This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dragon695 (talk | contribs) at 00:46, 16 May 2008 (→The wikinfo precedent: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:46, 16 May 2008 by Dragon695 (talk | contribs) (→The wikinfo precedent: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)kind of stupid question
why are we going through this? some admin will decide that it's not notable enough and delete it. I understand that folks would like to have an article on this site, but as long as it keeps with the completely stupid articles on wikipedia editors, there is a selection of folks here who will not tolerate it. I'm mostly curious, as I do see a place for the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was little bit involved with the ressurection of the article but well, as I read the AfD, I simply cannot stop laughing. Yeah, it is not supposed to be funny, but it is. (but the most funny part is "you can have ED article, but in that article you can't have a link, because of ArbCom.")
- If it really got deleted again in AfD, I really don't see many chances for new recreation. --Have a nice day. Running 20:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
SPAs
Would it be possible to indent the comments by IPs and new SPA accounts? its rather difficult to tell them apart from established editor comments at present. MBisanz 16:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that would be inappropriate, but feel free to tag them with {{spa}}, if applicable. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
comment moved
I moved a comment that had been placed at the very top of the afd page, down to the end where it should have been placed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The wikinfo precedent
I discovered this doozy the other day. Looking at the history, this article about Fred Bauder's personal project has been through AFD a number of times, yet it is still kept. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it exactly stands up to the criterion that others want to impose on ED. So why the double standard? --Dragon695 (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)