User talk:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Miscellany for deletion This userpage was nominated for deletion on 31 October 2006. The result of the discussion was snowball keep.

Contents

[edit] Page Move?

I realize it's somewhat moot as it's a userpage, but you seem to be leaning towards this just becoming User:GabrielF/ConspiracyCruft...--Rosicrucian 04:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and now it is. Good show.--Rosicrucian 21:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page is becoming a bit of a lightning rod

While I do think the accusations of this being a "conservative hit squad" are more than a little ridiculous, perhaps it would be best to move/retire this page and give the moonbats some time to focus on something else.--Rosicrucian 19:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, it's GabrielF's user space, so it's his call. But we have an uninvolved admin on-record as saying its okay (see User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me#Opinion sought). And the sad reality is that they will never focus on anything else. Removing this page will just give them the belief that they achieved a "victory", and then they'd go after us everywhere else. --Aaron 19:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Perhaps it's just a few loud voices. It does vaguely amuse me to have participated in a "conservative hit squad" given my actual political leanings. It's just weird to see this page bandied about as "proof" that the Freepers are out to ruin Wikipedia.--Rosicrucian 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Welome to the VRWC. Your get-out-of-the-camps-free card will arrive shortly by FedEx. After the successful completion of a six month probationary period, you'll get the keys to the weather machine and Wellstone Ray, and will be allowed reasonable use of the black helicopter fleet for transportation. - Crockspot 20:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't even know what a Freeper is. I'm not worried about the focus. Basically, if you don't agree with "them", they will cuss and complain and say that you are not following the rules. If you notice the Afds, you will see that each of us takes the time to try to apply Wikipedia policies in the nominations. It's not about the politics, it's about the unencyclopedic nature of the articles nominated, particularly WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Notice that we're NOT nominating articles like Steven E. Jones -- despite the nutty subject matter, that article is fairly well resourced by reference to mainstream reliable sources, and mostly neutral. The rest of these articles could be the same, but aren't because the CT advocates refuse to follow our policies. Anyway, thank you for your neutral presence in these venues. Morton devonshire 20:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
In reality, a Freeper is a member of Free Republic, arguably the most popular American online forum for conservatives. In Moonbattica, a Freeper is "anyone online who's not one of us." Free Republic was around for years before any of the big lefty forums or blogs even launched, so it's always been Big Enemy #1 to all of them; that's why they call anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders a "Freeper", even though 95% of the people so labeled by them have never heard of it and don't know what they're talking about. --Aaron 20:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The mere fact that they're using the term "Freepers" gives me all the reason I need to discount their opinions, as the only people that incorrectly use that word as shorthand for "any conservative with a computer" are those that hang out on the hardcore left-wing sites (DU, Kos, etc.). And I too laugh at how we're getting characterized, as my own political beliefs are pretty much center right (more center than right) with some small-l libertarianism thrown in. To paraphrase the South Park guys, I'm not a gigantic fan of the Republicans (at least not lately, even though I am one), but I can't stand the Democrats. They've lost their minds over the last 20 years (but particularly the last six). In any case, at the end of the day I'm concerned about the quality of Wikipedia and the logic of edits to it. --Aaron 20:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for explaining what a "freeper" is; learn something new every day. I completely agree that anyone tossing labels like that around is not to be taken seriously. Could you enlighten me about one more thing — what's this term "moonbat" you (and others) used above mean? Derex 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I can think of at least one definition. Morton devonshire 04:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
QED. (Scroll down to "See also" at the bottom.) --Aaron 23:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, AfDs on this topic have slowed down considerably and it seems reasonable to assume that there will only be a couple of them at a time from now on rather than the flood that prompted me to create the page in the first place. If users feel that this page has outlived its usefulness than I'll shut it down. Nobody's complained to me about it recently or initiated any formal attempt to shut this page down so I'm not taking the complainers all that seriously. If I shut the page down it'll be because after about 55 AfDs including 44 deletes there aren't that many 9/11 conspiracy pages left to nominate. FWIW feel free to point out to anyone who accuses this page of being a "conservative hit squad" that I'm a democrat. GabrielF 20:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Consider this a complaint to you. I don't know that anyone has called it a "conservative hit squad". I have however noticed that several recent listings (not by you personally I think) have nothing to do with 9/11, but plenty to do with politics. Parallel to your disclaimer, FWIW I'm not a democrat or a leftist of any stripe. Derex 23:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, it's also monitored by persons who would oppose deletions. To wit, Derex and NBGPWS as well as others see as everything that everyone else sees. This is simply fair notice that an AfD is going on in an area of particular interest. All person are welcome to view and comment on these AfD's. The prupose of the list is obviously to remove overrepresented conspiracy cruft from Wikipedia but it is fair notice of what articles are considered conspiracy cruft.--Tbeatty 04:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. GabrielF 04:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, in spite of attempts to poison the well...--Rosicrucian 04:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what would have been swell? If you boys had noted on all these AFD's (what about 50 now?) that you found them through this page. Just a little note by your comment. _That_ would have been transparent. Sure, I'm monitoring this 50 deletes later, because I stumbled across it. Why do you think I make a point of pointing this page out every AFD I see it on now? So that _everyone_ is aware of it. If you had any desire for transparency, you would have put this in AFD space, Can't Sleep pointed out the relevant projects. Or, you would have publicly noted on the various AFD's that you came from here. So, NO you don't get to play the "aw shucks, everyone knows about this" card. It's becoming a "lightening rod" now because people are becoming aware of it now. I don't see it as a bit different than vote stacking. Sure, that's also transparent because anyone can see contribution lists. Indeed, many people now know to monitor Morton's contributions for soliciations during AFD's, but that's only because it's become so well known that he does it. If you're going to do things like this be _very_ public about them, and maybe people won't view it as sneaking around. Now, I've got a life to attend to, play whatever games you will. All dewatched. I'm starting to grow very sympathetic to the wikitruth crowd; what a waste. Derex 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you like some cheese with that? Morton devonshire 04:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a thought. I've seen similar here, but we're not a wikiproject, and I hesitate to toss such templates about.--Rosicrucian 03:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added The Clinton Chronicles

Ahoy mates!

