Talk:Wikinfo

Attruibution
It was not until I went to edit this talk page that I realised that this article has been subject to six AFD's,(as the warning it had been deleted does not show up when editing a redirect):
 * Articles for deletion/Wikinfo
 * Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (4th nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (5th nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (7th nomination) (had not spotted this one PBS (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

The reason I recreated it (not knowing about the six AfDs) is that on some pages such as Military occupation under the terms of the GFDL Licence we are bound to include attribution of Wikinfo. So any person reading that page may need to look up where some of the information on the page originated. It seems to me sensible and justified to have a short article on the source of that attribution, and as such the argument put forward in the 6th nomination that it fails WP:WEB is not applicable. --PBS (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * humm, yea, that's definately something to look out for... the redirect needed to be fixed in order to send people to the relevent section regardless. Anyway, I was just stub sorting, and I tend to try to redirect articles that it seems other people try to WP:PROD as a matter of course. This sort of issue (6 AfD's) is one very good reason why I tend to do that... Ω (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I respect your bold revert and I hope you will respect mine and discuss it further before reverting again. --PBS (talk)


 * Well, OK. I don't really care one way or another, it just can't continue to use stub is all (see stubsort)... I'll fix that, and you can argue about it with the deletionists. ;)
 * Ω (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be worthy of mentioning that there's also a List of Wikis... this could be a redirect to an entry there. Ω (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I sampled a few in the list and they all seem to have articles. ... --PBS (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability requirements still apply even if the site has something to do with Wikipedia. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My only suggestion is that, rather then actually deleting is again, just revert it to the redirect... Ω (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Chiliad22:
 * Why do you think that this wiki less notable than the wikis listed at List of Wikis?
 * If we are incorporating text from Wikinfo and have to attribute the sources under GFDL why should we not have a short article on what Wikinfo is?
 * Do you think that the paragraph I used to create the article should also be deleted as you do not consider the site notable?
 * There are currently 127 articles which mention wikinfo, that is usually more than enough mentions to justify a sub of an article.
 * --PBS (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Chiliad22 why have you not replied to the above? --PBS (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * user:Philip Baird Shearer, Because you (user:Philip Baird Shearer) started 2 threads about the same topic, user:Philip Baird Shearer, I like to just reply in one place, user:Philip Baird Shearer... --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject headings are clearly distinctive. This section is about the merits of the subject (the content of the page) the other is about the block on editing the page (about an editorial procedure. Please use this section to answer the questions I have put to you about the content of the page. --PBS (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? You want to ignore what I'm saying in 2 threads instead of just 1? You are asking questions below that I have already answered multiple times... it really doesn't inspire much confidence that my time spent in a second thread would be well spent. --Chiliad22 (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not ignored what you have been saying, I draw different conclusions from the policies and guidelines you have been presenting and I am trying to reach a consensus with you. I believe I have replied to every point you have raised, but you have yet to respond to my questions above ....


 * As I said above it is better to distinguish between the merits of the auricle and the editorial procedure you wish to adopt. That way we may be able to reach consensus on one of the two issues, even if we can not reach a consensus on both. --PBS (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus was reached a long time ago. Trying to wear we me out by multiple threads and largely ignoring what I say anyway won't get this article back... the place for that is DRV. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

<--I am not trying to ware you out, I am trying to reach a consensus with you are you trying to wear me out?

The subject is notable because the site is used by Wikipedia to attribute well over a hundred articles. This in itself makes an article on this subject useful to readers. As to your specific desire to have sources, a quick Google returns several reliable sources, the most suitable in my opinion is:

