Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Clinton Chronicles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] thread from page
- Question What makes this a "bad faith" nomination? And what on earth do the motives of the user have to do with merits of the AFD? Derex 19:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Quite ironically you answered your own question, wouldnt it be just as ridiculous if we get a delete vote and remove an article because a nominator has a problem with his targeted audience of voters. Your lack of understanding in this matter is probably what causes you not to understand, but the nominator put this up for AfD then immeditatly spammed the noticeboard, one he previous spammed in violation of WP:POINT, noted by an admin, which was disruptive, also noted. The user puts this up for AfD then spams the noticeboard in question to once again prove some political point. I doubt you would change your mind because you are simply pleading ignorant and know quite well of the situation since you actually were warned about reverting back to that WP:POINT violation.[.[1] ] --NuclearZer0 19:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The closing admin may wish to discount nom's vote if he suspect that vote is not in good faith, though I see no evidence of that. However, there is no reason to discount the AFD itself. I certainly am not ignorant of that history, and have never said that. I am not aware that having a disagreement with Zer0 forfeits the right of a user to list something at AFD. By the same token, should your right to nominate here be forfeited because you have disagreed with the nom? I think the merits should be quite a sufficient basis for the discussion without assaults on other users; don't you. Thank you. Derex 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Who said someone can't vote? I think you should calm down a bit. Also closing an AfD for WP:POINT is actually allowed, hence the need to point out the WP:POINT violation. Good day, I ask you stop responding to me as you seem hostile, unless of course you can calm down a bit. --NuclearZer0 19:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- You have me utterly confused then. It seems you're saying that we should discount the remarks of _everyone_ because the nominator had no right (in your mind) to open a discussion, yet his supposedly bad faith comments _should_ be counted in that discussion which shouldn't exist because he's in bad faith? Again, as to me, I wish you'd stick to merits and quit discussing personalities. I'm not the least bit hostile or upset, though perhaps I would be entitled to given your remark above to me "I am not interested in your arguements". Now _that_ sounds a bit hostile. I nonetheless welcome any further responses by you to me, as I think a levelheaded discussion on the merits serves everyone. Derex 20:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think you should sit down and have some tea, your attempts to understand the deeper meaning in the world seems to be causing you trouble. Instead of attempting to interpret, simply understand this. You are arguing notability, I am arguing breach of policy/guideline, they are apples and oranges. I am saying we cannot argue notability without addressing the obvious policy/guideline violation. Good day. --NuclearZer0 20:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- ODD! He told ME to have some tea too! Maybe he's a tea salesman trying to stir up business! NBGPWS 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Selling green tea .20 cents a gallon. Can't beat that. I have been exposed as the pusher of green tea I am. --NuclearZer0 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ironically enough, I was actually just having a cup of Darjeeling. I'd offer you both a cup, but it loses a bit of flavor over the Internet. Cheers, though. Derex 20:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Notice
I am being accused of vandalism in edit summaries yet noone edit the article for 1 hours before Derex edited [2] and 10 minutes after the original post, 1 minute after his last message and then he went on to post another message after that. --NuclearZer0 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, just leave my comments the hell alone. They are not yours to edit. Not one thing in my comments had anything at all to do with you or your response; so you have no basis for complaint and no basis to change my edits 4 times let alone once. I am perfectly entitled to update my considered judgement and edit my statements accordingly. Now please just drop it, and let's move on. Derex 06:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Simmer down and have some tea. You should not edit your comments after they have been responded to. I think its best you stop engaging me as you tend to do it in a hostile manner and I do not think that is best for this project we are trying to contribute to. --NuclearZer0 12:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Derex is perfectly allowed to edit his comments after they have been responded to. You, however, should not edit another user's comments. The user is entitled to his/her opinion and to change said opinion as s/he sees fit. I'm just surprised that Derex didn't give you a warning for that sort of stunt. --Strothra 21:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually no he is not, because I responded to a specific thing, I am surprised you would rehash something thats already ended, at times its best not to get involved because you just restart the issue. --NuclearZer0 22:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't rehashing anything. It would annoy me if someone ran around changing my comments back to something after I have changed my opinion. You apparently don't think that he has the right to edit his own comments, and if yours are no longer relevant you have the right to strike them out. There his comments and don't belong to you simply because you responded to them. Show me where the AfD policies agree with your claim. --Strothra 22:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are late in this discussion and I am formally explaining to you that your comments here only cause harm in resurfacing the issue. The comments were moved here by Derex as I requested because of the issue, again, you are causing drama by continuing to insert yourself into a closed issue. --NuclearZer0 22:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- PS when you change your mind its best to strike out, instead of just removing, you can see other AfD's if you do not understand. --NuclearZer0 22:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- My comments are not causing harm. If I'm misunderstanding the AfD process then I would like to know since it would help myself in the future. Perhaps I'm missing something, that's not causing drama, that's asking for clarification. I completely agree that it's best to strike out. I just didn't see where that's required. --Strothra 22:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't rehashing anything. It would annoy me if someone ran around changing my comments back to something after I have changed my opinion. You apparently don't think that he has the right to edit his own comments, and if yours are no longer relevant you have the right to strike them out. There his comments and don't belong to you simply because you responded to them. Show me where the AfD policies agree with your claim. --Strothra 22:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually no he is not, because I responded to a specific thing, I am surprised you would rehash something thats already ended, at times its best not to get involved because you just restart the issue. --NuclearZer0 22:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Derex is perfectly allowed to edit his comments after they have been responded to. You, however, should not edit another user's comments. The user is entitled to his/her opinion and to change said opinion as s/he sees fit. I'm just surprised that Derex didn't give you a warning for that sort of stunt. --Strothra 21:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Simmer down and have some tea. You should not edit your comments after they have been responded to. I think its best you stop engaging me as you tend to do it in a hostile manner and I do not think that is best for this project we are trying to contribute to. --NuclearZer0 12:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
