Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Why dates should not be linked

Moved discussion regarding Steve's keep

 * Where is the broad consensus that supports this? I know of two editors that do, and would not be surprised by four more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, I don’t know PMAnderson… Could it be this RfC? Which is a landslide slaughter . I believe, this is where you now write about how the RfC question was “slanted” and/or “biased” and/or “confusing” and how all those Wikipedian’s were somehow magically hoodwinked and brainwashed into making vote comments they didn’t really mean. Clearly, the essay “Why dates should not be linked” is a widely held community view. The views of those to the contrary are but a bug splat on the windshield of life for the majority here. Greg L (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Anyone tempted to doubt this should have a careful read down the list of comments at the RfC. Why are we still wasting time in this neck of the woods?  HWV258  23:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see; these two editors are unable to see a difference between declining to say Years, months, days/months, and full dates should normally be linked and saying, as the document before us does, that Dates should not be linked. There is a middle ground; that we should link sometimes and not others, which the condition for any other article. Posts which fail elementary logic should really be discounted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that the two hours and thirty one minutes between the previous posts was time well spent reading the comments at the RfC—sadly, no.  HWV258  03:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We can abandon hope that HWV258 will actually take his own advice and read the replies; else he would see that he is citing me as part of the "consensus" for a position with which I firmly disagree. This is a genuine consensus against one extreme, which was set up as a straw man; a literate and honest editor would not cite it as consensus for the other extreme. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't include your response as the basis for my comments here. I simply took into account the enormous number of oppose votes such as "it simply does not help, it is useless information". Can you follow the argument that there can still be the overwhelming reasoning referred to without considering your vote? Please come back and have another go at this debate, but only after you have read each and every one of the comments—something you clearly haven't done. Sheez.  HWV258  21:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sir, I am not here to follow your orders; neither is anyone else. This is the fundamental conduct problem of the handful of bullies who would like to take over the Manual of Style; as if lying were not enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How bizarre. I didn't "order", and in fact I used the word "Please". What has "neither is anyone else" got to do with anything (I was only addressing you)? Please go an look up the meaning of the word bully, as I would humbly suggest that it has a greater application to someone who continues to (erroneously) label people as "liars" the moment their own arguments collapse around them.  HWV258  22:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)