User:Slysplace/sandbox2

<!--

Prod templates in Cameras
I have no objection of the loss of a single article either way as an editor of one of the many articles you've randomly placed the tag upon. However I do have an opinion, and from the looks of your user talk page your no stranger to that. The opinion is as follows. A Merge and redirect campaign may have been more useful as a whole and would create less cleanup in the long run. Many of the articles you have tagged are interlinked to other articles, and what happens when an editor randomly clicks a previously deleted article red link, he gets that "your attempting to edit a deleted article" guilt trip message. This is discouraging to editors IMHO. This also re-creates articles which may not be as good as the original once was. I would also like to point out that unlike cell phones which have a user life of say 6 months to a year, cameras will always remind someone of a link to their past. Cameras are often passed along, collected or resold. In today's ever "green" market of recycle & reuse, articles such as the sony series you recently have decided are advertisements or un-notable are often the younger artists only resource to make better usage or buying decisions, Yes that would be advertising if the company still sold the item. Users often forget why they bought a specific model, or why they still have it, Wikipedia as a resource was once there to remind them, much like the way Cameras (unlike cell phones) Capture memories and the past. ♫ Slysplace  |  talk  03:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Which articles were randomly tagged? I don't think I've tagged any articles that didn't deserve the tag -- at least, at the moment that I tagged them.
 * I've also been very good about cleaning up links to deleted articles, so that anyone following a red link isn't tempted to re-grow the article, and so that existing articles and templates aren't smudged by the broken links. If I've missed some, please let me know and I'll work on cleaning them up. There's nothing I can do about what you call a "guilt trip"; maybe you can start something at the Village Pump to get the wording you don't like changed.
 * It puzzles me that you think Wikipedia articles might be the only available resource for people doing research. Because Wikipedia requires solid referencing for its content, then Wikipedia necessarily can't be the the only source for information.
 * I guess your opinion is that I shouldn't have tagged some of the Sony camera articles for deletion. What I can't figure out is why you've shared it with me, or what you think about the other articles I've tagged for deletion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Withholding anything remotely close to a personal attack. You may be an admin but in the spirit of your user page I shall consider us equals.
 * Clearly my point was: suggesting merge and/or redirect would have been a better use of resources both human and wiki prior to mass deletions.
 * To Further Elaborate: It's clearly your opinion that certain articles deserved to be tagged for deletion or are just not notable for inclusion in wikipedia, however in the realm of photography there are very notable and often advancements that are both historically and technologically significant. Significant to the art as well as the equipment used. You start " " tagging with one brand or model, you get away with it and before it's realized your deleting everything that references Kodak or Nikon or possibly Marie Curie. There is a photography portal, and it doesn't appear that you've voiced a single concern within their discussions on any pages within the category. I feel no need to comment on your other tagged items, you will do as you feel necessary consensus or not, aside from my personal opinion that cell phones are a plaque on human society which would be my POV. Personally I'm waiting on you to tag the Microsoft articles, the borg that allows us all to be privileged with Vista and other atrocities that allow such GUI enabled edits of this or any wiki, but that would be an obvious conflict of interest for you. I have no further interest in this discussion as I find arrogance absolutely appalling no matter what the cause. Apologies for your puzzlement, ♫  Slysplace  |  talk  02:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC) -->