From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Argumen -- er, Discussion

[edit] Prior to Jul. 30

• 'Comment' "For those calling this a vanity website. I guess you missed the points that SD.net is directly related to the STvsSW discussion (which has a Wiki entry) and SD.net has related sections ranging on other topics." Yes, topics which include the web site owner making fun of those who disagree with him in a public way, as well as several links to topics which contain his personal viewpoints and opinions. "It is not a vanity forum entry because it includes information on more then just the forums." Personal viewpoint information, outside of the discussion forums which, as I said before, are merely a sounding board for the owner and those who agree with him to make fun of those who disagree, with low brow tactics such as showing said persons email address rather then allowing them to remain somewhat anonymous, prompting other forum members to harass the person. Some choice gems from this 'non-vanity website':(From 'Darth Wong', aka Michael Wong, website owner) 'Perhaps it's time to make a page dedicated to RevPrez and put it on the main site? That will give it a higher Google ranking than a rant here. Perhaps somebody here can collect all of the relevant information. And does anyone know what his real name is anyway? RevPrez is a stupid ******* name.' Is there a REASON to let a site like this have its own article, especially since it's ALREADY linked to the only relevant topic (ST v. SW)? mike_castaldo 11:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Your entire argument boils down to the fact that you don't like Mike Wong. Many of your arguments could be levied against the Something Awful Wiki entry, and I don't see the SA wiki entry going away. Fact of the matter is SD.net is one of the more visited forums on the internet and it has content in multiple areas. Its one of the better resources on the issue of Creationism vs Evolution. The STvsSW aspect is run by Mike who is an engineer and known to be an expert on the subject. The best you can do is levy personal attacks against Mike's character. Since when is good character a requirement? Your letting your personal opinion cloud the issue here. BTW, nice ad hominen trying to drag me into this and slander my name. You want to have some real fun, check the SD.net hate mail pages. I am in there, and I still support having the SD.net Wiki entry. Not so biassed as you claimed. Alyeska 16:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps because I know of SD.net and not Something Awful. I have no feelings against Wong himself, but rather looked up the site in question since it's on the cutting block and looked it over before posting on here. And SD.net's forums may have multiple content, but a lot of said content is of little use, postings of mostly opinions, opinions that seem to be greatly flamed if not held by the site owner and those who think like him. As for C v. E, then why not just have his page be a footnote in THAT thread rather then giving it its own article? I see little reason to actually give the entire webpage an article when, if it's as useful as you say, the pertinent articles within Wong's website can be linked or footnoted to the articles themselves. And I'm not levying any attacks against his character. All I did was point out that a large amount of the website is a PERSONAL OPINION page interspersed with a few technical tidbits here and there, supplanted by his attacks on those who disagree with him, both on the webpage and in the forums. I've looked over this page, and quite frankly, see it as having little intrinsic value in itself, not nearly enough to warrant its own article. Most, if not all of the actual useful information can be found elsewhere anyway, with the 'main' focus of the webpage being the SW v. ST debates, which already has its own thread. (Edit: And the only one here who's making attacks here seems to be you. All I did was mention the fact that, as a member of the forums in question, as well as the starter of one of the threads I mentioned, that your opinion could be biased.) Mike_Castaldo 13:22 PM 25 July 2005 (EST)
• Comment You did make personal attacks against Mike by attacking his character and the way he conducts himself. After claiming you made no such attacks you further attack him. His webpage started as STvsSW, but its evolved well beyond that. The CvE section itself is quite large and very notable. The entire page is worth noting on Wikipedia. The entire point about Wikipedia is expanded knowledge and deletion of material is not something to be taken lightly. This wiki entry is not a vanity entry because Mike is not involving himself in it. Furthermore the page has been updated and attempts have been made to be neutral on its comments. Also, do you have sufficent knowledge on the subject matter to claim that Mike is posting personal opinions as opposed to educated postings? He is an acnknowledged subject expert and you can't just write him off as posting personal opinions when you know very little about the subject matter. As to my "personal biass". I am in Mike's hate mail page and I also bump heads with him frequently. I am one of the very few Trekkies on the board who bothers stand up, and I also happen to moderate the forums. My potential personal biasses are being left at home. From what I know of Wikipedia the SD.net article deserves to be kept. Alyeska 17:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)  
• Comment I find it rather sad that people just post VFDs and try to get a page deleted rather then to discuss the page in the discussion forum for that page and try to get it fixed. Its like some people don't want to be bothered to actualy contribute to Wiki and just about trying to get what they don't like deleted. Since the SD.net entry has been proposed for VFD not a single person voting against it has bothered to discuss potentialy fixing the page in the discussion section. Alyeska 17:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)  

