User talk:Aftli
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Aftli, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
Contents |
[edit] RfC
Howdy! I've temporarily de-listed the RfC you posted, it's severely misformatted. Please modify the actual RfC document following the format shown in the other examples on the WP:RFC page, then post it again. If you need any assistance, let me know. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Some responses
Discussion moved to Talk:Shock_site#Mangojuice so everybody else can see it in a much more public place. Aftli 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Enough.
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mangojuicetalk 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please
Please don't make personal attacks and allegations of personal vendettas and ill intent. We are to assume good faith here in the WP community, and it would be best if everyone tried to act in a constructive, positive manner. Thank you. Blueaster 04:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. Mangojuicetalk 12:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Very cute little picture you used there. I made no personal attack - I referred you to meta:Don't_be_a_dick, which is linked from WP:IAR. Aftli 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RE:The Wrong Version
It's always [the wrong version when a page gets protected. Nevertheless, I reverted to the last version that met WP:ATT when I protected that page and that is the version that should stand pending some sort of consensus on the talkpage.--Isotope23 16:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- There IS concensus on the talk page. Mangojuice is the ONLY one actively involved with the article that wants the current version to stay, thus HE is the one participating in an edit war against the REST of the community. Please see WP:IAR - there have been numerous discussions on whether or not to keep the article. It's here to stay, and WP:ATT prevents the article from being improved and edited by the community, so it should be ignored, since there never will be any reliable sources for any information on that page. Aftli 16:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you have it wrong. WP:IAR does not trump WP:ATT. If information cannot meet WP:ATT then it does not belong in Wikipedia. Nobody is suggesting this article be removed from Wikipedia, but anything appearing under examples of shock sites must have reliable sources associated with them. If there are no reliable sources then the site does not belong on Wikipedia.--Isotope23 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but YOU have it wrong. WP:IAR is like rock, paper, and scissors all rolled into one. It is "an official policy on the English Wikipedia. The concept expressed [there] is fundamental to the encyclopedia's operation." It specifically applies to this situation - the rules, specifically WP:ATT, prevent users from maintaining or improving upon that page. Aftli 17:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:ATT is official policy as well, so trying to argue that WP:IAR somehow is more important than WP:ATT is simply not a good argument. Adding unsourced information to a page in no way meets WP:IAR's directive of "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." If anything adding unsourced or poorly sourced information to article detracts from the quality of Wikipedia, and I think you will find that general consensus here supports that idea. WP:IAR is not carte blanche to ignore all other policies when they are inconvenient to follow.--Isotope23 18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- But it is carte blanche when the rules prevent the article from being maintained. The subject itself is Internet phenomena, and thus by nature no information in it can be credibly sourced. So, WP:ATT contributes significantly to the degradation of the material found in the article. In such cases where there exist no reliable sources, we must either WP:IAR, or at least allow less mainstream sources (sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica) to be the sources for the information. Give it up, the community on the talk page, with the exception of a sole administrator with a vendetta against the article agrees - the other information belongs there. Aftli 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think you will find scant support for your opinion in the more general pool of Wikipedia contributors. You may feel that WP:ATT degrades the material in that article, but I would strongly argue that having unsourced or poorly sourced (i.e. ED) information in an article degrades Wikipedia as a whole and to me that is far more important of an issue. The community isn't just a handful of editors who are on an article talkpage, there is a wider definition of what constitutes the Wikipedia community as a whole and hopefully the RfC that has been started will garner some input from that community. What I want to see before I unprotect this article is input from individuals who have no history here.--Isotope23 19:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- You may as well delete the article. Consensus is normally defined by the "popular" consensus - your definition of it is vastly different. You are basically saying you will not unprotect the article until everybody agrees with *you*. That will never, ever happen. And it goes to prove that you're just another troll over-zealous administrator on a power trip. The article, by your saying you will not unprotect it until there is "consensus", will remain protected forever, effectively ruining the entire community's input on the article, and ruining the entire mentality and reason for Wikipedia's being. Good job. Again, may as well just delete the article - I'd much rather see the article deleted than it being a great example of how horrible of a source a Wikipedia article can be when overzealous troll administrators step in to silence the rest of the editing community. Aftli 20:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- How interesting... I don't remember ever saying I would keep the article protected until everyone agrees with me. What I want to see is a consensus from non-involved editors who can critically assess the situation from the outside rather than editors have been involved in this dispute and may not be the most neutral parties here. I protected the article so this consensus building isn't marred by edit warring in the process. Beyond that, I'd suggest you take a bit of time to review one of our other policies: WP:CIVIL. Going around calling other editors "troll over-zealous administrator on a power trip" probably isn't the best way to win an argument.