--PBS (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Copied from the section below:
 * WP:DRV. The source you mention, I believe, was considered in the last AFD. It's an outdated paragraph of coverage that briefly defines the site... that's not really non-trivial coverage. Have you ever been to Spain? Since we're just asking random questions of eachother that have nothing to do with this article... --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A 2006 publication is not outdated if it where there most of the citations used in this encyclopaedia would be out of date. --PBS (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well that can be part of your argument at DRV... as it is, we're at an impasse here and the place to get a new consensus is DRV. But have you ever been to Spain? --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I presume that you are familiar with the Personal security practices, and I advise against people providing personal information in Wikipedia. See the other section for a comment on the need to use DRV. Why do you think that a three year old source is out of date? --PBS (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The primary problem is that it's a 1-paragraph definition... that's not non-trivial coverage. With webpages, three years old is dated. One would prefer more regular and recent coverage. It's not required, only non-trivial coverage is required. For someone who demands to know my identity you're quick to whip out references to protection of personal privacy when asked anything about yourself... if you think I'm a sockpuppet, there are avenues to deal with that, but I'm not obliged to tell you anything one way or the other about my identity, any more than you're required to tell me if you've been to Spain or not. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Such a source is adequate for a one paragraph stub article. --PBS (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can see if the people at DRV agree, but Wikipedia articles are supposed to be expandable to beyond a paragraph. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Some subjects may expand beyond a paragraph others may not, to the best of my knowledge there is not fix rule on this (If there is I'd be interested to see it). I think for for someone who made their first edit at 22:35, 5 April 2009, less than three months ago you have very strong opinions on what Wikipedia is and is not. --PBS (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think a subject we can't source more than a paragraph on is an encyclopedia article. The more recent deletion discussions seemed to have confirmed this. You can see if consensus has changed at WP:DRV. If you have nothing to do but vaguely harass me for knowing a lot about Wikipedia, I'm done here. I've already told you where the next step is, whether you want to appeal the deletion or investigate me. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if you feel harassed, that is not my intention. My intention is to try to understand why you are so against having an article on Wikinfo when Wikinfo is used as a source and attributed as such in 100 to 200 articles. It seems to me that we should have an article on any source where we incorporate text into dozens of Wikipeia pages, as a service to our readers, (so that our readers can see what the source for the attribution is), using our own policy standards such as NPOV rather than directing the reader via a link to a third party site that may or may not give an accurate description of their site. --PBS (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And you can make that argument at DRV, but as far as I'm concerned it's been tried and rejected. There's nothing we can resolve here, the place to challenge a contested deletion is deletion review. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009, edit block

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

From User talk:Tone:


 * Users Chiliad22 and Tone what was the fire that you could not discuss this on the talk page of this article first?


 * Four minutes after you posted to this page user Chiliad22 made a request to Tone, this hardly seems long enough for anyone to reply to your assertion Chiliad22, in which you seem to have ignored my earlier comment.


 * Tone I do not think that the current block is not appropriate because the justification for it is given as SALT however that says "This is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated by an editor " (my emphasis). In this case as I have not created it before it is not a case of "repeatedly recreated by an editor" but by a different editor. That I recreated it without being aware that I was doing so, shows that more than one editor independently think that this is an appropriate page. I have given a reason why I think that the previous assertion in the sixth deletion request that WP:WEB is not applicable. If someone wishes to put it up for deletion again then we can discuss it, but in the meantime a block should not be placed on the page.


 * --PBS (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This had many AFDs, and a deletion review which endorsed the delete decision. You didn't address any of the reasons it was deleted, you just vaguely said WP:WEB didn't apply. Your rational that people may "need" the information doesn't explain why this page can't be a redirect to where they can find that information. Consensus has been established... the place to appeal is DRV, not through just waiting a while then creating the same article with the same issues. speedy deletion policy does allow for deletion of recreated pages where "any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". Since the reason for deletion was lack of sufficient sources, a new version with no sources clearly doesn't address the reason for deletion. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the case here is that the article was deleted in AfD. The way to bring such an article back is through DRV. This is a purely technical procedure but I believe it should be followed here. --Tone 18:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What deletion review?


 * Where was the consensus established? There was no consensus to delete, the closing admin argued that their decision was made because it "Fails WP:WEB" is a much stronger argument than "passes WP:ILIKEIT" and "passes WP:BADFAITHNOM". Further as I recreated the page from a redirect there clearly is no consensus now. Also Chiliad22, you say "you just vaguely said WP:WEB didn't apply" yet I have explained my reasons in far more detail on this page than you have -- you have not replied to my detailed questions in the previous section why not?