- *Comment No, I did not make personal attacks. I pointed out that HE makes personal attacks against those who disagree with him. All I did was point out the words he's put out there for all to see. The entire page is NOT worth noting, as other's have given reasons, as have I. As for seeing you on the hate mail page, you should check again. You aren't on there. And where is he acknowledged as an 'expert', outside of his own page? All I've seen from your last few posts is that you're trying to make me attack YOU by saying I attack Wong, when all I've done is show what he's said, in his own words no less. And why fix a webpage that has little use, when anything of potential use can be hotlinked to the pertinent articles?   - Mike_Castaldo 13:50, 25 July 2005 (EST)  

- *Comment http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/Babies/ Try doing research. Alyeska 18:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)  

- *Comment Next time I'll make sure to look for a needle in a haystack first, before I try to find something even more buried. (your actual user name, since it's not even on THAT page either. Unless I'm supposed to magically know it's you. Mike_Castaldo   - 14:06, 25 July 2005 (EST)  

- *Comment This is merely proof that you know very little about the subject matter. I am one of the more visible Trekkie members of the VS community and my entry on Mike Wong's hatemail page is even more well known considering its age. Alyeska 18:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)  

- * Comment That's a bit of a false premise there. Just because I don't know YOUR personal story doesn't mean I didn't go to the site, looked at it, and saw nothing of special value that warranted its own place in the wikipedia. I just don't know your entire history with said site, which is hardly a pre-requisite for an informed vote. You still haven't answered by whose authority Mr. Wong is a acknowledged as an 'expert' by, either. As for spacebattles.com, it's a longer established site that has more historical context when shown within the framework of the SW v. ST debate, as well as having a much larger user base then that of SD.Net Mike_Castaldo 17:02, 25 July 2005 (EST) &

- *Comment If by marginalizing votes you mean showing the fact that there's a thread which is showing the forum members how to vote here on wikipedia to keep "their" site on the wiki, then yes. And from the looks on said board, its the membership of THAT site that believes in attacking, especially with childish cuss words, not I. And I already made my case, which several people (most likely NOT from your site) agree with. I should be careful though, or else you may try and track me down as you did the other person who vocally voted against you.Mike_Castaldo 17:06 EST, 27 July 2005 (EST)

- *Comment In other words, Castaldo, "I don't attack: I insinuate." Please, try to keep contradictions out of your tart comments. As an aside, are you going to put the Something Awful forums page up for delete? It seems to be nothing more than that of which you accuse Stardestroyer.net. Neocapitalist 21:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)  

- *Comment Real mature there Castaldo, real mature. Now your accusing me of stalking people. Its quite obvious what your actions represent to the rest of us, so you can stop trying to hide behind your attempt at playing the high road. Your making accusations against SD.net and ignoring the realities of Wikipedia entries. You want to make Wikipedia an exclussive site rather then an inclussive one. You can't make any argument against the SD.net entry other then that its "vanity". You ignore the fact that it contains more then just information on the forums. And you ignore the fact that SD.net is only marginaly younger then SB.com and has forums nearly as large as SB.com. Your inconsistencies and outright hostility towards SD.net is unbecoming. Alyeska 21:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)  

- *Comment Did I accuse YOU of such a thing personally? All I did was state my (somewhat justified) worry that someone from said site will do such a thing, since there's evidence of it being done before. And I do not want to make Wikipedia 'exclusive'. I just frankly don't see the NEED for THIS site to be on here. And the information on the forums isn't exclusive enough to warrant its own entry ON the wikipedia. Outside of the site owners personal 'rants', (in his own words on the site) there's nothing within the site which deems it important enough to merit its own entry, and THAT'S what I've been basing my decision on, although the users on the forums ARE rather rude, from what I read before, during, AND after I made my decision. And in history, everyone remembers the Model T when it comes to cars, not the Model A. SB.com is a Model T when it comes to the SW v. ST debates, as well as not cluttering its site with information which doesn't have anything to do with that genre, from what I can see. SD.net doesn't. I have no hostility towards the site itself, even after being blatently insulted on its forums for my beliefs. Stop trying to turn this into a personal affair. Mike_Castaldo 21:37, 28 July 2005 (EST)  

- *Comment Castaldo, what is your motivation for seeing this article deleted whilst other articles that actually DO live up to your accusations of 'vanity' don't get your "special attention"? I smell ulterior motives and political maneuvering, and as such it must be exposed and severely dealt with. Also, look here: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=1722750#1722750 E. Sn0

