Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Men's fashion freedom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is it with you people? You're the same bunch of ignorant folks who campaigned for the deletion of other similar issues - very well known throughout many circles, but apparently not known at all throughout your own circles.

All this comment merely underscores your lack of knowledge about current events. Dr1819 07:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • And your comment above highlights again your ignorance of Wikipedia policy and practice. What is needed is not rhetoric but references. Just zis Guy you know? 08:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT

Comments: 1 What Wikipedia is not 1.1 Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia

n/a with respect to the article in question

1.2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary

n/a with respect to the article in question

1.3 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

 : n/a with respect to the article in question. I wrote the article very recently. The issue has been around for more than a decade, and the concept has been around since the late 50's/early 60's.

1.4 Wikipedia is not a soapbox

n/a with respect to the article in question - it's a movement practiced by hundreds of thousands of men throughout the world.

1.5 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files

n/a with respect to the article in question

1.6 Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site

n/a with respect to the article in question

1.7 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

n/a with respect to the article in question

1.8 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

n/a with respect to the article in question (Wiki is definately not a crystal ball - I wish it were, as it would solve these incredulously ignorant deletions)

1.9 Wikipedia is not censored

n/a with respect to the article in question

2 What the Wikipedia community is not 2.1 Wikipedia is not a battleground

n/a with respect to the article in question, although some admins such as Zora and Just this guy, etc., have quite emphatically drawn their moral lines in the sand, despite the fact that World reality continues on outside of Wiki reality.

2.2 Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy

n/a with respect to the article in question

2.3 Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy

n/a with respect to the article in question

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DP

I ran the gamut of every Problem with Page, and the result is simple: Some people believe that this article meets one or more criteria. As given in the source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DP, however, deletion is not the solution. Please follow Wiki guidelines as clearly and unambiguously stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DP.

Regardless, while some people who're ignorant or apparently incapable of conducting any useful research/corroboration continue to push for deletion in violation of Wiki policy as stated in the links above, others who have a great deal more experience in these matters continue to support their inclusion.

Thought for the day: If Wiki is not an experiement in democracy, why does Wiki open the floor to anyone regarding article deletions, subjecting itself to the biases and prejudices of the masses at large, rather than simply taking the steps to verify the article's authenticity and make an informed, unbiased opinion?

By the way, Ezeu, I appreciate your objectivity and your taking the time to conduct additional research which showed that another article was indeed valid. Please let me know if you're having a difficult time finding the 1 Million + links I keep posting herein regarding Men's Fashion Freedom (some idiot keeps deleting my references). Dr1819 10:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Just this... etc., please consider the fact that way back in 2000, Shirley McLaine directed a movie called Bruno, about a boy who wanted to wear dresses because angels wore them. Bruno was the original title. It's now called "Dress Code." You'll find more information, here.

Some people's "enlightened" rantings notwithstanding, [men do indeed wear skirt around the world. Here's a couple of Sri Lankan fishermen (last page).

Two decades ago, people stuck their heads in the sand or their fingers in their ears and ranted, "ICANTHEARYOU-ICANTHEARYOU-ICANTHEARYOU!" when confronted with GLBT issues. Personally, I'm straight as an arrow, and I enjoy wearing skirts, as do billions of men throughout the modern world. I would appreciate it if those recommending deletion would pull their heads out of the sand and their fingers out of their ears, do a little research (it really doesn't actually hurt to click on the links in the article and herein) before ignorantly slamming an article as "unworthy" for no other reason than they've never heard of the issue.

