User talk:WikiBrown

Conservapedia
This issue is not that it is factually wrong but that it is WP:OR please take it to the talk page rather then reverting. Tmtoulouse 06:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read our original research policy. Also, when you are aware that this talk page exists, make an edit to it and I'll unblock you. (or I'f I'm not around, use the template and another admin will come and unblock you). JoshuaZ 06:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So pointing out the fact that Conservapedia does not allow user edits, and is thus not a true Wiki, is not allowed?


 * Ok, a number of issues. First, the term Wiki doesn't necessarily mean that. For example is a class project makes a page where anyone in the class can edit, by many defintions that is a Wiki. Furthermore, new registration can occur by emailing the Eagle Forum (it seems). So it meets the defintion of a Wiki that it is "a website that allows visitors to add, remove, and otherwise edit and change content, typically without the need for registration" and is just not a typical example. Finally, even aside from all of this, the original research policy doesn't allow us to reach this conclusion since it is a synthesis of new facts. Now, if some reliable source makes the same observation then we could cite that. JoshuaZ 08:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But if it doesn't allow edits, isn't it just a propoganda website masquerading as an imitation of Wikipedia? (Though I didn't know one could register by emailing the Eagle Forum.)

Nonetheless, I realize that it's a high visibillity article, and Wikipedia wants to keep in non controversial for obvious reasons, so I will stop trying to edit it.


 * Visibility realy isn't the concern (it might be in part) but we take the original research policy very seriously. If not for WP:OR Wikipedia would quickly devolve into bloggish type material with no reliablitly. But feel free to edit the article in any way that corresponds to Wikipedia policies and guidlines. JoshuaZ 08:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All I stated in my edit was that one can't create a new account at the Conservapedia website, and one can't edit an article without creating a new account. This is self-evident from visiting the website. If you can go there and create an account and/or edit the content of the site, please do so now and show me how you did so.


 * Yes, but going to a website and noting that one can or can't do something is original research. In any event, it is likely that if the current access level stays the same and Conservapedia stays in the news for the next few days then this status will be noted somewhere we can cite. JoshuaZ 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So if I'm understanding the "original research" policy, Wikipedians can't look up to the sky and observe that it's blue, but must wait for a "reliable source" to state so in print? I guess I'm new to all this.

I won't belabor the point any further. As I promised earlier, I will no longer attempt to edit the article about Conservapedia.


 * Actually, that's pretty accurate. Without a source, for all Wikipedia knows there isn't any sky at all. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes - ~ It it will be replaced by the software with your username and time of edit. This is useful since it makes it much easier for other parties to follow conversations. JoshuaZ 09:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Presto pizazz pizza oven
A tag has been placed on Presto pizazz pizza oven, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 05:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Alfy's Pizza
A tag has been placed on Alfy's Pizza requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 05:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)