• Comment One again you reduce your arguments entirely onto the forums and ignore the rest of the content of the pages. You talk of SB.com being the Model T, as in its the first. SD.net is built on the ASVS newsgroup which was formed for STvsSW discussion around the same time as SB.com started those discussions. SB.com and SD.net are the two biggest websites when it comes to the arguments and the experts of the debate come from both websites. Once again you prove just how little you know and you refuse to look beyond the forums. Alyeska 07:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)  

- *Comment I already said what my motivation was for this site's deletion was, Sn0. And if the VfD passes, what makes you think I WON'T press for other marginal sites that I don't think count? How can I have an ulterior motive or be manuvering 'politically' when I have NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SITE PERSONALLY, as your weblink helpfully points out. I'm not a member of the site. I have no interaction with the site. I am unbiased towards the site itself. And I do not focus only on the forums, if you actually paid attention Alyeska. You're the one who keeps on claiming things that aren't true, and to be honest, our little round and rounds have NOTHING to do with the vote at hand. As such, unless you try and defend the site with something that can be argued, I have little else to say to you. As for this being a 'lynchpin' in the SW v ST debate, then in that case this should only BE in SW v ST itself, rather then merit its own site. It truly does not have anything of value beyond this, with its creationist arguements easily seen elsewhere, such as talkorigin.org, and most everything else on the site itself is vanity rants by the owner. Mike_Castaldo 12:33 28 July 2005 (EST)  

- :*Comment You are wondefully strawmanning, Castaldo. You keep diverting the issue into a perceived ad hominem abusive on yourself, and completely ignore Alyeska's point. If this is your definition of vanity, I expect you to put the Something Awful forums wiki page up for deletion and the Spacebattles.com wiki page up for deletion. Immediately. Or else this will become an issue of you being a hypocrite.  

- ::*Comment Don't hold your breath about his nominating SA and SB for VFD should he somehow get this article deleted. After all, it already is an issue of him being a hypocrite since he won't <expletive>ing realize why exactly we "tack on terms such as strawman and whatnot" when he clearly knows what they all mean; dismissing all reasoned arguments against his wanting this article deleted as somehow being ad-hominems directed at him. Either that or he's lying through his teeth (actually, he is when you think about it). E. Sn0

• Comment I do so love how personal attacks on me are supposed to be well recieved because you tack on terms such as strawman and whatnot. I didn't ignore anyone's point. And something awful and spacebattles don't have the same content as SD.net, although spacebattles comes close. I don't take well to challenges. And adding a single 'Immediately' doesn't make me wish to do it any sooner. And the only one's trying to change the focus away from the issue at hand and turn it into a personal battle seem to be those who support SD.net. As such, unless you too have something to add to the actual discussion at hand, I'll happily ignore you as well. Mike_Castaldo 17:44, July 28 2005 (EST)

- *Comment Your awfuly defensive there Castaldo. We've already pointed out your hypcrocracy. It is not a personal attack when its the truth. We point out the flaws in your arguments and the way you are conducting yourself and you consider that a personal attack. I hate to say what you would consider someone calling you dirty names. Alyeska 07:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)  

- Comment Personal attacks are carried out on you Mike_Castalado due to the fact that after we have expalined why your belief that this article is "not needed" is unfound and misplaced, you continue to whip up rediculous analogies that are annapropriate for the basis of our debate.  

- for example, your comment that it was the Ford-T model which every one remembers as opposed to the Ford-A model, and therefore a similar comparison could be superimposed on the relationship between the SDN and SB.com wikipedia entries is insane. - Using your own logic, you would be implicating that we could forget Marie Curie as the discoverer of radiation as everyone thinks of Albert Einstein when we think of radiation.  

- Obviously you have forgotten the main purpose of Wikipedia, which by the way is to teach and record, in your crusade against retarded entries. No matter how noble your intentions are, rethink your strategies.

- *Comment As I said before, from here on in I'm not responding to personal attacks, and hopefully those who monitor this VfD moderator wise will see them for what they are, and clean them up, so the actual issue at hand can be discussed, rather then this attempt to derail said issue with these attacks. Mike_Castaldo 07:35, 29 July 2005 (EST)

Comment There are no 'personal attacks' here other than the ones YOU keep perpetrating against this article, your opposition here, and Wikipedia itself with your desparate and messy defense of this frivolous and quite frankly stupid VFD (screw you very freaking much ComCat!)  