Deletion by ignorance is pathetically inexcusable, having it's origens in the middle ages, and it's time this ridiculously stupid practice at Wiki take a very distant backseat to the far more advanced process of peer review, wherein those who know nothing about the contents of the article recurse themselves appropriately. Dr1819 10:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Response: Your comment was posted less than two minutes after my rough draft post, and before I could post a final draft. Please refrain from criticizing in haste. See below for more. Thank you. Dr1819 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: In substance, Dr1819, I think you miss the point of this discussion. It is not disputed that some men wear skirts, and that in certain countries, many men wear them. I do not think that any contributors here have a problem with that. We do not make judgements about what we record. What is disputed is whether the term "Men's fashion freedom", as denoting an actual social movement, is in sufficiently widespread use as to warrant an encyclopedia entry. I recommend you try and provide sources that show that this "movement" does not consist only of a few individuals and their blogs, in which case it would be non-notable. Sandstein 10:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: Sandstein, you're a late-comer to this series of talks. I had a previous article deleted, and the most often cited reason as to why involved the fact that others had never heard of it. Thank you for confirming the fact that the practice is indeed widespread, as most of the detractors claimed it wasn't. Since it was indeed widespread, the detractors' comments merely underscored their ignorance. Dr1819 15:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Dr1819, you have tried to modify your previous statement regarding Zora. I reverted this, because this is very bad practice on discussion pages - it renders the flow of the discussion incomprehensible. If you wish to modify your previous comments, please strike them through (like that) and add your new comments, and your signature, below. Thank you. Sandstein 13:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: I reverted it back to the way it's author (ME), intended it to be stated. If you'll take a moment to compare the date-time of my posting with that of your response, you'll see you were very quick (less than 2 minutes) to criticize, so quick, in fact, that I did not have an opportunity to read and edit it as is my normal practice (reading through the markups is difficult, at best - I prefer to review it in its final form). Please do not revert it to some other form that suits your own comments. If you feel your comments need to be changed, you're welcome to employ your technique of striking them out. Thank you. Dr1819 15:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: I reiterate that it's time the ridiculously stupid practice of deletion by ignorance be stopped, as it merely casts Wiki in a very bad light. Before anyone recommends an article for deletion, please realize that a lack of knowledge (ignorance) about an issue does not support an arguement that the issue doesn't exist or is unimportant. If you're not fully versed on the issue, please refrain from commenting on it. If you would like to comment on it, please take the time to educate yourself, first. It is not the author's job to educate you. That's your responsibility. Dr1819 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Peer review (by competant, well-informed peers) is the appropriate means by which articles should be considered for deletion. If you've never heard of the issue, you're probably not very well informed, and are therefore not the most appropriate individual to be calling the issue into question. Dr1819 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Note: The above comments are not directed at anyone in particular, and are therefore not personal attacks as has been insinuated. They remain legitimate concerns about the lack of quality control over appropriate Wiki content. Please do NOT change my comments into something more slanderous to prove your point. Any further tampering will be immediately reported as a violation of Wiki rules. Thank you. Dr1819 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you truly believe that Wikipedia is not a soapbox is "n/a with respect to the article in question" then you are clearly unable to take an objective look at your own postings. It is absolutely, positively obvious that you are using these articles and discussions as a soapbox. Fan1967 16:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Dr1819, as usual you are so far off the point that it is hard to see any route from where you are to where the point is. The fact that men wear kilts, skirts, togas and other garments is not and has never been in dispute. The article in question describes the men's fashion freedom movement. If you can cite any reliable sources which state that these men self-identify as part of the men's fashion freedom movement, it would be a shoo-in. As ever, you choose arm-waving. Just zis Guy you know? 22:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Responses*: KC, please be civil. By the way, both alternative lifestyles and non-conformal behavior are in the Encyclopedia Britannica, so it is by no means "non-encyclopedic." Your use of the non-existent term "cruft" is neologism.
Fan-1967, I'm sorry your perception is such. As a world traveller, I have a different perspective than most people in the U.S., and no longer believe, as I did when I was young, that lack of familiarity equates to either wrong or non-existence.
Just zis etc.: I gave numerous reliable sources for the other article you and other championed to deletion, and you ignored those, as well. However, since you're not the only reader here, I'll repost some of the sources, here, as well as some additional sources:
http://www.imff.net/ One of the earliest sites devoted to this topic (about ten years old)
http://www.realmenwearkilts.net/articles.html - References Men's Fashion Freedom
http://www.mensfashionfreedom.bravehost.com/ Another website devoted to this topic
http://www.tomscafe.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8535 Tom's Cafe, another older website devoted to this topic - contains many links to various resources on this subject
