Talk:Garbage heap of history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

[edit] afd

Obviously satirical, more of a defintion WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary, and more of the "Everything2" sort of "definition". It is funny, however. Jok2000 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being a little too serious here. This is obviously a stub. The article topic is perfectly appropriate, and it is a notable phrase. It is possible that you are wiki-stalking me? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You damaged the logic templates, so I have examined some of your edits. This one is a WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary, the others are untouched, including the logic templates, pending further input from their rfc. Jok2000 (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Refering to good faith edits as "damage" is uncivil.

A point of clarification/order/information: the tag on the page seems to be 'prod' for proposed deletion, yet the note on gregbard's talk page indicates _nomination_ for deletion via AfD (and the nomination seems to be incomplete); if I understand correctly, these are _two different_ processes; Jok2000, what was your intention? Zero sharp (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I did try to use the afd, but it has been about 2 years since I requested a delete, and it appears the procedure has changed and that I made a mistake in the new template somewhere. It's not like I usually afd stuff, but the page at the time contained little more than a definition and a satirically worded caption (since removed) under a picture of garbage. The editor GB has a long edit history, so it didn't seem like speedy-delete was appropriate just for that reason, but he has since convinced me that he is a pro at constructing invalidly reasoned arguments, at first they appeared to be satirical works, and although they still make me laugh, he does nonetheless cite me for not using the wiki new speak term "good faith edits". I like the newspeak, don't get me wrong, but a person with a philosophy degree, research in reasoning, epistemology and etymology shouldn't really be too concerned about an in-context use of the word "damage", that is, I can assume a higher level of maturity than would be reserved for a newcomer. That said, this page is a satirical definition, part of WP:NOT, written by an expert in satire. Jok2000 (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNCIVILPontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNCIVIL is usually reserved for profanity and that ilk. Now that the discussion is complete, why not blank ("archive") this page, if it bothers you? Only the truly obsessed read talk page histories, I think. Jok2000 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)