- This is now nothing more than a smear campaign by Castaldo against his opposition simply because he's losing the argument and badly with his broken analogies between SDnet, SB, and various old-timey Ford cars. He's painting logic and reasoned argument as 'personal attacks' when no such distortions are in any way justified; simply because he's losing. E. Sn0   -

- :Comment All right, Castaldo. It's time for a SmackDown. Your entire position can be condensed down to: "Stardestroyer.net is not specialized enough for my tastes. Why can't we just merge it with the general topic page? There's no reason to actually put a page on Wikipedia when we can actually link to that page from the main topic. Besides, the forum users called me names; they're mean, and so is Wong, which means I can dismiss his entire site as personal opinion." - :The reason for these 'personal attacks' you keep hypocritically insinuating is the fact your entire opinion has no logical basis. Why should specialty be a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia? Especially when on the Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ, it clearly states the goal of Wikipedia is a comprehensive free internet encyclopedia. Stardestroyer.net, as has clearly been shown, is a vast repository of knowledge and analysis of the SW-v-ST debate.   - :Apparently, part of your reason to vote against it stems from the fact much of it is opinion. I submit to your attention The Best Page in the Universe as another example of opinion; clearly, there is a precedent for opinion-based websites being included in Wikipedia. What you seem to be unable to grasp is all of Mike Wong's "rants" are supported opinion, not merely statements of opinion.   - :You also fail to address the educational quality of the site. From the main page, I refer you to this quote: - ::"Despite its facetious overtones, this site is an academic discussion of Star Wars, Star Trek, and real science. It is intended to entertain but also to educate and to encourage debate."   - :Chew on that for a bit. There is no reason a site which possesses not only entertainment value, but also educational value should be deleted from Wikipedia. Take a look at the Essays section. You won't be able to find an essay which is unsupported. Same with creationtheory.org: I challenge you to find one serious essay where Wong does not back up his opinion with facts.   - :Now look at the Science portion of his page. This is the basis of the entire site: a series of factual pages dealing with the nature of science. Is there any way this is not educational? Your squealing about personal opinion is nothing more than a red herring.   - :The reason we don't give pages footnotes in the main topic threads is because those pages, because of their intrinsic value, warrant their own Wiki threads. This is a fact you don't quite seem able to grasp. Stardestroyer.net ought to be included as a distinct Wikipedia page because of its importance in the SW-ST debate, its educational content, its entertainment value, its essays, and its sister site, creationtheory.org. Neocapitalist 20:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a reason all these people from the SD.net forums are coming here and attacking me, as if I care what they think, or their personal attacks will somehow make them look good and/or change minds? It's getting a little old, to be frank. But that's what I'd expect, from what I've read in their site and forums. Mike_Castaldo 18:36, 29 July 2005 (EST)

- :*Comment Personal attack? Instead of whining like a spoilt child, why don't you grow up and answer some of the points I raised? Neocapitalist 01:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

- *Comment Because none of these 'points' actually matter, perhaps? You haven't said anything that hasn't been brought up before, from the looks of it. The page itself isn't the definitive article when it comes to SW v. ST, and neither is his creationist arguements. The rest of it doesn't give it anything useful enough for wiki inclusion either. It's a niche site that doesn't deserve to be on here, when the main Star Wars v. Star Trek can cover everything that pertains to SD.net's coverage of the topic. It doesn't have major traffic through its forums, and it hardly gets googled. Anything else, quite simply, doesn't matter, as much as said site tries to drudge up votes and attack me for defending my stance. But again, that seems to be par for the course for this site, from what I've seen and experienced over the last few days, especially getting hate mail from a few of the members who've actually found my personal email address. It's quite sad, in actuality, and shows the maturity level of those within said boards, which, while not a criteria for deletion, does show the spirit on which that site operates. Mike_Castaldo 21:37, 29 July 2005 (EST)

• Obviously, you didn't read what I wrote; you're completely ignoring the points I made. Stardestroyer.net is about as definitve a page as you can get on SW-v-ST. As for 'hardly ever getting googled' -- I wasn't aware a Wikipedia was a popularity contest. Oh, and in dismissing the multiple salient arguments as ad hominem attacks against yourself, you're committing a style over substance fallacy. Neocapitalist 02:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

- *Comment As stated before, this isn't a debate. Thus these terms you're throwing around don't really mean a bloody thing. And SD.net is heavily biased towards the SW side of this issue, from the sites I've looked over during my contemplations. (including the site in question, spacebattles.com, and www.st-v-sw.net) The only site which might be applicable to having its own wiki entry, according to the policies as I understand them, would be SB.com, as stated for various reasons before. And yes, the frequency that an article is cited DOES count when it comes to the VfD. Next time why not say your points plainly, rather then throwing around pseudo-intellectual terms such as ad hominem attacks' and style over substance' fallacy. Mike_Castaldo 23:42, 29 July 2005 (EST)  

- *Comment Brilliantly done Castaldo. Once again you've proven how little you know about the page itself. Your writing yourself into a corner. Alyeska 04:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)  