http://www.tomscafe.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8520 The page which shows that Tom's Cafe was established in 1996. Again, men's fashion freedom is not a "new event." Wiki contains thousands of articles about events and movements that are extremely recent, so the arguement claiming that something should be deleted simply because it's new is a non-sequitor. That the movement is at least a decade old as I've previously stated renders this arguement moot.
http://www.macabiskirt.com/in_the_news.php?action=list List of articles, two of which detail men who wear skirts, and one which mentions Men's Fashion Freedom
http://www.macabiskirt.com/in_the_news.php?action=view&id=21&page=1 The article which mentions men wearing skirts. And, well, what do you know? This 2004 article from the Spokane Times (Spokane, Washington), also mentions MUGs (Male Unbifurcated Undergarments), which you and others erroneously claimed wasn't an actual term. Strange how this "non-actual term" appears to have slipped by the editors of a major newspaper (not to mention being a well-known term amoung backpackers, kayakers, and other adventurists).
http://www.macabiskirt.com/in_the_news.php?action=view&id=1&page=2 Another article, this one seven years old (from 1999), again talking about how the skirts have become popular among men. From the Los Angelos Times - quite a prominant and reputable source, wouldn't you say, Justzis?
http://skirts.provocateuse.com/ Pics of around 32 Celebrity men wearing MUGs (Male Unbifurcated Undergarments).
http://www.zyra.org.uk/sk4men.htm A website with nearly a hundred links of retailers and commentaries from many different sources about Men's Fashion Freedom.
http://www.destinyslobster.com/unbifurcated/news.html Articles from CCN and others which detail the Men's Fashion Freedom movement.
http://www.google.com/Top/Society/People/Men/Issues/Fashion/ Google directory of links to websites and discussion groups dealing with Men's Fashion Freedom.
http://dmoz.org/Society/People/Men/Issues/Fashion/ DMOZ directory of much the same
http://groups.msn.com/MensFashionFreedom MSN's Men's Fashion Freedom group.
http://www.misterpoll.com/results.mpl?id=1176396755 A Mister Poll poll on Men's Fashion Freedom, with thousands of responses.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mensff/ Yahoo!'s Men's Fashion Freedom group.
http://www.seo-blog.org/2799_mens_fashion_freedom_blog A men's fashion freedom blog. Some very interesting links with commentary on society's
http://www.utilikilts.com/observer.htm Another news article, this one from The Observer, about men's fashion freedom. It's sad that her prejudices show through, but it nevertheless underscores the fact that it was newsworthy enough to print.
http://www.seo-blog.org/2799_mens_fashion_freedom_blog/archive/34967_the_evolution_of_gender.html Entry from the seo blog which details how the Men's Fashion Freedom movement isn't about anything new, but rather, how it's about regaining the many fashions we used to be free to wear (heels, skirts, dresses, tights, etc.) that have since somehow become taboo in modern, Western society. Fortunately, in many modern non-Western societies, men still wear skirts of many different styles, dresses (by many names), and even tights on a regular basis (they're called "strump-hosen" here in Germany, and are regularly worn by men during volksmarches, particularly with the traditional pants worn during volksmarches, which come to just below the knees (like capris pants). Socks are knee-high and cover the remainder of the exposed leg.
Folks, the references, links and resources go on and on and on and on... I could spend months and not cover them all. In defense of the accusations, is this topic relevant? Certainly - perhaps not as relevant as Gay and Lesbian issues which are now included in all modern encyclopedias (I'm straight, by the way...), but given the hundreds of thousands of Western men who push currently acceptable Western fashion norms, and the billions of men who go on wearing skirts as have their fathers and forefathers before them, it's [[very]] relevant. Perhaps not to the critics and detractors who keep trying to squash the movement (talk abou soapboxes - sheesh!). But to those who're involved in this movement, as I and many other thousands are? You bet it's relevant. Is this movement widespread? There's an estimated 2.8 Million men in America who wear non-traditional clothing on a regular basis. Of those, approximately 100,000 wear heels in public on a routine basis. And these stats do not include those who identify themselves as crossdressers, transvestites, transgenderists, transexuals, etc. These numbers simply reflect 100% U.S. American Males, all of whom are keenly interested in breaking the iron-clad bonds of what men can and can't wear, as dictated not only by the fashion media, but also by the fashion police such as yourselves. Relevant? Certainly far more relevant than the Toeplitz matrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeplitz_matrix), about which much is written, but about which very little is actually read! (And as a Math minor, I actually know what a Toeplitz matrix is, unlike most of you).
I have to ask you - how many of you are involved with the use of the Toeplitz matrix? Hmmm... Then if it's not relevant to you, why aren't you arguing for it's removal?
The point is that whether or not you find something relevant or not is in itself irrelevant. The key determinant factor as to the relevancy of a Wiki article is it's relevancy to society at large. Articles which some people find personally distastefull will retain a high degree of relevancy while nevertheless collecting a grossly skewed (disproportionate) number of "DELETE!!!" messages. The bottom line is that using a popular vote to decide whether or not an article should be kept or not is grossly flawed. Put simply, it's quite stupid. If Encyclopedia Britanica had operated this way, it's content would be grossly skewed with respect to society at large. Wiki is highly conformal as it is, because of it's current paradigm, and fails to reflect much of reality, not because it doesn't exist, but because it's been "edited out" by naive, ignorant "crusaders" of "how the world should be," rather than objective reporters of how the world is.

