This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Articles for deletion/List of articles related to quackery page. |
|
I the originator of the "List of articles related to quackery" herby amend my vote to change to move to project namespace ASAP. This means the page must and will be blanked immediately and moved immediately. This statement overides the creation of the list and deletion process and the list must move within 72 hours to the project namespace at once so help me God. "I do."
Signed (under penalty of law.): -- QuackGuru 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I amend the creation of the "List of articles related to quackery" and move to project namespace at once so bless me God. "I do." -- QuackGuru 20:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a general guideline on soliciting votes? It appears that
QuackGuru is visiting user's pages to request they bring in others to swing the vote.
[1]
I don't know of any guideline for or against this, but it strikes me as a bit... off. --
Kesh 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC) See below --
Kesh
21:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) I would suggest, for now, copying the entire Talk page to a subpage of your Userspace, Fyslee. Then, suggest archiving it under a related topic. For instance, if the article is merged with a Pseudoscience project, ask on its talk page if people would object to archiving the old Talk page there. If folks approve, create a seperate Archive under that Talk page for this list's Talk page (and clearly label it as such). Otherwise, just keep it in your User space for reference. -- Kesh 21:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
If this article gets deleted, shouldn't this also be deleted:
It seems odd to me that a deleted article can be moved elswhere in WP. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks Steth 12:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have re-read the initial entry :Excellent Idea!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_articles_related_to_quackery and the more I read it more I think something is fishy here. It is this quote that concerns me:
What's up with that? Doesn't this violate some rules like Assume Good Faith? Quru was concerned about editors notifying others about the AfD Alert! Was this whole thing a set-up from the beginning? Anyone know if this violates WP behavior guidelines?
I am concerned when editors use Wikipedia for their personal agendas and this is why this is smelling fishier and fishier. I also astonished at how Quackguru become so skilled in creating and editing such an extensive list with perfect syntax the day after he signs on as a new user. Would anyone care to share their thoughts about these concerns? Thanks (Also posted here Talk) Steth 05:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Ongoing comments by Steth is not assuming good faith. Steth has not helped in any way in improving the list. Seems odd to me. Has not added anything to the list. The only thing Steth has done is continued to be negetive. I smell it now a troll that is. Please comment on improving the list and stop your strange behavior. -- QuackGuru 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I nominated this one (also create by QuackGuru) for deletion. Here is the article for deletion vote page... [2] TheDoctorIsIn 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No doubt the AGF finger will be pointed by those who don't AGF, but it is worth noting that the vast majority of editors who have voted for a delete haven't actually edited an article in WP for some time but have contributed to many discussions. Note that I'm not trying to suggest anything or point the finger at anybody or accuse any editor of being nefarious, I just find it odd, that's all. Shot info 08:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Articles for deletion/List of articles related to quackery page. |
|
I the originator of the "List of articles related to quackery" herby amend my vote to change to move to project namespace ASAP. This means the page must and will be blanked immediately and moved immediately. This statement overides the creation of the list and deletion process and the list must move within 72 hours to the project namespace at once so help me God. "I do."
Signed (under penalty of law.): -- QuackGuru 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I amend the creation of the "List of articles related to quackery" and move to project namespace at once so bless me God. "I do." -- QuackGuru 20:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a general guideline on soliciting votes? It appears that
QuackGuru is visiting user's pages to request they bring in others to swing the vote.
[1]
I don't know of any guideline for or against this, but it strikes me as a bit... off. --
Kesh 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC) See below --
Kesh
21:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) I would suggest, for now, copying the entire Talk page to a subpage of your Userspace, Fyslee. Then, suggest archiving it under a related topic. For instance, if the article is merged with a Pseudoscience project, ask on its talk page if people would object to archiving the old Talk page there. If folks approve, create a seperate Archive under that Talk page for this list's Talk page (and clearly label it as such). Otherwise, just keep it in your User space for reference. -- Kesh 21:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
If this article gets deleted, shouldn't this also be deleted:
It seems odd to me that a deleted article can be moved elswhere in WP. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks Steth 12:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have re-read the initial entry :Excellent Idea!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_articles_related_to_quackery and the more I read it more I think something is fishy here. It is this quote that concerns me:
What's up with that? Doesn't this violate some rules like Assume Good Faith? Quru was concerned about editors notifying others about the AfD Alert! Was this whole thing a set-up from the beginning? Anyone know if this violates WP behavior guidelines?
I am concerned when editors use Wikipedia for their personal agendas and this is why this is smelling fishier and fishier. I also astonished at how Quackguru become so skilled in creating and editing such an extensive list with perfect syntax the day after he signs on as a new user. Would anyone care to share their thoughts about these concerns? Thanks (Also posted here Talk) Steth 05:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Ongoing comments by Steth is not assuming good faith. Steth has not helped in any way in improving the list. Seems odd to me. Has not added anything to the list. The only thing Steth has done is continued to be negetive. I smell it now a troll that is. Please comment on improving the list and stop your strange behavior. -- QuackGuru 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I nominated this one (also create by QuackGuru) for deletion. Here is the article for deletion vote page... [2] TheDoctorIsIn 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No doubt the AGF finger will be pointed by those who don't AGF, but it is worth noting that the vast majority of editors who have voted for a delete haven't actually edited an article in WP for some time but have contributed to many discussions. Note that I'm not trying to suggest anything or point the finger at anybody or accuse any editor of being nefarious, I just find it odd, that's all. Shot info 08:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)