- *Comment First of all, kudos to whoever made the discussions seperate from the actual votes, as the SD.net members attacks and my defenses have started clogging it up. As for writing myself into a corner, how exactly have I done that? SD.net IS biased on the debate, from what I've seen of that site and the other mentioned sites. The only difference is is that SD.net uses personal attacks to make sure that their detractors look as bad as possible while doing it, while the other sites mentioned do not. So perhaps in your own mind, I'm writing myself into a corner, but hey, you also think that Wong is an acknowledged 'expert', which you still haven't shown proof of. Mike_Castaldo 12:38, 30 July 2005 (EST)

[edit] Post July 30

• Comment Okay. A few points, outlined so you can read them, since literacy is clearly not your strong point.

:*Wong is an acknowledged 'expert'. The site addresses ST v SW scientifically. Wong is a scientist. That makes him an expert on the subject.

:*Pesudo-intellectual terms? This is a debate. The purpose of a debate is to clarify the truth or falsehood of a statement -- in this case, "should Stardestroyer.net be deleted from Wikipedia?" If you choose to indulge in logical fallacies and refuse to provide evidence for your argument, that practice will only weaken your case.

:*SD.net is not actually biased on the debate -- if you had read the main page, you would understand that fact. I even quoted part of the relevant portion above. - :*Do not confuse "insulting tone" with "personal attacks". Personal attacks -- ad hominems -- are intended to distract from the point, and are a type of evasive logical fallacy. An insulting tone, on the other hand, merely conveys overtones of disdain, but does not serve as an evasion; points may be addressed with an insulting tone. To confuse an insulting tone for an ad hominem is to commit a style over substance fallacy, which attempts to use the opponent's insulting tone as an evasion from the argument. :*Neocapitalist 21:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)  

*Comment. First of all, Wong is an engineer, not a scientist. He can build things. Having an engineering degree doesn't give you an expert opinion on theoretical phyiscs, quantum physics, and chemistry. I have a degree too in a science, so by THAT reasoning I'd be as much of an expert as Wong is. Second of all, this ISN'T a debate. This is a discussion as to the merits of this site's wiki keep, delete, or merge. This is a difference that people from SD.net seem to fail to grasp, as well as the fact that evidence for its valid deletion has been shown over and over and over and OVER again, no matter what personal insults you may wish to throw at those who have given this evidence. Third of all, SD.net is biased on the debate. I have read the main page, as well as the st-v-sw.net page, and several others that I googled. SD.net IS biased, as are those pages. You can't create science fact from science FICTION, especially from two desperate universes. This is why the main article ABOUT SW v. ST is sufficent for the wikipedia, with the webpages that detail this arguement hotlinked. SD.net is NOT the definitive source, and its other content is not unique in any way, shape, or form, unless one counts the arrogance and bad attitudes of its owner and many of the users within it forum. And finally, blah blah blah... this isn't a debate. Hey, I made a point without having to thrown around latin like a pseudointellectual! Try it! Here's a hint: You don't NEED to throw around non layman terms to get your point across. All that does is show the types of attitudes that are pervasive upon those boards, which, as I've stated before, may not be a criteria for deletion, DO show the maturity level of those who are defending the site. Mike_Castaldo 19:51, 31 July 2005 (EST)  

*Comment Actually, this is a debate because we are argueing different points of view TTMSHU 02:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)  

*CommentAgain, points in order. :*Wong is an engineer, with an applied science degree. Don't bifurcate -- or, for those people who are too lazy to look up the meaning of a word they don't know, draw a false dilemma -- between "is an expert in most fields of science" and "has a degree in science". Oh, and please do pardon my imprecise wording -- I should have specified "has a degree in science" rather than stated, "is a scientist".   :*You have a degree in science? Then that would make you just as much of an expert as Wong in this field, if you chose to apply your scientific knowledge to this particlar versus debate.   :*All right, nitpicker; "debate". According to Dictionary.com, a debate is:  

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.   2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.   3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.  

