This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CBDunkerson (talk | contribs) at 14:20, 4 September 2007 (AN/I). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:20, 4 September 2007 by CBDunkerson (talk | contribs) (AN/I)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)NOTICE: Please do not reply to talk page discussions I've engaged in on article pages on my personal talk page unless I have not replied for a week, the discussion is not related to the article itself or the article is a "high traffic" one that is frequently updated which I haven't replied to for 2 days.
Proposed deletion of Ocular effect
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Ocular effect, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. —Celithemis 07:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
AN/I
You should be aware of this thread about you on the AN/I board.
Having looked into it a bit I can say that you certainly need to dial back the hostility. There is never any good purpose served by things like saying someone lies, stating that you will not assume good faith, complaining that someone wrote 'de facto' without the space, et cetera. It just serves no useful purpose. You're being angry and saying things bound to make the other person angry... none of which is good for a cooperative project. People can, and do, disagree. Just don't be disagreeable about it.
As to the matter(s) in dispute; the fact that a discussion board may be notable (based on Alexa, Google, third party references, et cetera) does not make it also a reliable source. If any random person can post any random thing there then that posting is no more a reliable source than any posting on any other forum. An individual blogger might theoretically be found to be a reliable source, but that again is different than being notable. Generally something is only considered a reliable source if it has independent fact checking in place or if the information it is cited for is something directly related to the subject which they would have no apparent reason to lie about (e.g. if a celebrity says we have their birth place wrong we can generally take them as a reliable source for where they were born).
On the other hand I can't see what would be 'disruptive' about this edit. The comment would have been better placed in the edit summary or on the talk page, but it's not the first time I've seen comments in the text and I don't see how it disrupts anything. Just not standard practice and probably a bad idea to use in most cases because we don't want articles cluttered up with old comments that people don't remember the relevance of. --CBD 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)