I added a new Afd that meets ALL the requirements of the goals here and also follows past precedent by this noble group of editors! I hope we can join together to fight this scourge!

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clinton_Chronicles

NBGPWS 09:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed this listing, due to this users past vandalism of this noticeboard, if anyone feels I was wrong, please initiate a straw poll, thank you. --NuclearZer0 12:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I added it back in, then apparently you deleted it again, causing Tbeatty to think I never added it. Please leave it as it STANDS, showing that I added it early this morning. NBGPWS 18:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTE TO EDITORS

Please check the history on the noticeboardt page, *I* added the Clinton Chronicles in, and NuclearUmpf removed it, causing Tbeatty to possibly think that I did NOT add it to the page. To leave Tbeatty's comments is dishonest, as it indicates that I did not add it. Please restore the page to my last version.NBGPWS 18:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • If you come off as such a smartass moonbat rassafrassa frickenfrack, people might be more recptive to your input. BTW, I voted "merge" on your listing. - Crockspot 18:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility please. Thanks NBGPWS 18:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    • NPA Please, Nuclear. NBGPWS 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody please restore the page. (you should Nuclear, as YOU deleted it causing beatty to think I never listed it) I don't want to get a 3rr. Crocks, I salute you putting principles before partinsanship, as I believe your AfD vote does. NBGPWS 19:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think NBGPWS is correct, here. He followed the rules — this time — and deserves to have his own time stamp. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you sir, you're a scholar and a gentleman! (unike some others who may or may not have posted here!) NBGPWS 21:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Throwing y'all a bone!

Franklin Coverup Scandal

Whad'ya think?

NBGPWS 21:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move, Part 2

OK, now that that train wreck of an MfD is over, I'd like to get some views on this.

In that mess, Rosicrucian and myself had this little exchange:

  • Do any of you voting keep have an issue with it being moved into wikispace? It seems that would cover all the bases as similar pages already exist. *Sparkhead 16:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd require a more thorough explaination on what would be required of it if it were to migrate to wikispace. While the deletion sorting page seems like a likely candidate, its format also seems radically different. Perhaps you could explain further your proposal?--Rosicrucian 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know that I'd change the formatting much. The way the current DS pages are structured are not a required format, and it seems most of those AfD's don't see the sheer volume of comments the AfD's listed on this page do. Note the "template" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Template which isn't far off from the current structure of this page. I think it's a good fit. *Sparkhead 20:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That does seem like a pretty workable format.--Rosicrucian 21:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A few others commented it seemed like a good idea, and I don't recall any explicit resistance to it. If you check the template linked above, I believe the current format would need little changing. I don't want to put an official "requested move" for a user page, but this seems to have evolved past that and is practically a WikiProject. It should be made "officially" so. *Sparkhead 23:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support this if others wanted to get on board. Hell, I did support this on that discussion, and changed my vote to reflect it.--Rosicrucian 23:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mfd

considering that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion (second nomination) was deleted, i have a hard time to see who this does not violated the very same issues. I want to mfd it, but i seem unable to do it, since there has been a previos mfd. How do i creat a new one? --Striver 16:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to MfD this page but since the last MfD was closed less than two weeks ago as a snowball keep I don't think you'll get very far. GabrielF 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment, but that does not answer my question. --Striver 23:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The case could not be made for the vote-stacking allegation. In the case of your MfD, apparently many editors felt it was. I think your case was weakened by there already being an Islam deletion sorting page.--Rosicrucian 17:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Lets see what other people say. Again, how do i start a second mfd round? --Striver 21:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Considering the timing of it, I would think that a second mfd two weeks after the first would likely be speedy kept. But, as GabrielF said you're more than welcome to try a new nomination. It is identical to doing a second AfD nomination, just using the MfD templates.--Rosicrucian 23:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I tried, it did not work. That is why i am asking. --Striver 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I have another suggestion: don't take your frustration out on us. The two articles are not related. Go hassle someone else. Morton DevonshireYo 23:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you know of any other list of afd's i can "hassle"? --Striver 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Surely you realize this is skirting pretty close to WP:POINT.--Rosicrucian 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Strive-man. I think if you would've kept it on your userpage space, it would've been left alone. Trying to promote it to official Wikiproject space is what got you zapped. Morton DevonshireYo 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It was on the talk page of the main guild, but when the talk page became to large, the issues were splited of into sub-pages. One was about genreal comments on articles, another about users, and another about afd's. Deleting that pages is indirectly saying that projects may not announce afd's, or that projects may not split into sub-pages, or that they may not do so if the topic is afd's or... whatever, that really makes me angry. --Striver 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/b/User_talk%7EGabrielF_ConspiracyNoticeboard_b386.html"