Looks like you're wrong. This is a debate, by definitions 1 and 2.   :*Creating science fact from fiction? Obviously, you have not read the main Stardestroyer.net site; it addresses that very topic quite specifically.   :*You state the content is not unique, and ignore the points I already posted above. Way to beg the question -- or, for those people too lazy to look up a new vocabulary term, restate the premise of the argument in the conclusion with no supporting evidence. :*Finally, as for your constant irrelevant style over substance fallacies -- or, for those people too lazy to educate themselves on proper and improper logic, taking the way an opponent phrases an argument and mistaking it for the argument itself, thus attempting to divert the argument from a point-by-point discussion -- Stardestroyer.net tends to emphasize honesty over politeness. :*--Neocapitalist 03:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

*Comment He may 'have' a degree in science, but this still doesn't make him an acknowledged expert in a debate that, from a scientific standpoint, has little to do with engineering. That makes him an expert on buildings and stress points, not on phasers and hyperdrives. He's as much of an 'expert' as any of the other websites out there on this discussion, and his degree affords him no special status, nor his site, for wiki consideration. As for this being a debate, in the first two definitions, yes it is a debate. However, your arguements come from the THIRD definition of debate, since technical terms such as those aren't used in common arguements over discussions in the real world, which the first two definitions entail. As such, the use of said terms are STILL inappropiate for this discussion. This isn't the debate team, throwing arounds terms like that doesn't win you points. And yes, I HAVE read the SD.net main page, and while he DOES try to use his engineering degree to show his opinion, that's all it is, in the end, his OPINION. You CAN'T apply real world physics to universes ruled by a fictional set of rules. Attempting to is just plain foolish, in the end. There are too many inconsistancies, due to the fact that, frankly, the writers don't give a damn about hard science when it comes to many of the sci fi works out there, and even less when it comes to Star Wars, which is Space Opera, not Science Fiction. As such, no matter how much you may try to paint SD.net as a 'definitive' source of information, in the end it's as equal (if not less then) as any OTHER site that details this debate, and doesn't deserve special recognition, as it's already been shown there are more sites out there that have more users and have been around longer that concern this debate. I have NOT ignored your points, I've answered them in the same order you gave them. Just because you may not LIKE the answers doesn't mean they aren't there. They are. Read over the entire discussion section again. As for your assumptions that I may not know what your little terms are, think again. A true intellectual realizes that they don't NEED to throw around the terms when using the actual definition for them in context, and a plain smart man realizes that throwing them around makes you sound pompous and arrogant. So far, you've shown neither of those traits, and instead have shown yourself to be nothing more then pompous and arrogant. And SD.net does NOT emphasize honesty over politeness. It in fact (and excuse me for a moment if I use a term that makes me sound pseudo-intellectual, like yourself) poisons the well against those who would disagree with it, with examples including wong's "hate page", and many other examples within his forums, as well as in the personal correspondance shown on his rivals site, st-v-sw.net . SD.net trades in many things. Hostility towards those who disagree with Wong, an EXAMPLE (not definitive) of the SW v. ST debate, myriad personal attacks, and a mildly entertaining, if slightly rabid, show of creationistic arguements against religion. But honesty? I don't see much of that within the site. Mike_Castaldo 12:23, 1 August 2005 (EST)  

*Comment If one is to debate and compare, one has to have a common point of reference. Science. You have to apply the same standards. Therefor your argument on that issue is bunk. Once again you prove your ignorance on the issues Mike. Way to go. Alyeska 06:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)  

*Comment Attempting to apply the same set of scientific standards to two universes that have two fundementally different types of universal constants is absurd, on the face of it. Casual observation shows this, no matter how you try to spin this. However, this isn't a debate about the merits, or lack of, concerning the sw. v. st. debate, but rather how definitive SD.net is on it. And thus far, there's been no evidence that SD.net is THE definitive site, nor does it have anything that makes it worthy of its own entry within the wikipedia. Mike_Castaldo 10:34, 1 August 2005 (EST)  

*Comment Debate and comparison is impossible if you don't have a common frame of reference. Now your making arguments aimed and deleting the entire STvsSW entry as well and you didn't even know it. Alyeska 16:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)  

*Comment Oh lay off the gloom and doom. The actual debate itself is large enough online and off to merit its own wiki entry. The actual BASIS of the arguement in this case doesn't matter, just that people DO argue about it and know about the debate. As such, the ST v. SW entry isn't even in question here. It's the fact that SD.net is NOT important enough in itself to merit an entry. Nice try there, trying to use scare tactics and misdirection to move away from the actual point of the vote. (And if I wanted to sound smarmy, yes, I know I could use one of those 'fancy' latin debate terms for the fallacy you attempted, but, see above as to why I don't)Mike_Castaldo 13:07, 1 August 2005 (EST)  

*Comment So you accept that they debate, but you refuse to acknowledge the basis of which they use to debate. Further proof that you just don't know and understand the underlying subject matter and have clouded things with your personal opinion. Alyeska 17:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)  

