Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Comparison of time tracking software

Responses to Timeshifter's comment
(Discussion moved here from the nomination page.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yo Timeshifter. You just spammed WT:NOT with a copy-and-paste of that exact same comment (diff). What's up with that? (Requestion 00:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Double yo! You even hit the pump WP:VPP with this diff. (Requestion 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC))


 * It is not spam. The issue is being discussed in both of those other places. In fact the other 2 discussions began from the discussion here. Others have copied their own comments too. Saves time. The issue is being taken up the chain of command. It needs to be dealt with at all levels, so that we avoid needless repetition of deletion attempts in violation of the spirit of this guideline WP:NOT. --Timeshifter 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And I'm going to do the same in just a sec ;-) Someguy1221 01:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your entire argument was somewhat irrelevent to the discussion. This discussion was not so much about the notability of the elements of the chart, but whether they constituted spam (which they did at the time) and as I believed, violations of WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV.  The notability necessary for inclusion is besides the point if the entries violate five other policies/guidelins.  However, the article in question has been cleaned up since then.  Someguy1221 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See this diff. Notability was the reason for the good-faith deletion of most of the chart by Mrzaius. --Timeshifter 02:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability? You'll have to ask MrZaius but that looks like removal of linkspam to me. (Requestion 02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
 * From WP:NOT: "This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables." Note that these charts and lists are oftentimes very comprehensive listings of available software. They have survived many deletion attempts. Many of them also had to clean out the prices and the subjective info. The topics of those lists and charts are notable. The items on those lists are not considered linkspam. "Spam" usually refers to advertising. Advertising hype and other subjective info is removed from lists and charts. That makes those charts and lists encyclopedic and not spam. --Timeshifter 03:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what notability has to do with this AfD. Did you just use the Google test to demonstrate that generic lists and comparisons tables are notable? I'm not going to dispute that but I don't think this is the correct forum for such revelations. (Requestion 06:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
 * It was not a Google test, Requestion. It was a Google site search of wikipedia to allow quick access to other lists and charts on wikipedia in order to make comparisons. A comment made after much of the chart was deleted was that "The linkfarm arguments were, but are no longer, valid." That deletion occurred after the AfD process was started. See this diff. In the AfD comments after that deletion you stated, "MrZaius, thank you for cleaning up those external links. The article does look much better now." I was trying to give quick access to other lists and charts on wikipedia in order to show that comprehensive lists and charts are not linkfarms, and they do not violate notability guidelines.--Timeshifter 08:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a better diff for the deletion of most of the chart during the AfD process. Note the edit summary that mentions the word "nonnotable". --Timeshifter 09:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Quad for 4 with this one to the talk and my watchlist just burst into flames! Saves time? What about the needless repetition of reading the exact same duplicate comment 4 times? (Requestion 01:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
 * The talk page for the chart is where most future discussion of improvements to the article will take place. Most people will only be reading the talk page and will not be wiki-stalking me, or bordering on wiki-stalking me.--Timeshifter 02:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Timeshifter, you lit up my watchlist with your duplicate posts. It's not my fault you posted the exact same comment to 4 places that I watch. I think you owe me an apology. (Requestion 02:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Requestion, you wrote "You just spammed...". See WP:TROLL. Can we cool down the rhetoric and assume good faith? I will do the same. --Timeshifter 03:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith here myself, I believe Requestion is being a bit jovial at the moment. Further, no one is debating any of your points on what the notability guidelines are for entry into a comparison chart.  Merely, we, or I at least, am trying to get the point across that the entire discussion here before the rewriting of the article never mentioned notability as an issue.  And after the article was rewritten, no one voiced any delete-worthy issues.  Someguy1221 05:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that there remain no delete-worthy issues. But the "linkfarm" discussion was actually a form of notability discussion. See my comments higher up on this talk page. --Timeshifter 08:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you can rightfully consider it a form of notability discussion if the editors themselves never mentioned notability as an issue. Their issues were, as they stated, with links and other issues.  You've explained your position quite repeatedly, but please do not claim that others were citing any sort of notability issue when this was not mentioned at all before the cleanup.  And the main issue with linking to products with no wikipedia article is, as I have stated, a severe verifiability issue when subjective claims are made (nothing to do with notability!).  I'm not even sure why we're arguing, we haven't disagreed with eachother yet!  (did we?  I'm kind of lost) (except for whether notability was brought up, but that's a pointless debate as we can both read)  Someguy1221 08:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my bad. Here is a better diff. This diff shows that the reason for the good-faith deletion of most of the chart by Mrzaius during the AfD discussion was "rm linkcruft/nonnotable members of the list. See WP:NOT's discussion of linkfarms." Note the word "nonnotable". That is why I discussed the issue of notability. I agree with you that the chart needed improvement. The prices needed to be deleted, as well as the subjective comments in the chart. That has been done, and the chart is much better for it. The citation/reference links are not "spam." In fact they are what allow verification. Subjective claims should not be in the article. Such as "easy-to-use", "better designed", etc.. But features should be in the article and are usually easy to verify by going to the home page for the software. --Timeshifter 09:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

moved Timeshifters comment
I moved  Timeshifters comment down a couple spots with the edit  summary of "fix chronological formating as per Guide_to_deletion, Timeshifter, please do not bump your comment to the top." Remember fellow gentlemen and ladies; etiquette, protocol, and honor. (Requestion 06:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Guide_to_deletion does not allow you to move the comment down the way you did. My comment was adequately indented and timestamped to show the order and timing of comments correctly. But the new location works fine, too, so I will leave it there.--Timeshifter 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Guide_to_deletion says "It is acceptable to correct the formatting in order to retain consistency with the bulleted indentation." You inserted a comment with improper formating above other peoples comments. Basically you pushed other comments out of the way to make room for yours. Imagine if everyone posted at the top because they wanted their comment read first? (Requestion 14:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC))
 * My comment did not effect the bulleted format. The formatting of my comment was not improper. I did not push any comments out of the way. I put the comment directly after the comment I was replying to, and indented it a lot so as not to confuse people as to who I was replying to. Also, the extra indentation made sure the comments following me were seen to be commenting not on my comment but on the one preceding my comment. This is standard procedure on many talk pages. There was no motivation to have my comment read first. It is harder to tell what I am replying to in the new location where you placed my comment. But as I said, the new location is fine too. Normally it is against wikipedia guidelines to edit the comments of other editors on a talk page except for certain specific reasons discussed in Guide_to_deletion and WP:TALK.--Timeshifter 21:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)