 * There is no reason why an article can not be recreated, by an uninvolved editor. Tone what is your specific policy/guideline reason for protecting the page, because clearly SALT is not a legitimate reason in this case? --PBS (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy deletion clearly allows re-deletion of the page you created (even if you disagree with the AFD) - creating a redirect was something Tone didn't have to do, he could have just kept speedy deleting it and then protected it from any sort of re-creation. At any rate, here is the DRV where the deletion was endorsed: Deletion review/Log/2008 July 27. One person disagreeing with the redirect doesn't mean there's no consensus anymore... take it to a new DRV to establish whether consensus has changed yet. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Which policy says that a previously univolved editor has to use DRV to create an article? Under which policy is this article protected? Chiliad22 Why have you not answered the questions I put to you in the section above? --PBS (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Chiliad22 under which criteria of Recreation of previously deleted pages do you consider this page should be deleted? I think you will find that if you think it should be deleted, it should be under Recreation of previously deleted pages as you seem to be arguing for "Lack of notability", while I consider the subject notable, in which case it should go to an AfD not a speedy delete --PBS (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The page you link to is a proposed guideline... and meaningless for this debate. I'm only concerned with WP:CSD, the actual policy here. WP:CSD, by requiring new versions of a deleted article address the reasons for deletion, is thus the policy that prevents you from creating a new article that has the exact same problems as the one deleted at AFD. You can create a new version that addresses the sourcing problem, and thus avoid DRV, or you can go to DRV and try to get the deleted version brought back by overturning the AFD that deleted the article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

<--Chiliad22 Why have you not replied to my request for information in the previous section?

From the WP:CSD "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete articles except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." The article has survived several prior deletion discussion, so it should not be speedy deleted. Further under which deletion criteria are you suggesting it should be speedily deleted? --PBS (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From the same page, G4 tells that this article should be deleted straightforward. It is the last deletion discussion that counts. If this makes you happier, I can delete the redirect instead. Again, if you want the article back, go to DRV, arguing here will not help. And I am out of this discussion. --Tone 08:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It has not survived prior deletion discussion... the final result of the deletion discussion was a delete decision. I have told you exactly (several times) what policy this could be deleted under (WP:CSD, criteria G4). I'm not saying it should be speedy deleted, I'm saying it could... the redirect is a more pragmatic solution. Unless you want to wheel war with Tone, the accepted place to appeal this is DRV. Also, I'll be out of town for about 36 hours so... don't expect any replies from me before then. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Tone you wrote " From the same page, G4 tells that this article should be deleted straightforward. It is the last deletion discussion that counts." please could you direct me to the lines in the policy that says this?


 * Tone under which or policy or guideline are you protecting this page because as I have pointed out SALT does not apply and have quoted the relevant sentence. If you think it does apply then please quote the sentences you think are applicable. --PBS (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Chiliad22, Why have you not replied to the questions I asked you in the previous section? It is difficult to find a consensus when a person does not enter into a discourse.


 * Chiliad22 you says "I'm not saying it should be speedy deleted, I'm saying it could... the redirect is a more pragmatic solution." under which clause of the speedy delete do you think it can be deleted?


