Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipuffery: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Wikipedia:Wikipuffery: Exactly what I said. |
→Wikipedia:Wikipuffery: refactor Wikipedia:WikiAntipuffery. Don't change your nomination after people have responded to it, please. |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:'''Keep'''. looking at the recent editing history, seems to be a "payback" nom as the result of a content dispute. I see no problem with this essay. --[[User:Cameron Scott|Cameron Scott]] ([[User talk:Cameron Scott|talk]]) 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
:'''Keep'''. looking at the recent editing history, seems to be a "payback" nom as the result of a content dispute. I see no problem with this essay. --[[User:Cameron Scott|Cameron Scott]] ([[User talk:Cameron Scott|talk]]) 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Well, look who has been following my edits again today, hi again Cameron Scott. I wonder if THF will accuse you of Hounding too, I seriously doubt it. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 16:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
::Well, look who has been following my edits again today, hi again Cameron Scott. I wonder if THF will accuse you of Hounding too, I seriously doubt it. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 16:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
=====[[Wikipedia:WikiAntipuffery]]===== |
|||
Also [[Wikipedia:WikiAntipuffery]], which was just created, after this Miscellany for deletion was created. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 16:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No opinion'''. I created the essay because [[User:Ikip]] tried to add this material diametrically opposed to [[Wikipedia:Wikipuffery]] to that essay. If he doesn't want it to exist, he's welcome to ask me to blank and CSD it, as long as he promises not to readd it to [[Wikipedia:Wikipuffery]]. [[User:THF|THF]] ([[User talk:THF|talk]]) 16:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:43, 26 February 2009
Attack essay accuses other editors of lacking good faith: "Wikipuffery is the puffing done by Wikipedia editors in mainspace, often in misguided good faith" Issues discussed already adequately covered in exisiting guidelines, essays, and policies. Also Wikipedia:WikiAntipuffery, which was just created, after this Miscellany for deletion was created. Ikip (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not an "attack essay" by any reasonable definition of the word. Useful content and concept. Ikip claims it is "already adequately covered in existing guidelines and essays" but does not identify any such essays that have the same concept. NB also the WP:HOUND issue, as this nomination for deletion by a fervent inclusionist appears to be retaliation for a content dispute at Business Plot conspiracy theory. THF (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually this is in regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Johnson (blogger) were you quote the this essay twice. I am concerened about the editors lacking good faith wording. Ikip (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is no "editors lacking good faith" section. The essay explicitly says that WP:PUFF may happen in good faith. Incidentally, a good way to further rebut WP:HOUND is to identify yet a third article that you followed me to. THF (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- ""Wikipuffery is the puffing done by Wikipedia editors in mainspace, often in misguided good faith" Ikip (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly what I said. THF (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- ""Wikipuffery is the puffing done by Wikipedia editors in mainspace, often in misguided good faith" Ikip (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is no "editors lacking good faith" section. The essay explicitly says that WP:PUFF may happen in good faith. Incidentally, a good way to further rebut WP:HOUND is to identify yet a third article that you followed me to. THF (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually this is in regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Johnson (blogger) were you quote the this essay twice. I am concerened about the editors lacking good faith wording. Ikip (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. looking at the recent editing history, seems to be a "payback" nom as the result of a content dispute. I see no problem with this essay. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, look who has been following my edits again today, hi again Cameron Scott. I wonder if THF will accuse you of Hounding too, I seriously doubt it. Ikip (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:WikiAntipuffery, which was just created, after this Miscellany for deletion was created. Ikip (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- No opinion. I created the essay because User:Ikip tried to add this material diametrically opposed to Wikipedia:Wikipuffery to that essay. If he doesn't want it to exist, he's welcome to ask me to blank and CSD it, as long as he promises not to readd it to Wikipedia:Wikipuffery. THF (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)