*Comment Obviously you need to actually pay attention to what's said here. I never said that I refused to acknowledge what they used to debate. I said that in the end its inherently silly and somewhat fruitless to, ESPECIALLY via the criteria that SD.net uses. And yes, I'm using my personal opinions to make my decision, as is everyone else here who is casting their vote. You assume that having an opinion means I fail to grasp the underlying subject matter, which is quite frankly foolish. I just believe that using the suspension of disbelief can only go so far in a debate between two functionally different universes, while SD.net's owner does not (and also contradicts himself while explaining his viewpoint on the matter, but I digress). In the end however, none of this changes the facts as it matters for the wiki, and SD.net's place within it, or to be more precise, it's lack of place, which you still haven't been able to refute. I'd use one of those latin terms again, but there's no need, since I don't like sounding snooty like some. Mike_Castaldo 13:37, 1 August 2005 (EST)

*Comment This is straight from the Wiki guide for VFD.   :Limitations on renomination for VfD  

:In general, if an article has been discussed at Votes for Deletion and the discussion did not result in a "delete" decision, the :article should not be immediately renominated for deletion, because unless there is a good reason for people to change their minds, :the second vote would be identical to the first one. An exception can be made if a vote has no consensus and a severe lack of :votes. There is no policy or consensus for a hard time limit before an article can be renominated, but some people are likely to :vote 'keep' for the reason that it was already discussed last week.  

There you have it. This VFD for the SD.net entry violates the rules. It survived a VFD attempt 2 months ago and this is certainly a renomination very recently after the first. I am removing the VFD tag from the SD.net entry. Any further votes are discussion in here is ultimately irrelevent. Alyeska 17:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

*Comment 2 months is plenty of time for people to change their minds on a subject, or for new viewpoints to be found. Immediatly in these cases usually means 1 day to 2 or 3 weeks. And since the moderators saw fit to keep the VfD up (since it doesn't automatically occur), then your then it doesn't violate the rules, obviously. Nice try though. (Edited to Add): Furthermore, you do not have the authority to remove the VfD tag from the wiki entry. I think you should add it back on before you seal it in favor against your site, if you really want it to remain.Mike_Castaldo 13:41, 1 August 2005 (EST)  

*Comment A VFD posted against the rules pertaining to the posting of a VFD and posted in bad faith does not qualify as a proper VFD. I've seen many a VFD posted against a good article yanked, and it wasn't by admins.  

Furthermore Mike, you are being extremely dishonest. You wish to enforce your opinions on something you have no knowledge of. You are a disgrace. This is not an insult, this is a statement of fact. The more you rag on this subject the more you prove how ignorant you are of the subject matter and of science in general. The VS debates would be meaningless of a common frame of reference could not be used. Science is a critical aspect and you outright reject the possibility of even using it. Your irrational beliefs are unbecoming. Your a hypocrit for wanting to remove SD.net and not SB.com when the exact same reasoning can be used against it. Furthermore by the same reasoning the entire STvsSW article should be removed. Alyeska 21:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

*Comment Next time don't post between someone elses posts. I will ignore anything you post as such in the future. It hides the text and makes discussion harder. Alyeska 21:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)  

*Comment Next time why don't you reply to the actual points rather then try and turn the discussion to something else? Mike_Castaldo 17:55, 1 August 2005 (EST)  