 * Chiliad22, Why would I want to wheel war with anyone why would Tone want to wheel war with anyone? --PBS (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "under which clause of the speedy delete do you think it can be deleted?"... Oh come on, in the post you're replying to I said "I said I have told you exactly (several times) what policy this could be deleted under (WP:CSD, criteria G4)". I have answered your question many times... you just keep reasking it and claiming I didn't answer. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The text was not a copy of the text on the deleted page so G4 does not apply. I converted the page from a redirect to an article for the reasons I gave above, The page was deleted because it was claimed that it was not notable, but because it is attributed in well over 100 Wikipedia articles, and pages are returned for both a Google book search and a Google scholar search, this is clearly not true. But as I said above the place to discus notability is in the previous section, as it is better to keep this section for procedural issues, and not to intertwine the two. --PBS (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * G4 doesn't require that the text be a copy, but says deletion applies so long as "any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". Since the reason for deletion was lack of sufficient sources, a new version with no sources clearly doesn't address the reason for deletion. I have said this many times in this thread. Your arguments for notability have been tried and failed at AFD and DRV... you coming along and disagreeing doesn't overturn those decisions. You need to take this to a new DRV to appeal the deletion... this has been said probably 10 times. --Chiliad22 (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is quite clear as it specifically starts with "A copy ...". The text I put in place was not a copy, so WP:CSD G4 does not apply. You could indicated your wish for sources with a fact, but not unreferenced as it is only a stub), rather than trying to fix problems with a speedy delete. If you only objection is that it lacks sources, I shall revert the edit and simultaneously put some in. If you have any other objections please post them to the section above. --PBS (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". That's the key phrase, which you have ignored approximately seven zillion times. To recreate the page you need to do more than reshuffle the deck chairs. The problem is that no one has shown sources cover Wikinfo in depth... people have shown passing mentions here and there, but that doesn't satisfy notability requirements. Find those sources, or take it to DRV.. until then I'll tag any recreated page for speedy deletion, and it will probably be deleted. DRV is really the place to go unless you can find sufficient sources. This is getting beyond absurd... I think I've made myself more than clear. I will tag any version of this article for speedy deletion unless it's been to DRV or it addresses the reason for deletion (as in, includes new, sufficient, sources). If you think my policy interpretation is wrong, the place to go is deletion review. I'm not going to suddenly decide people are entitled to an AFD a week just for rephrasing a deleted article and doing nothing to address the reason for deletion... attempts to convince me of that are pointless. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think that you are correct in your interpretation of G4 as the and does not have a comma or semicolon before it so the two clauses are linked therefor it follows as it is not a copy the second phrase does not apply unless the page is a copy which it is not. However to address your issues please see the previous section. What is your evidence that the two phrases are not joined? --PBS (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is defining a copy as a new version that doesn't address the reasons for deletion. This is how G4 has been applied for years... and common sense - why would we let people simply rephrase an article and be able to recreate it as many times as they liked? That's silly, if Wikipedians ever had patience for that sort of behavior they don't anymore. You can ask at the CSD talk page, or DRV. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "It is defining a copy as a new version that doesn't address the reasons for deletion." That is your interpretation of copy it is not the usual meaning of copy OED:"To make a copy of (a writing); to transcribe (from an original)."


 * One person's common sense is not necessarily common sense to others. The prohibition is in place to stop an editor from recreating the page, it is not one meant to be a general prohibition on all editors. The way to handle the problem you wish addressed is not with a speedy delete but by asking for a source. -- PBS (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well there's an easy place to see who's right here about interpretation of deletion policy... I think we might have mentioned it to you several dozen times... --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? Do you or have you ever edited under any other user names? --PBS (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We is Tone and myself... the two people who've continually been telling you the place for this dispute is DRV. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You tell me but, that is only your opinion and you have not shown me any policy or guideline that states it is so. As for speaking for Tone I suggest you let Tone speak for Tone (I am still waiting for Tone to explain under which policy of guideline this article is still protected). I would appreciate it if you would look at the source I have provided in the other section and explain there if you do not think the sources suitable. Also do you or have you ever edited under any other user names?. --PBS (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:DRV. The source you mention, I believe, was considered in the last AFD. It's an outdated paragraph of coverage that briefly defines the site... that's not really non-trivial coverage. Have you ever been to Spain? Since we're just asking random questions of eachother that have nothing to do with this article... --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Questions about identity is not a random question. Instead of sidestepping the question please answer the question. -- PBS (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should I? It's a rude and irrelevant question. The only reason it could possibly be relevant is if you think Tone and I are the same person... feel free to file a sockpuppet investigation request. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not asked for any personal information about you. I have asked do you or have you ever edited under any other user names? --PBS (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is an irrelevant question in this situation regardless of my answer. I'm no more required to answer that question than you're required to tell me if you've ever been to Spain. Either of us demanding the other answer such questions is irrelevant and rude. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (RI) PBS, please retract that question. That is both a personal attack and an accusation of abusing multiple accounts (a serious charge). I also note that the responses from you in this discussion would most certainly constitute process-wonking, and that administrators would not buy your argument even if it were not given the nature of the G4 criterion. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 21:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not made a personal attack or accused anyone of abusing multiple accounts, indeed the thought had not entered my mind. There are other reasons for one editor asking if another editor has ever used other accounts.