The difference between the two is the same as that between a group blog and a true encyclopedia. Bringing this thought home, so long as all of you continue your knee-jerk reactions to the relevancy of the topic for no other reason than the fact that it may not be relevant to you (or that you find it distasteful), you do Wiki, it's readers, and it's contributors, a grave disservice.

Dr1819 17:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • As I've said before, what is needed is references, not rhetoric. You really really need to go and read some policies and guidelines here; WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS, for example, and start playing the ball instead of the man. Strike out the blogs and personal pages (as we must) and your list of "references" vanishes in a puff of smoke. Either this is a significant movement with substantial non-trivial coverage in the mianstream media, in which case you should insert references, or it's not, in which case WP:NOT the way to make it so. It really is quite simple and has precisely nothing to do with whether any individual editor has any feelings on the issue itself. I imagine most of the others here share my indifference to it: I have no caring what people choose to wear (J-P Gaultier looked a tit, but he looks a tit anyway; Samuel L Jackson would look cooler than a six-pack of liquid nitrogen in a pink flowery frock should he choose to wear one). I prefer shorts, but chacun à son goût. I'm sure if you devoted as much effort to research as you do to argufying you'd have less trouble with your pet articles being nominated for deletion. But above all your are consistently evading the point: nobody denies that men wear skirts, what we question is whether the men's fashion freedom movement is itself notable (i.e. that a significant number of those men who wear skirts, kilts or whatever, self-identify as members of this movement by this name). The question re "MUG" was the same, and your failure to answer it was why it got deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 13:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Preface - I don't get it, Justzisguy - you say you don't care what people wear, then you spend half your post commenting on how you perceive the way men look wearing kilts. As for your ridiculous "vanishes in a puff of smoke" claim, it's ridiculous, as many of the references I cited have been around for a decade. More below:
  • Tenure ǂ reliability. If you could only bring yourself to read the guideline at WP:RS you would realise this. And yes, I don't care what they wear. Like I said, Gaultier looks like a tit whatever he wears, Jackson looks cooler than a cool thing whatever he wears. Neither has ever self-identified as a member of the "fashion freedom" movement, as far as the evidence thus presented goes. That is the point. Just zis Guy you know? 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Let's approach this logically (the numbers in Postulates, Supporting Arguements, and Conclusions match; ergo, Postulate 1 is supported by Supporting Argument 1, and concluded with Conclusion 1):
Postulates:
1. Any published content is a reference.
2. Everything on the Internet is published.
3. Much content, such as Wiki content and blogs, falls into the "self-published" category. Other content, such as news articles to which the publisher retains copyright, is not considered to be self-published.
4. Some Internet content, such as news articles from well-known publishers, is considered "published by reputable sources."
Supporting Arguements:
1. The definition of the word "publish" from Merriam Webster:
1 a : to make generally known b : to make public announcement of
2 a : to disseminate to the public b : to produce or release for distribution; specifically : PRINT 2c c : to issue the work of (an author)
2. The Internet is open to the public. Thus, all works within the Public Domain is considered "published."
3&4. Anything posted by a single individual, such as a blog, or a loose collection of individuals, such as on message forums or collective endeavors such as Wiki, is considered "self-published," as no single corporate entity edits it or retains copyright to it. Articles written by one or more people that are submitted to corporate entities, such as Time magazine or the Los Angelos Times, are not considered to be "self-published." Furthermore, most major newspapers are considered "reputable sources" of information, as they have a decided interest in ensuring their information is correct
Conclusions:
1. All content on the Internet is considered to be "published."
2. Given the Postulates and supporting arguements above, every link I posted above is technically a reference. Denying this defies logic.
3&4. Of the links I posted, most were self-published, but some were published by reputable sources.
  • Your first postulate is false, and therefore the entire argument is invalid. By consensus, detailed at WP:RS, we distinguish between that which is essentially self-published (blogs and so on), and by extension websites which advance a point of view, and that which appears in reputable publications. Peer-reviewed journals, major newspapers etc. Throughout this debate, and the previous ones, you have consistently failed to show any sign of recognising this. You have also consistently failed to show any sign of recognising the fact, pointed out multiple times by multiple people, that the fact of Sri Lankan fishermen wearing skirts has no bearing on the encyclopaedic merit of a Western movement promoting the acceptability of wearing such things, nor of that movement's preferred terminology for them. Scotsmen wear kilts, not MUGs. Ask them. I don't know how to put this in terms you can understand, and clearly neither do any of the others who have tried, which suggests that perhaps the problem is at your end. Just zis Guy you know? 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To date, Justzisguy, I've met each and every one of your counterarguements head-on, yet you continue to throw insupportable roadblocks, not to mention pure chaff, in attempts to sway public opinion to your side.

