter tell a lie or similar. He doesn't even tell, he doesn't even ENCOURAGE people to vote "Keep". Not meatpuppetry in any way, if you are going to continue accusing him of meatpuppetry you need to present a convincing argument for it. Otherwise it will only be a continuation of the lies and slander you people are already throwing the author. Itake 01:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Dude, are you serious? What, precisely, do you think(?) this means? "I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries." Come on, dude, wake up and smell the, as you so aptly put it, bullshit. Jim62sch 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
To Itake: "Insinuating" ... this guy is shopping for votes calling those who want to delete the pages as people with "bad faith." Using Christ as a tool to get votes. Targeting those of religion with religion for keep votes. Arbustoo 03:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep if not for the "diploma mill" for his other activities. --Vizcarra 01:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Arbustoo 03:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Spondoolicks 20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as this person does not meet WP:BIO. Cyde Weys 20:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I wouldn't like to be the closing admin. Stifle 00:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain with preference to merge. The article is very small & the article's subject is very unnotable. Although I would probably choose fixing rather than deletion, I have no real concern if it's delted or kept. I have no opinion. Therefore, I abstain. Further Note: I was brought here, like many others by Wiggins2, or as he wants to be called, "Wiggie". I think we shouldn't be so quick to shoot him down, as I, & probably many others, are grateful for his post to draw our attention to this subject. I wouldn't mind if the other "side" did the same. But we cannot ignore the fact that this is defintely going to open wikipedia into two halves; Those who want to keep. Those who don't. I.E. Christians, & others. However, this should not be about religion. I would be ashamed of the christians on here if they only voted to keep the articles because they were christian orientated. This should strictly be business as usual, even though it does seem strange an editor would nominate so many christian articles. Maybe a hidden agenda? If an article's crap, then it should be deleted. Being an inclusionist, I will probably keep the most mundane article. However, the list of notable people list is like many others, & should not be here. To do so would be obvious bias. I ask everyone to not be drawn in with a strict "You're wrong, I'm right" situation, but be open & find a way to keep peaceful.... Spawn Man 04:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC). BTW, I hope my vote isn't discounted, I count myself as a influencial editor...
The only reason so many Christian articles were nominated in a big batch like this is because they were all created by the same user in a short period of time, and on non-notable people (or at least not notable enough to need their own article, I do think that some should certainly be highlighted in the main article of the institution they are connected to). This seems to be done with the intention of promoting an institution that the user is affiliated with, and not because the subjects of the articles are actual notable enough to warrant a dedicated article. The fact that they are Christian is coincidence. I would get the same reaction if I suddenly decided to create a batch of articles for all the instructors who taught at the photography school I went to (granted, some of them are quite notable, but many are not notable enough to warrant a dedicated article). bcatt 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I know this, but not many people are going to take that it was a "coincidence". As I've said, this could unlock a misunderstood-holy-wiki-war!!!! Omigosh batman!!!!! Spawn Man 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Ugh...maybe I should take a break from my usual wikianderings and do a bunch of articles on my school and it's faculty and alumni just so many of those will also be voted for deletion, just so I can show that these deletions aren't religiously biased. The most ridiculous part is that the ones screaming religious bias are the ones creating religiously biased articles...it is no more wrong to want to delete an article because it is religious, than it is to want to create an unnecessary article for promotionally religious purposes - they are almost the same thing. Misplaced Pages is not the place to debate or try to prove which is the "one true religion", it is a place to describe all the different types of religion from a completely NPOV. bcatt 05:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: The following votes were deleted by User:Greatgavini in this edit.  ALKIVAR™ 10:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)