 * Some people choose to use a number of accounts for various legitimate reasons, and being able to view their general edit history helps to build up a better picture of their Wikipedia personality (see the section Why create an account? and the last paragraph of Username )


 * I do not consider anything I have said "process-wonking" quit the opposite. It is very easy to claim Wikilawyering when policies and guidelines don't say what one thinks they say and I spend quite some time trying to have clear policies and guidelines, so that ambiguities do not exist (see for examplethis discussion). --PBS (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're process-wonking right there. Retract the accusation(s) of sockpuppetry (whether or not the situation is a legitimate use is immaterial as it is still an unfounded accusation, and thus a personal attack) or I will do it for you and report you to AN/I. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v  Cardmaker ) 00:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and there seems to be little support for your interpretation of G4. Without me using words like "wikilawyer" or "process wonkery" multiple people started using them to describe your actions here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP:CSD criteria has been used many times to delete articles which, while not copies, still fail to address the issues raised in a prior deletion discussion which closed as "delete". User:Chiliad22 and User:Tone are perfectly correct in their interpretation of policy: the correct place for this debate is WP:DRV.--Aervanath (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Under what criteria is it justified to us WP:CSD. When editors independent of the previous decision recreate a page it suggests that the consensus may have changed (in fact there was never a consensus to delete the page in the first place). I have addressed the issue in the previous section as to why this is a notable article, and provided a source that covers the information in the stub. WP:CSD is not a valid reason for a speedy delete first because it is not a copy of the text in the previous article, second because on this talk page I have addressed the issue of source and notability (raised in the sixth AfD), and third WP:CSD should not be used for an article that has already been speedily deleted ( "This does not apply ... or to speedy deletions") which was the reason given in the "Seventh AfD. --PBS (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, we're at an impasse here where nobody agrees with your interpretation of policy. Given the number of admins who believe a recreation of this page would qualify for speedy deletion, it seems trying to recreate it without a DRV is just not going to work out. You've been told almost from square one that this needs to go to DRV. It's perfectly possible that consensus has changed, but one person dissenting doesn't show there's a new consensus. DRV is a place where a new consensus can be established, if there is one. --Chiliad22 (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your evidence that there was a consensus for deletion in the first place? --PBS (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An AFD and a DRV that confirmed it, which I told you about over a week ago. That's pretty strong evidence of consensus. Of course, you can keep ignoring it, but things like that is why everyone who comes in here seems to agree with me, not you. I have evidence, you have... ignorance of evidence. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Aervanath it is your opinion that this conversation is going nowhere, but on an article talk page, conversations are not summarily terminated on the whim of one of the people taking part in the conversation, as that is not the way that consensus is reached. I have bought up several points that you have chosen not to comment upon. --PBS (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The instant you implied someone was using sockpuppets, Philip, the conversation ended. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 07:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I explained to you above (reply 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)), I never accused anyone of using sockpuppets. If you inferred that from anything I wrote, then I apologise for my clumsy writing style. To date AFAICT, all you have done is to question the style of my presentation, you have not addressed the issues I have raised in this section, and shouldn't presentational issues be raised on the talk pages of the involved editors? Do you wish to contribute to the issues under debate? --PBS (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Presentational issues can also be brought up on the article talk page if the issues are severe enough to hamper the consensus-making process. Accusing others of using multiple accounts (which can very well be construed as an accusation of sockpuppetry), trying to lawyer the G4 criterion when the soul of the criterion contradicts the letter already, and trying to wonk your way out of having to retract the implication of using multiple accounts all poison the well against you. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wonk your way out of having to retract the implication of using multiple accounts" If a person does not use them for nefarious reasons, what is wrong with using multiple accounts? What do you mean by the "soul of the criterion contradicts the letter already"? What specific things have I said about G4 and this article that that you disagree with? I have yet have anyone give me a specific reason why speedy delete is a policy option for the alteration of a redirect to an article for this article by an editor who has not been involved in the process to date. --PBS (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Phil, you're not getting what I'm trying to say.
 * ANY implication or accusation of using multiple accounts (even legitimately) is viewed as a personal attack, as are all other unfounded accusations. Use of multiple accounts is extremely so because doing so is frowned upon at best.
 * G4 has always been interpreted to mean "articles that are substantially the same as they were pre-deletion". If we were to enforce the letter of G4 and not the spirit of it, it would be too easily gamed by altering one character.
 * Hopefully this clears up any confusion. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 19:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It would not be possible to game the system the way you are suggesting because if it is put there by someone with prior knowledge of the page which was deleted, for example a previous editor of the page that was deleted, the wording in G4 covers that. What I do not agree with is that if another editor with no prior knowledge of the page changes a redirect into an article then the page is not a copy of the previous page it is new text. In such cases an editor who objects to the content of the page has several options, but I do not think that speedy delete G4 is a legitimate option. I think that using G4 in situations like this is gaming the system because of the assumption of no change without a consensus. Suppose only the creator and the objector are involved in a dispute over the creation of a page, does a disinterested administrator close the page in favour of the current consensus? In which case depending on whether the process is an AfD or a CSD G4 will determine what the current consensus is. --PBS (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (Re-indent) In instances where a deleted article was plastered over a redirect, the redirect should be restored, particularly if the redirect has some history behind it. And in cases where it's simply two parties butting heads, it might be best off taking it to AfD or requests for comment to get more eyes on it. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 10:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

