Dream Focus (talk | contribs) m →Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog poop girl (4th nomination): the previous part was someone else |
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 48h) to User talk:Black Kite/Archive 20. |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
{{talkback|SchuminWeb}} |
{{talkback|SchuminWeb}} |
||
== [[Thaddeus Dod]] == |
|||
Thank you for catching this false hoax tag at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thaddeus_Dod&diff=275721037&oldid=275714429 Thaddeus Dod].--[[User:Jwilkinsen|Jwilkinsen]] ([[User talk:Jwilkinsen|talk]]) 03:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Cellebrum Technologies Limited == |
== Cellebrum Technologies Limited == |
||
==Deletion review for [[:Cellebrum Technologies Limited]]== |
|||
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Cellebrum Technologies Limited|deletion review]] of [[:Cellebrum Technologies Limited]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> <small><span style="border: 1px solid">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:#003333"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="background-color:#003333; color:White"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 14:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route N7]] == |
|||
Based on the comments within the deletion discussion which you closed, do you feel it would be now appropriate for me to go ahead and merge the articles as the majority of comments suggested? Most of the time in that situation, the AfD would have been closed as "Merge to x", I'm not criticising you, I just would like to clarify! :-) <span style="border:1px solid deeppink;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">[[User:Jenuk1985|<font color="deeppink">Jenuk1985</font>]] | [[User talk:Jenuk1985|<font color="deeppink">Talk</font>]]</span> 16:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog poop girl (4th nomination)]] == |
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog poop girl (4th nomination)]] == |
||
Line 44: | Line 33: | ||
<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Neon White|Neon White]] ([[User talk:Neon White|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Neon White|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Neon White|Neon White]] ([[User talk:Neon White|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Neon White|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
||
::I came here to say the same thing. It wasn't just a news item, it was a historical and noteworthy event. That is why it was kept the first three times someone tried to delete it. Just because it got news coverage, doesn't mean that is all there is to it. It was culturally significant for being the first time internet vigilantes did something on such a scale, the first and as far as I know the only major time that happened in that country. The overall reaction from the internet community, should be noted also. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>]]''' 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
::I came here to say the same thing. It wasn't just a news item, it was a historical and noteworthy event. That is why it was kept the first three times someone tried to delete it. Just because it got news coverage, doesn't mean that is all there is to it. It was culturally significant for being the first time internet vigilantes did something on such a scale, the first and as far as I know the only major time that happened in that country. The overall reaction from the internet community, should be noted also. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>]]''' 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
== The Grand Exalted Caden == |
|||
Hello Kite. How are you? I know you watch me closely on here and so I know you've seen and read the recent AN/I on me. The more I read that thread the more disappointed and frustrated I become. How is it that you find this report acceptable? I don't. I was openly, personally attacked with the most brutal incivility I have ever seen on wiki and the community, including you, clearly approves it. Why? Let me refresh a few highlights for you. User:XMarX said:"'''CadenS isn't being incivil, he's just being a flat out racist'''." How would you feel if he called you such an offensive term that is untrue? XmarX then said:'''"What is this, a chapter of the Aryan Brotherhood?'''" How would you feel if that was said about you? He then said:"'''he's no better than the Grand Exalted Caden.'''" How would you like it if you were implied to be a member of '''the KKK''' ("'''Grand Exalted Black Kite'''"), imagine that? How about the "'''lynching'''" jokes that were made by both Baseball Bugs and XmarX? Do you think they were being kind, generous and loving? The message is clear to me that there's a double standard on wiki. Have you read XmarX's talk page? Have you seen his edit summaries? Both his talk page replies and edit summaries show incivility again and again towards several editors. But this is okay right? Because only "Caden" gets warnings and threats, right? Not Xmarx right? Ah, of course because I'm seen as "bad boy Caden" and therefore I'm forbidden the right to defend myself from personal attacks. An editor like XmarX is allowed to do what he wants to others and never get warned or blocked because he's such a "good boy" huh? Okay I get how it works around here. Since I see that the community has given XmarX their stamp of approval on AN/I, does this mean that my '''new username will be changed to the Grand Exalted Caden'''? And will "Saint Bugs" be giving his holy blessings? Gosh, let me change my signature asap. Obviously, I have no say in the matter right? Well I guess that's settled regardless of how I feel or think because I have no rights here. Am I making a point(s) here you ask? Yes, I am. The point of a rotten double standard and the lack of true fairness. On top of that, I've lost all faith and respect for the wiki system since it doesn't work. <font face="Verdana">[[User:CadenS|<font color="#02e">The Grand Exalted</font> <font color="#02b"><b>Caden</b></font>]] ([[User talk:CadenS|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Barnstar! == |
== Barnstar! == |
||
Line 59: | Line 44: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
==Redirect discussion== |
== Redirect discussion == |
||
