I'm thinking that this page is redudant now that WP:!VOTE exists. An MfD appears to be the correct route here. (→Netscott) 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don't know, if people object to the current wording of PNSD it seems worthwhile to go back to the ancient, acceptabed wording of the meta page, which is pretty stable and has been an important rule on Wikipedia from about the beginning. >Radiant< 15:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just like Wikipedia:Straw polls this is an essay. You are incorrect in trying to word it any other way. Not only that it is redundant cruft. (→Netscott) 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Things don't become an essay because you call them one. This is an important corollary of WP:NOT, hence {{poldetail}}. >Radiant< 15:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we simply restore the soft redirect to the Meta essay? That's what people are looking for, and I see no need for a Wikipedia-specific fork. —David Levy 15:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could, but there has been quite a bit of editing of this page on Wikipedia. Check the difference. >Radiant< 15:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes David Levy, absolutely... we're just encountering a bit of WP:POINTed gaming by our co-editor User:Radiant! here. (→Netscott) 15:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware, I hope, that ad hominem is a fallacy? Perhaps you should read WP:CIV and WP:NPA again. >Radiant< 15:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Radiant! we were editing the soft ridirect... you didn't like that so you went this route. Classic WP:POINTery. (→Netscott) 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, Scott, we were in dispute over this page and so you nominate it for deletion. Classic WP:POINTery. >Radiant< 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how David Levy is essentially agreeing with my logic. (→Netscott) 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how Connelley is "very much out of sympathy with you on the substance of this". Got any real arguments? >Radiant< 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean how he said , " [WP:]VOTE should not be pointing to … not-vote"? I see. (→Netscott) 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Radiant. You know that I support Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion (and came up with the title), but responding to a dispute regarding that page by resurrecting this controversial essay and declaring that it's an official policy corollary is a knee-jerk overreaction at best. —David Levy 16:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did put a big honkin' tag up stating that it is explicitly not policy. I was not aware that this page was controversial, judged by [3] and [4]. Okay, I grant that this page may not be the best solution, but that doesn't warrant the kind of WP:ABF that Scott has been doing in response. >Radiant< 16:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Please reread what I wrote. I said "official policy corollary," not "official policy." 2. How could you not realize that the page was controversial? You don't remember the controversy that arose when you tried to make it a guideline? I don't understand why you would construe the page's acceptance as an essay (at Meta or here) as evidence that it's accepted as anything else. —David Levy 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