PBS, is there some reason why you refuse to take this to DRV?--Aervanath (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See my last comment. I don't think it is appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but you're definitely in the minority here; in fact, you're a minority of one, which means that any further discussion on this talk page is pretty fruitless, don't you think? Finding you on the opposite side of this debate surprises me, since I think that in the past, you and I have agreed on most issues when we've been involved in the same discussions. I'm puzzled by your insistence on continuing this conversation here, since I (and the other editors commenting above) don't see it as possible to reverse the protection on the talk page. That's why I attempted to close the discussion above: it's quite clear that at least two administrators (Tone and myself) believe that a protection of the redirect was entirely justified under WP:CSD, and it doesn't look like we're going to change our minds. This means that it is HIGHLY unlikely that any other admin will unprotect the page, for fear of being accused of wheel warring.  Which means that you won't get the desired result unless you take this to another forum.  The appropriate forum is WP:DRV, which is where speedy deletions are appealed.  If the consensus at WP:DRV is to unprotect and allow re-creation, then Tone and I will have to stand back and let the article be created.  Here on the talk page, you're not getting anywhere.  I'm saying this not because I want to set obstacles in your way, but because I'm trying to help you: I sincerely believe that the best way for you to achieve your desired outcome is through DRV. I hope you will take this in the helpful spirit is meant. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The protection of the page is a different issue from a DRV review. Under what justification do you think that the page should be protected? --PBS (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has essentially been deleted, but Tone decided a protected redirect was a better idea than a redlink. So the thing to appeal here is a deletion decision, and the place for that is DRV. I've been telling you this for almost two weeks now. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
@PBS: The reason the page was protected was to prevent recreation, which is an application of WP:CSD. You obviously disagree with this interpretation, which is why I continually recommend you take it to DRV, which is where our variant interpretations can be commented upon by uninvolved editors who specialize in this sort of analysis. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What is your justification for that comment the reason given in the history of the article for protecting the page was SALT and that wording says "This is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated by an editor." (my emphasis) so the page was not protected via an application of WP:CSD. But I have already explained this I have also explained why this is not a suitable case to take to DRV. --PBS (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that two other editors have also requested that something be done for WP:copyright/WP:Attribution reasons, and because I really don't see the advantage to the project of dragging this out any longer, I am going to implement the work around I set up on 28 June as I mentioned below (redirect to History of wikis so that this redirect redirects to a specific paragraph in the article.) --PBS (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe your work around depends on a script. Rumor has it that scripts can enable certain MediaWiki exploits, but I suppose that most Wikipedia readers have them enabled anyway. Lumenos (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
Need information to direct readers to wikinfo to avoid Copyright violation. If a page at Wikipedia uses such material, needs the information to avoid the violations. J. D. Redding 23:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the relevant section in the Wikinfo copyright policy:


 * you must acknowledge the authorship of the article (section 4B), and
 * you must provide access to the "transparent copy" of the material (section 4J). (The "transparent copy" of a Wikinfo article is its wiki text.)