i regard the present discussion at ANB a discussion, not an dispute. perhaps we might even work together on a suitable process--the result of trying shortcuts in controverted situations is usually more trouble than a previous public discussion would be. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
i regard the present discussion at ANB a discussion, not an dispute. perhaps we might even work together on a suitable process--the result of trying shortcuts in controverted situations is usually more trouble than a previous public discussion would be. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Deletion review for [[:Dog poop girl]]== |
== Deletion review for [[:Dog poop girl]] == |
||
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Dog poop girl|deletion review]] of [[:Dog poop girl]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> <span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white</span><small> [[User_talk:Neon white|talk]]</small> 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Dog poop girl|deletion review]] of [[:Dog poop girl]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> <span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white</span><small> [[User_talk:Neon white|talk]]</small> 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 13:04, 11 March 2009
Talkback!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Cellebrum Technologies Limited
Please reconsider the closing to this. You have ignored the major points made. The fact that this is not a news event was established by the provision of several major non news sources which demostrate lasting significance to this event. Please explain why these were ignored? and why you closed with a result that does not in any way reflect the discussion.[1][2][3][4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon White (talk • contribs)
- I came here to say the same thing. It wasn't just a news item, it was a historical and noteworthy event. That is why it was kept the first three times someone tried to delete it. Just because it got news coverage, doesn't mean that is all there is to it. It was culturally significant for being the first time internet vigilantes did something on such a scale, the first and as far as I know the only major time that happened in that country. The overall reaction from the internet community, should be noted also. Dream Focus 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
A big thank you for dealing with all those vandals and deleting pages during the time non-admins couldn't edit! :) Versus22 talk 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
Redirect discussion
i regard the present discussion at ANB a discussion, not an dispute. perhaps we might even work together on a suitable process--the result of trying shortcuts in controverted situations is usually more trouble than a previous public discussion would be. DGG (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for Dog poop girl
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dog poop girl. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. neon white talk 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you perhaps consider clarifying your closure further and explain exactly what you discounted and what you took into account to avoid any misunderstandings. The 4th nominator called it a "non-notable single event internet meme" which presumable points to WP:ONEEVENT which is about not writing biographies for people notable for one event. It doesn't preclude articles about the memes themselves thus the original nominator and per nom votes are out. Then there are the keep votes that argue mentions in big publications without actually saying what is mentioned. (Non-trivial is not just about the size, but also about the content) and delete votes by people like Jack Merridew who just call the article shitty or "something you'd find under "Weird News"." which obviously isn't based in policy. If several people suggest merging or redirecting as an alternative in the discussion a rough count of that and a check on the reasoning behind it should make the close a clear thing. - Mgm|(talk) 09:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- If the sources mentioned it as part of a larger discussion on Internet vigilism, that would be the most convincing argument for me. If it's part of a larger thing in the sources, it should be covered in equal detail here. (I think User:Uncle G/On sources and content mentions this; not policy but a well-thought out page anyway)
Still, on a side note, "it's been kept before at AfD" is a convincing argument when the nominator doesn't explain what is different from the previous nomination (he called it non-notable and is if I read your response correct, one of the comments that was eventually discounted). When people renominate an article ad infinite it's usually because they hope to finally stack the vote the 'right' way. We should discourage people from renominating articles with bad reasonings or when there's no particular reason to assume the consensus has changed. I would have relisted the thing because after discounting, there wasn't much left. It would encourage people to use proper reasoning and actually look at the sources in detail. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Blogs can actually be reliable. The crucial point is not whether it is formatted in a blog format, but whether we can accurately determine who is responsible for the content. For example the Writer Beware Blog is maintained by the SFWA and the writers all confirm their involvement on their personal websites. In a case like that we can convincingly attribute the blog content to actual people (and experts) making it a reliable source. And blogs that are literally connected to official websites are also reliable sources for quotes of the person owning the site. Craphound.com is the official site of author Cory Doctorow and would be a useful source in articles about internet freedom despite its blog format, because we know the opinions expressed belong to the author. Oops, that's been enough lecturing (sorry!) I'm pretty sure you get my point after a post this long. - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Though relevant in this case, even passing mention isn't always a problem. I've seen articles in which passing mention is made of an actor winning an Oscar. Unless the publication is particularly unreliable and known for spreading false news, that would be a fine source (though it's probably easier to find a source that mentions this in combination with other stuff) - Mgm|(talk) 09:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)