*Comment How Am I being dishonest? You say I have no knowledge of this issue, yet earlier you seem to think I don't like this Wong character. Ask yourself this: How many people voting on this have actually been to the site or taken part in these debates? Do you actually think that everyone who's voting, or even the majority, have? This isn't about the knowledge of the debate itself, this is about the WEBSITES UNIQUENESS AND POPULARITY. It isn't the most popular site. It's far from being unique, except in bad attitude. Nothing you've done has shown otherwise. All you do is make personal attacks on me, because you KNOW you can't say anything else about it. The only people being irrational are those who support SD.net so vocally, throwing around personal attacks and latin phrases rather then attempting to actually make a point, and then declaring victory when that fact is thrown in their face! The arguements against SD.net can't be used against SB.com, since a) SB.com has been around longer and b) SB.com is more popular then SD.net, two criteria which allow it space, even if it isn't unqiue. SD.net has none of that. Period. Your reasoning is flawed, on several levels, and you just show yourself to be biased about the site itself in your rantings for it. Remember the first rule about VfDing: It's about the site, not your personal feelings for it. Your feelings are getting in the way, Aleskya, and the same can be said for many of the others coming here FROM SD.net, such as neocapitalist. (as shown by the thread where a user wants to ban the VfDer for having the TEMERITY for even CONSIDERING this deletion.) The only ones spouting gibberish here are you and the other ones from SD.net, in an attempt to sway the vote towards your side. You attempt to say that I'm bashing the concept of SD v. ST itself, and Wong in particular, yet all I've done is show that SD.net itself is not a unique site, and that Wong himself is a very biased person, all by SHOWING EXAMPLES OF WHAT HE'S WRITTEN PERSONALLY. If Wong himself writes this, how am I saying he's this type of person? All I did was show the examples of what type of man he is, with the disclaimer that, again, it doesn't MATTER as to the vote itself. You're the one who seems unable to grasp that fact, accusing me of trying to make it about him, when it's YOU who does so, not I. Then you out and out LIE. You say I have been on various bandwagons, jumping from one another. You're quite the fool to think so, since I've never actually retracted any of my points. SD.net IS a vanity site, for the personal beliefs Wong expounds on his 'rants' page, as well as the fact he requires those without a certain type of email account to pay for the 'privlage' of using his boards, something he like to revoke at any time for little reason, and then makes a point to show off to the other forum users to abuse his power. Second of all, SB.com IS older AND more popular then SD.net, which DO matter when it comes to deletion or keeping of a wiki entry. Just because YOU may not like that fact doesn't mean it's a FACT. Deal with it. Thirdly, you must be blind. I never said SD.net didn't have content other then SW. v. ST. I said it had no UNIQUE content beyond that, nothing that would require it to have its own wiki entry. Hotlinked to creationist arguements perhaps, and SW v. ST, certainly, but it's OWN place? It's quite frankly not that good of a site nor is it unique enough to merit one. So before you throw around terms such as bandwagon, why don't you sit down, calm down, and actually pay attention rather then attack someone. And Wong isn't an expert. He's an engineer. Self proclimation or gaining the title from those who agree with you doesn't make one either. Or gaining it from those you've given power too. That just means people kiss your ass. As for whether or not I've spent 5 years debating this, who seriously GIVES A FLYING CRAP HOW LONG YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR? That matters for NOTHING when it comes to this deletion vote. By your reasoning 99% of those who are weighing in (discounting those who've come because of YOUR vote garnering thread at SD.net) shouldn't be allowed to vote on the matter. Too bad. That's not how this works, try another arguement, since you like to leap around like a frog on griddle. And you may try to mock me for my 'stupidity' as much as you wish, but all it does is show that the people who inhabit the SD.net board resort to personal attacks, even though their points don't hold water, and have been proven to not hold water. Redressing a piece of crap in a new box still doesn't change the fact that you're giving someone a piece of crap, and the same thing applies to your arguements against me, and for SD.net's continued existance here on the Wiki. But then, (to sound pompous like those who use such terms for no reason), the users at SD.net seem to favor poisoning the well when it comes to discussions on a subject.Mike_Castaldo 18:30-16:41, 1 August 2005 (EST)  

*Comment Where did my previous post go... I know Mike didn't delete it, but its gone and no record of it being posted even appears in the history. Alyeska 23:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)  

Odds are it got deleted when the wiki errors happened right before I posted my reply to you. Very strange. (mike)

Wonderful Alyeska 23:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment To your initial long-winded reply:

• Are you so scientifically illiterate you honestly don't understand the point of the scientific method? It can be applied to science fiction, as Stardestroyer.net makes painfully clear, which you would know, had you taken the time to read it.
• Way to move the goalposts about a debate, Castaldo. Concession accepted.
• Use of logical fallacies, inappropriate in the context of a debate? Pardon me; are you actually attempting to imply only a formal debate should involve logic?
• "You CAN"T apply real world physics to universes ruled by a fictional set of rules": a point which is, in fact, discussed in depth on the main page. Yet another brilliant demonstration of ignorance, Castaldo.
• The uniqueness of SD.net: how many other sites, besides the SWTC, apply the scientific method to Star Wars or Star Trek? Name one. Furthermore, unless you can think of some way to debunk the numbers Wong derives on his site, SD.net will remain the definitive SW-v-ST website on the internet.
• "A true intellectual realizes that they don't NEED to throw around the terms when using the actual definition for them in context, and a plain smart man realizes that throwing them around makes you sound pompous and arrogant."

You forgot some. A true intellectual also:

a) realizes concision is superior to wordiness;

b) realizes the way a point is delivered is unimportant compared to the point himself; and

c) concedes when he's losing.

• At last! You realize concision is superior! Here's your assignment: go back to the hate mail page. Read over it. Then summarize Wong's points and his opponents' points. Come back tomorrow and post them. We'll discuss hostility then.

• Comment To your ad hominem (oh, horror: I'm using a concise latin phrase to which we both know the meaning, rather than saying "personal attacks"!) in the second long-winded post.

• I have, in fact, been a member of Wikipedia for longer than I have been regularly posting on the SD.net forums. Deal with it. I am not a "garnered vote".
• -Neocapitalist 02:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)