Wikipedia Review article up for deletion Options

[Tarc]

This should be interesting.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review (3rd nomination) (T-H-L-K-D)

Nominated by User:Rabbit:Farmer:Gun:Run... (T-H-L-K-D), a user who created one article on "rabbit pie" June of last year, then a few edits today before nominating this article for deletion.

Any guesses on this sockpuppet's identity?

[Jaranda]

I asked for a checkuser privately, it came up empty which was surprising as it's an obvious duck. I suspect a couple of candidates, tempted to do a speedy close on the debate as it's clearly in bad faith.

[Doc glasgow]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review (3rd nomination)


I am tempted to vote "delete per Selina ~~~~"

[Eppur si muove]

Relapsing already I see.

[thekohser]

Once notable, always notable. Unless you're Carolyn Doran.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=472199636

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=472235264

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=472237402

lol.

[Tarc]

Edison is pulling the same sort of retardation that Seren does at the ED article.

[carbuncle]

Once notable, always notable. Unless you're Carolyn Doran.

Or Mimi Macpherson, the sister of model Elle Macpherson. Mimi is very reclusive and doesn't like attention, as you can see from her website. Not the same thing, but it bears mentioning because unlike Doran, Macpherson is well-known in some places.

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Shalom]

Edison is pulling the same sort of retardation that Seren does at the ED article.

Now that is serious grave dancing. Woohoo WR's down. Let's delete the article!!!!

[Michaeldsuarez]

Edison is pulling the same sort of retardation that Seren does at the ED article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=472372555

Edison has gone full retard. A website can exist independently from a the domain name. Why is that so hard for them to understand?

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=472375858

Finally, some intelligence.

[Emperor]

Finally, some intelligence.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Actually, it was an inappopriate non-administrative closure of the AfD. But, hey, who really cares? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[EricBarbour]

Look at Edison's earliest userpages. You'll see this.

I am an electrical engineer, with a graduate degree in experimental psychology. I am interested in politics, music, genealogy, photography, religion, science and technology, the Civil War, and the history of electrical and electronic technology, radio, and television. Thomas Edison and Michael Faraday are particular heroes. I am interested in giving appropriate recognition to scientists and inventors whose contributions may have been obscured by the more famous or financially successful persons who used earlier work without crediting the person who developed the device or process.

At the same time, I wish to refute invalid claims that someone who tinkered with a device was the "true inventor" when their work did not verifiably influence the course of development of the device. Success has a thousand fathers. After someone developed the first usable and practical version of a device in the 19th century, it was common for competitors seeking to invalidate the patent to bring forth fraudulent claimants, complete with post-dated documents, lying witnesses, and prototypes supposedly decades old but in fact newly made. A thousand unreferenced books and websites validate a claim less than a public demonstration, a publication with details of the invention or discovery, or a patent application.

How interesting that this clown, who obviously should know better, fought to kill the WR article.
Then abruptly reverses course when Tarc posts actual references. I think he's another admin sock.

"WR Reader". Hah. Yet another throwaway sock.

I'm beginning to suspect that on average, roughly 15% of the votes in AFDs, RFAs,
Arbcom candidacies, etc. are sock accounts. 15% seems to be the magic number in the
bizarro universe of Wikipedia. We see it again and again.

[Zoloft]

Fixed the Wikipedia Review article. Silver Seren can't do everything.

[Selina]

I am tempted to vote "delete per Selina ~~~~"

Lol yes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Somey]

They actually bring up an interesting philosophical point or two in that discussion - in particular, this idea that "notability is not temporary," at least with respect to a website at least. I would almost have to argue that notability is temporary, even in an encyclopedic context. I mean, should they think of these things in terms of visibility and public perception in the moment, or from a more historical perspective?

I'm tempted to say the latter, but for Wikipedia, it's probably really hard to get their user community to think in those terms. They already have a significant bias towards internet-era (i.e., recent) content in general, which they call "recentism" - and it's understandable, because it's hard to gauge the impact of something that just happened on future public consciousness. Regardless, whatever the reasons for it, most of the time they really do seem to overemphasize the relevance/importance of things that are happening right now.

Of course, I shouldn't be up this late... I'm just happy the domain-name works again.

[milowent]

Fixed the Wikipedia Review article. Silver Seren can't do everything.

LOL. Btw, speaking of trying to actually fix articles, is there any discussion thread round here about the neutering of the Article Rescue Squadron? The old rescue template has finally been deleted after 4.5 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tem...Template:Rescue

This post has been edited by milowent:

[Tarc]

Fixed the Wikipedia Review article. Silver Seren can't do everything.

LOL. Btw, speaking of trying to actually fix articles, is there any discussion thread round here about the neutering of the Article Rescue Squadron? The old rescue template has finally been deleted after 4.5 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tem...Template:Rescue

(IMG:http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/tarc0917/George_Peppard7.jpg)

[Selina]

Oh I wouldn't party about that too much because for every article that is deleted on Wikipedia is one to go over to a Wikia, it all works perfectly to line Jimmy's pockets instead of "the free society"... That is the thinking behind the ideas of notability and deletionism in a website with nearly unlimited storage space - to get as much possible on Wikia where ads can be ran on it...