This approach to get an article you personally don't happen to agree with is dishonest, at best, and bears a striking similarity to the gay-bashing of the 80's and 90's. That communitity suffered a great deal from highly biased attempts to squash any and all legitimate commentary concerning GLBT issues. I find it rather difficult to believe that someone promoted to the status of a Wiki admin remains biased against honest content for whatever reason. Personally, I'd really like to know the reason - is it personal distaste? Do you think it's inappropriate for men to wear styles of clothing that resemble contemporary styles worn by women?
I know you're not part of the Men's Fashion Freedom movement. You're probably not part of the Polar Bear Club, either, yet that exceedingly small following has it's own Wiki page! [[1]] No one's recommending it for deletion because no one finds it personally distasteful. Nor does the page have any references - just a few external links. Yet it's considered a valid Wiki page. More to the point, even though most people would never jump into 35 degree water, most people have been exposed to this concept for many years, and this exposure, over time, has eliminated any personal bias.
Are you and the others recommending deletion simply unaware that many men involved in the Men's Fashion Freedom movement (referenced several times by reputable sources such as the Los Angeles Times in the links I posted above) have been involved for many years, that groups, both online, and in person, meet on a regular basis to discuss the issues and offer mutual support?
Of course not. If you and the others were actually aware of the issues, you wouldn't be recommending deletion. The fact of the matter is that you're not aware of the issues. There's nothing wrong with that, any more than than there's nothing wrong with not knowing that the C1 isomer of C60F36 has three planar delocalized aromatic rings. Is this important to you? Absolutely, as it's absolutely critical in developing long-chain fullerene molecules which have the highest strength (tensile) to weight ratio of any material on the planet. This will play a critical role in everything from fiber-reinforced plastics, ceramics and other materials used to build lighter and stronger structures, airplanes, and engines, as well as bullet-proof vests, and perhaps one day, even space elevators such as the Hoytether, which also has a Wiki page.
The underlying functions, here, are known in psychological terms as "systematic desensitization" and "unfamiliarity." Unfamiliarity has always bread distrust and a lack of approval. We humans are cautious, by nature, and tend to shoot first and ask questions later. It's a terrific tool useful for staying alive so we can evolve, but it has no use here on Wiki, so please leave it at the door. As for systematic desensitization, it comes into play because there are many potentially more objectionable Wiki articles out there, but because of your repeated exposure, it's no longer unfamiliar. Even though you may not personally identify, or even reject the content of some of the articles, because you've been exposed to these issues, their existence is valid in your eyes.
Thus, we get back to what's valid, and what's not. PLEASE, people - stop deleting articles about issues simply because you've never heard of the issue, or because you don't like it. While it may not be relevant to you, Men's Fashion Freedom is highly relevant to the hundreds of thousands of men around the world who're into alternative fashion, who're sick and tired of someone else dictating what they can and cannot wear. It's been written about in hundreds of newspapers, and tens of thousands of online articles. All related topics, such as MUGs (Male Unbifurcated Undergarments), men wearing skirts or other articles of clothing not typically worn by the Western male number in the millions. It's not considered deviant by DSM-IV criteria, nor is it grounds for denial of a security clearance.
Bottom line: I'm truly sorry that those recommending deletion have either failed to take the time to pursue the links, or are apparently unable to find anything on the Internet yourself. I'm appalled, however, at the numerous deceptions that people have propogated with respect to the validity of Men's Fashion Freedom and the MUGs page. I can overlook ignorance, but willful ignorance (refusing to follow links or educate oneself on an issue) is inexcusable. Outright lies and deceptions for the purposes of banning or promoting content is totally unacceptable.
Men's Fashion Freedom does not violate copyright, and has been thoroughly, if not exhaustively, verified, in accordance with Wiki's policy, by its most strict standards, as well as in excrutiating depth. Claiming otherwise merely reveals your own prejudices, biases, etc. We are long past the Victorian and Edwardian Periods, people. Get over it.
  • Here's an interesting link (also mentions both Men's Fashion Freedom and MUGs): [Kilt Day Dr1819 15:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So you think yet another reference back to the Braveheart forums community constitutes a relibale source? Guess again. Copyright? Not an issue - if it violated copyright it would be blanked or removed immediately. Lack of external references in reputable mainstream media is the problem. As Geogre says, anything which vanishes when the power goes out is worth less as a source than something which needs a flood to destroy it. As usual your argument is hyperbole and arm-waving: you have yet to provide a shred of evidence that those voting delete (which does no, incidentally, include me at this point) are motivated by anything other than concern for the project and adherence to policy, despite your repeated assertions that they are motivated by other things. So we are back where we started: if you can cite examples of significant mainstream coverage of the men's fashion freedom movement, by that name, do go right ahead. That's what's needed. It's all that has ever been needed. Per policy, this article currently fails WP:V and WP:RS. Read them. Understand them. WP:CITE in the article. Not the blogs and forums, real stories in real newspapers and magazines. How hard can it be? Just zis Guy you know? 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/6/06

