Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames/old

Canvas
The problem text in the message sent out is: and help the continued existence of these articles... which is basically fishing for a keep opinion. This is covered by the campaigning section of WP:CANVAS, particularly in light of the fact he only contacted two editors who opined keep in the previous AfD. WP:AGF he didn't realized this isn't acceptable and I don't want to get into a real long discussion piling on the editor about this one issue, I just want everyone on both sides to be aware that this isn't the right way to go about it.--Isotope23 15:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely. the policies from the canvassing section is this: "Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion" "it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate..." "Wikipedia editors are therefore not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence..." (emphasis in original). The keywords in those two phrases are "mass" and "Agressive" I hardly think that "2" is considered "mass" or "agressive". Also, I will mention 'The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice.' Henchman was merely exhibiting "wikipedia's common practice." This is an ARBCOM ruling. McKay 16:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't a policy, it is a guideline. This is why I love our guidelines... we can all read them the way we want to  :).  The scale was not "mass" but the problem is that the message and audience were absolutely partisan (no offense to you or Nysted, but reasonably speaking neither of you were going to show up here and opine delete even if he had not contacted you).  Maybe it is just me, but I take a rather hard line against this sort of thing; I think canvassing can fall short of aggressive cross-posting and still be completely unacceptable.  If this had been a note just to you and Nysted saying "Someone opened an AfD on topic X and you may be interested in participating, that would not be as big a deal as far as I'm concerned.  In any respect I think calling this "common practice" is a stretch and I would strongly discourage anyone from doing this in the future.--Isotope23 16:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See, I'm just surprised that you're even bringing it up. You're making a big deal out of nothing. The last AfD closed yesterday. It's still fresh on our minds. I can't speak for Nysted, but I would have come anyway, and I presume he would have as well. Yes, you are correct, we shouldn't encourage this kind of thing, but I think it's surprising that you suggest that it may effect the outcome of the AfD. McKay 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I bring it up because it happened. I'm not closing this AfD, so what I think here doesn't matter... I don't know what the closing admin's thoughts on this will be, but like I said before I have a pretty dim view of canvassing and what Henchman did was canvassing in my book and if I were closing this, that would be something I would have to consider.  The fact that an AfD just closed here is a whole other can of worms (if I had not gotten involved in commenting here before I noticed that this was a previous AfD, I probably would have closed this as too close to the previous AfD).  That said, I'm ready to drop it because while I think what the editor did was wrong, I don't want to continue beating up on him over it here.  What is done is done.--Isotope23 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)