--Isotope23 20:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- You said it would remain protected until there is consensus. There already IS consensus, just not that which you and your other troll moderator friend agree with. So, that translates to: 'I will not unprotect the page until people there agree with me'. Also, I'm stating the obvious, as far as you and your friend there being on a power trip. You and Mangojuice are exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia, especially when it conflicts with whether or not Wikipedia is a credible, reliable source on a subject. The article as it stands is simply wrong, and you are part of the reason for that. Aftli 21:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'd love to hear your theory about how adding content with no sources or completely unreliable sources somehow makes Wikipedia "a credible, reliable source on a subject." Like I said before, I don't think you'll find much general support for that idea amongst the more established editing community here at Wikipedia.--Isotope23 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- You said it would remain protected until there is consensus. There already IS consensus, just not that which you and your other troll moderator friend agree with. So, that translates to: 'I will not unprotect the page until people there agree with me'. Also, I'm stating the obvious, as far as you and your friend there being on a power trip. You and Mangojuice are exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia, especially when it conflicts with whether or not Wikipedia is a credible, reliable source on a subject. The article as it stands is simply wrong, and you are part of the reason for that. Aftli 21:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- How interesting... I don't remember ever saying I would keep the article protected until everyone agrees with me. What I want to see is a consensus from non-involved editors who can critically assess the situation from the outside rather than editors have been involved in this dispute and may not be the most neutral parties here. I protected the article so this consensus building isn't marred by edit warring in the process. Beyond that, I'd suggest you take a bit of time to review one of our other policies: WP:CIVIL. Going around calling other editors "troll over-zealous administrator on a power trip" probably isn't the best way to win an argument.--Isotope23 20:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- You may as well delete the article. Consensus is normally defined by the "popular" consensus - your definition of it is vastly different. You are basically saying you will not unprotect the article until everybody agrees with *you*. That will never, ever happen. And it goes to prove that you're just another troll over-zealous administrator on a power trip. The article, by your saying you will not unprotect it until there is "consensus", will remain protected forever, effectively ruining the entire community's input on the article, and ruining the entire mentality and reason for Wikipedia's being. Good job. Again, may as well just delete the article - I'd much rather see the article deleted than it being a great example of how horrible of a source a Wikipedia article can be when overzealous troll administrators step in to silence the rest of the editing community. Aftli 20:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think you will find scant support for your opinion in the more general pool of Wikipedia contributors. You may feel that WP:ATT degrades the material in that article, but I would strongly argue that having unsourced or poorly sourced (i.e. ED) information in an article degrades Wikipedia as a whole and to me that is far more important of an issue. The community isn't just a handful of editors who are on an article talkpage, there is a wider definition of what constitutes the Wikipedia community as a whole and hopefully the RfC that has been started will garner some input from that community. What I want to see before I unprotect this article is input from individuals who have no history here.--Isotope23 19:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- But it is carte blanche when the rules prevent the article from being maintained. The subject itself is Internet phenomena, and thus by nature no information in it can be credibly sourced. So, WP:ATT contributes significantly to the degradation of the material found in the article. In such cases where there exist no reliable sources, we must either WP:IAR, or at least allow less mainstream sources (sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica) to be the sources for the information. Give it up, the community on the talk page, with the exception of a sole administrator with a vendetta against the article agrees - the other information belongs there. Aftli 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Btw, mango wasn't the only who edited out the unreferenced material, and he also has had report in his request for comment page Blueaster 00:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:ATT is official policy as well, so trying to argue that WP:IAR somehow is more important than WP:ATT is simply not a good argument. Adding unsourced information to a page in no way meets WP:IAR's directive of "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." If anything adding unsourced or poorly sourced information to article detracts from the quality of Wikipedia, and I think you will find that general consensus here supports that idea. WP:IAR is not carte blanche to ignore all other policies when they are inconvenient to follow.--Isotope23 18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but YOU have it wrong. WP:IAR is like rock, paper, and scissors all rolled into one. It is "an official policy on the English Wikipedia. The concept expressed [there] is fundamental to the encyclopedia's operation." It specifically applies to this situation - the rules, specifically WP:ATT, prevent users from maintaining or improving upon that page. Aftli 17:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you have it wrong. WP:IAR does not trump WP:ATT. If information cannot meet WP:ATT then it does not belong in Wikipedia. Nobody is suggesting this article be removed from Wikipedia, but anything appearing under examples of shock sites must have reliable sources associated with them. If there are no reliable sources then the site does not belong on Wikipedia.--Isotope23 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