  • Response LOL, not vexatious on the topic, Lar, just the gross misapplication of Wiki rules. When people follow the rules, I'm fine. When people don't follow the rules, slinging around terms like "neologism" and concepts such as "notability" before taking the time to become familiar with the issue - that's the only time I'm vexed. I'm a member of a board where the administrators (of which I'm one), are sticklers for clear, concise, logical, and objective arguement. Posts that violate the rules, using unsupportable arguements such as ad hominem, and appeals to emotion, etc., are summarily deleted. It makes for a very slick board. Wiki would improve greatly if those doing the editing and recommendations were held to the same high standards. You may not like me or my approach, but I intend to continue pushing for more objective and well-informed discussion about this and other issues. Thanks! Dr1819 17:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks JzG for refactoring to talk. Normally I'm not a fan of that but in this case. whoa, it looks a lot cleaner now. ++Lar:

And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr1819

By the way, JzG, your arguements for deletion read like the freshmen's first attempts in Philosophy 101. You make so many errors in logical discourse, I can't help but question your credentials as an admin. Ostensibly it's because you're well-liked and were peer-nominated. Regardless, your arguements themselves, as I stated rather abundantly on my user page, remain grossly in error, are without substance, often wrong, largely fallacious... I am not attacking you in the least, JzG, so please don't jump their, either. But you (alone among all the Wiki admins, I might add - suspcious), are attempting to delete yet another of my articles about a similar topic you've already claimed once that you find distasteful. This personal vendetta of yours must stop, as it violates numerous Wiki rules and procedures, and your underhandedness to remove my counters to your arguements and the posts of others is totally unacceptable. Dr1819 21:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Lar, as has been abundantly proven through the many links I provided (which JzG just removed), it meets no definition of neologism whatsoever, as it's a concept that's been around for more than a decade and a term used by hundreds of thousands. Please, you and others STOP throwing words around without backing them up with citations, evidences, logical discourse, and other justifications to back up your claims.

Until then, your claims are absolutely groundless. Dr1819 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way round: the article makes claims, those claims must be proved so the article can stay. Thus far you have devoted enormous amounts of energy to argufying, but have not actually fixed the problems in the article. I suggest you do so. Just zis Guy you know? 22:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't encourage him/her to edit the article; his/her editing of the article turned out to be notably non-productive in the past... Churchh 00:57, 10 June 2006