The latter two obligations can be fulfilled by providing a conspicuous link back to the home of the article here at Wikinfo.org. Lumenos (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This shows many pages that were adapted from Wikinfo. Lumenos (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All the pages I checked today, that are adapted from Wikinfo, are linked to Wikinfo directly (I thought they were only linking to the Wikinfo article.) So I don't see the point of the original question, now. If you know the article is from Wikinfo, you might just look up the article at Wikinfo and link to it, for example, "Adapted from the article Suzanne Bianchetti, from Wikinfo, licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License." Lumenos (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikinfo article with sources is at Deletionpedia
Deletionpedia has a more developed, older version of this article, with at least one third-party published source. That's assuming a doctoral thesis would be unreliable/unnotable because it is self-published. I rant on the situation here. Lumenos (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You may consider the following off-topic (again), but I think this is an important example of how Wikipedia's ruling class can exert censorship against competitors. I would think Wikinfo is notable to Wikipedia editors and readers because it allows the kinds of information the management is constantly deleting here. (This is not mentioned in Wikinfo's current description, in the History of Wikis article.) For example, my personal experiences with software are easily verifiable by the majority who are capable of reading my work, because to read my work they must have a computer. It is much easier than going to a library as many sources would require. Point is that both notability and verifiability are relative to the reader, but they are treated in Wikipedia like they are universals, and third-party publishers are appointed to be the eyes of the omniscient Wikipedia god. This demolishes neutrality and represents a wealthy Western bias to a degree that most here do not seem to realize. I suspect these policies are the product of the larger consumerist culture. Lumenos (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But (back on topic) Wikinfo does happen to have at least one source that Wikipedia policy calls "verifiable" and "notable", and it is still a matter of great controversy for some reason. Notice all the other wikis mentioned in the history section, have articles. The first one I happened to look at, has no better sources than the Wikinfo article and no one cares. Whatever the pretext, this is an unsurprising result of asking one business to advertise for a competitor. Lumenos (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read the rest of this talk page, you will see he type of debate that often takes place on these types of pages. It is not that there is a "Wikipedia's ruling class [that] can exert censorship against competitors" but a procedural dispute. I happen to agree with you that the topic is notable. In my opinion it is because we attribute well over 100 articles to Wikpeadia and as such we ought to have a short article on the entity. However there is a work around that I put in place some time ago. I put into the section that the current redirect points to a undefined template at the start of the paragraph on wiki info, so if I edit the current redirect to point to History of wikis rather than then the same text as I placed here in place of the redirect will appear at the top of the screen when the redirect [[Wikinfo is used. Before I do so though I'll wait for a short time to see if anyone has an objection to that.--PBS (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to break up your post so I copied out some statements below: Lumenos (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "I happen to agree with you that the topic is notable. In my opinion it is because we attribute well over 100 articles to Wikpeadia and as such we ought to have a short article on the entity." PBS (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Wikinfo not Wikpeepeeda :) because that is what you said many times on this talk page. It seems that you are suggesting that they ignore Wikipedia policy in favor of your reasoning? Lumenos (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found an angle we might be able to work with, if you would like to see Wikinfo with its own article. This states that if "notability status has changed" you have grounds to recreate the article. Angela Beasley et al, has been busy making paper, thus manufacturing her "notability/verifiability". You have her book listed as a source; (no wonder they can't/won't get rid of it). Procedures "prefer" "multiple" sources for a subject to merit its own article. So we add your source to the ones from Deletionpedia, then we go campaigning at talk pages of any other wikis with less sources, using tried and true scare tactics such as, "they will come for you next". Bring the mob to DRV and viola... consensus! That and policy justify your undelete. Lumenos (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "However there is a work around that I put in place some time ago. I put into the section that the current redirect points to a undefined template at the start of the paragraph on wiki info, so if I edit the current redirect to point to History of wikis rather than then the same text as I placed here in place of the redirect will appear at the top of the screen when the redirect [[Wikinfo is used." PBS (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like some brackets "Lumenos (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But the problem with it now, as far as me own preferences, is that it doesn't say that Wikinfo allows original research and self published sources. Much of this information is trustworthy, or at least notable. All the freak'n policy on which Wikipedia is based, often has no sources listed. It is based on original research (or obfuscation of the real power dynamics; but I digress). The policy could use some scrutiny and the encyclopedia could use some flexibility. Lumenos (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I missed out the History of wikis in my previous posting. If you have a source you can add those details to the Wikinfo paragraph in the History of wikis article. As to your last comment "The policy could use some scrutiny and the encyclopedia could use some flexibility." this is not the talk page to discuss this issue. --PBS (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That would seem to be an improvement especially now because now it is redirecting to the top of the page. Lumenos (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, this is discussed in "arbitrary break" section, above. And I tried on another browser and it worked there. Lumenos (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The last version of this page that was in article space still exists.. it's at User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo. They put it in my userspace because I suggested it be kept as a project page. I guess I should move it to the Wikipedia: namespace. -- Ned Scott 20:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)