User talk:Lambiam/Jersey Devil's crusade against Striver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Use of the word "crusade"

I don't think "crusade" is an appropriate word to use... Шизомби 14:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Reaction to Шизомби: The online dictionaries I normally consult, www.m-w.com and dictionary.com give the following meanings for "crusade" used in a non-literal sense:
  • a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm
  • a vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse
  • a series of actions advancing a principle or tending toward a particular end
This strikes me as an apt characterization, and I don't see how this would be inappropriate. LambiamTalk 21:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selectivity and incorrect implication

Apparently only certain articles I've nominated are worthy of being on this page. [1] I also dislike how this page implies that "most were kept". This is incorrect, if you actually look at that afds you can easily see that the majority were either kept by no consenus or merge/redirects. Considering this, it really can be said that this page is in the realm of a personal attack page.--Jersey Devil 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Reaction to Jersey Devil: As it says in the first line of the page in question: "This page documents Jersey Devil's unrelenting battle against the articles created by Striver." (emphasis on "articles" added. --L) The "anti-Zora" page Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/User comments/Zora was most definitely not an article. It was not listed on Articles for Deletion, but on Miscellany for Deletion. If MfD is to be included, there are more items, such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild/Resources, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Striver/Wikilogg, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion. I chose not to include those because entirely different criteria apply than for normal articles (for example, notability and verifiability are non-issues). If it is deemed important that these nominations are also documented, please do so, but on a separate page (that could be linked to from this page, like "See also"). As to the second issue raised, most of the no-consensus closures say something like "The result of the debate was No Consensus, Keep." It also says under Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure: "AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep"." I can't help it that keeping a page when there is no consensus is called "keeping" – presumably because it is keeping. I think most readers are aware of this, and I don't think it is misleading or incorrect. I was careful in writing that most nominations were "unsuccessful", which means that they did not achieve what they aimed to achieve – neither more nor less. I also wrote explicitly that "a few others were merged or redirected". There is no intention to mislead, and I do not think it is incorrect. After all the effort of constructing the table, I did not feel like adding further information that is only one click away. However, if Jersey Devil or another editor is willing to go through the effort of adding an extry column presenting the outcome in more detail, using a reasonable categorization (please discuss first), that is fine. After all, I do not own this page. The page is not meant as an attack, but purely as documentation. Everything here can be found in readily available page histories; all I did is present it in an accessible way. LambiamTalk 21:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)