Talk:Glittering generality/Archives/2016

Stupidity Running Wildly Out of Control
It is bizarre enough that anyone would think that a common conversational phrase had a place in an encyclopedia -- but that is trumped by the existence of an editor who would post the following wikkle editors' half-wit boxie-thing: "	This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2012)" Puh-leeze!

Can somebody have mercy: use the absence of the requested "additional citations for verification" as a reason to take this thing out in the alley and shoot it, putting us and Wikipedia out of its misery? DavidLJ (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You can nominate it for deletion if you want. Cathfolant (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well first of all, you have to establish something as wrong before you can convince anyone of your alleged reason why it would be wrong, such as "stupidity" or "[the thing is] half-wit". Otherwise it's an instance of the propaganda technique Ad Hominem. Also, "stupidity" is a card, and like any card, once it is played, what goes around has a way of coming around. Like glittering generalities, your words are also ornate and light on argument. For example, the expression "Puh-leeze!" presents no evidence and makes no argument. A simple "I have different opinions on this" or even "this is outrageously false" will suffice. I don't know the word "wikkle", but it appears to belittle the textbox. Also, the word appears to rhyme with the word "wiki". That's a bit clever, sir, but it adds nothing but "that which is melodramatic, overly emotional, or cliché, i.e. cheesy" (from Wiktionary). Secondly, the reference to the existence of the other editor and the euthanasia metaphor are going too far. I have little against a lot of verbiage as long as there's a point to all of it, but a lot of your comment is quite frankly pointless. The only real content of your comment is this:


 * This common conversational phrase has no place in an encyclopedia, but worse, the call made in November 2012 for more citations is misguided and means that this [presumably the entire article] should be deleted. 110.55.4.32 (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC) (as DavidLJ)


 * The rest of it is verbosity and appeals to emotion, which are also known propaganda techniques. There are various problems with the content, also. The phrase - presumably you meant "glittering generality" - is definitely not a common conversational phrase. Also, a call for citations is rarely if ever a reason to delete an entire article, and in my opinion, it is not misguided. I would invoke WP:CIVIL more strongly, but actually the people that run the Wikimedia Project - of which I am not one - are biters. (see: WP:BITE) So therefore WP:CIVIL doesn't actually exist, but you should be polite anyway. If you're going to be impolite, then at least do that properly and come up with something entertaining. While your overwrought, mitigated impoliteness is unexpected, your comment is still un-entertaining because it is kind of uncreative. 110.55.4.32 (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)