Wikipedia talk:Repetition in argumentation

Early notes on the original version of this page
Some suggest that the rules should be softened to "sometimes" or "usually." I rather think the original phrasing (least likely)used in the BLPN noticeboard in April 2011 is sufficiently accurate in tone to be utile. Obviously some people who are "right" will repeat the same points over and over in a discussion, and this "law" is intended only to suggest that doing so is most often done by people who are not in that position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This essay was based on editors who are highly focussed on a single topic, and who make arguments concerning that topic. I think some of the "additions" are actually unrelated to the concept of perseveration about an article topic, but may even be designed to "game the system" by defocussing the topic as stated. I consider a new title of WP:Perseveration on article topics to be reasonable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Corollary
Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that Collect's "corollary" is simply wrong. Imagine a situation when some good quality scientific or scholarly review article exists on some subject, and this article dissects the issue in details. Other available sources are, e.g. numerous newspaper articles, which are superficial and inaccurate. Does it mean that the user who discovered the former source (which, according to our standards, is the best possible source), and who is insisting on usage of this particular source is wrong? In my opinion, the corollary may be used as a tool to fight against good sources, and, therefore, it should be deleted in any event. By the way, this discussion may serve as a demonstration that Collect's understanding of which sources are good and which are not is far from perfect, so he hardly is in position to teach us what good sources are.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Fallacy
Collect's laws are a form of argumentum ad hominem. They ask us to conclude arguments are wrong due to the behavior of the person presenting them. We need to point this out in the essay. Also, what they describe are not examples of proof by assertion, which is the the repetition of propositions (i.e., statements of fact) not arguments. TFD (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Now contravenes MfD
please refer to the the notice at the top of the page. You have placed the material in mainspace in direct contravention of the result of the MfD whose result was userfy. It should be returned to user space under Collect’s chosen title “Pissing on essays one does not like”. Writegeist (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am amused by your concerns here expressed. You should note your apparent animus towards me in the past on many occasions, seeking to make an "abattoir" of the essay, as you had made an edit I considered quite a prime example of "pissing." See also:.   is an "interesting edit".    has Writegeist adding "and/or as a strategy to denigrate someone else's when they run to more than a couple of lines and thereby outstrip your limited comprehension skills." which seemed to be a rather pointy exercise.  The MfD was years ago, and included "votes" from people who simply did not like it.  I have now left their contributions in situ, so they ought well be happy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One wonders why CFCF is ignoring the outcome of an MfD. This page needs to be moved back. Ratel (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That discussion is at least 4 years old and not very conclusive. We are very lax about what is accepted in project space as an essay. Please do not follow me around, it can be considered WP:Harassment. Carl Fredik   💌 📧 06:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not following you,, but perhaps someone is following me. Ratel (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The original argument is now moot, now that the essay is no longer named after a particular editor. SST flyer 08:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Collect's Laws → User:Collect/Collect's_Laws – Recent move to Mainspace contradicts outcome of the MfD Ratel (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that there is no issue of "ownership" as all of the "interesting" stuff is now retained in the essay.  A deletion discussion from four years ago might not be valid at this point, as a result.  I note also some of those involved were caught as sock masters etc.  or plagiarists.  Collect (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Pfft! Perhaps a new corollary for your laws, Collect, is that the degree of involvement an editor has in content is inversely proportional to the amount of time it takes before said editor devolves into personal attacks when challenged over the content? Ratel (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Amazing! You admit to stalking my edits.   I suggest people look at your edits from now on.  Every single one. Collect (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Return to userspace — the MfD should stand. I see no reason to ignore the consensus Ratel (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Should be noted that this editor is engaging in WP:Harassment by following me around after an isolated dispute at Suicide bag where he/she is promoting use of poor evidence. Carl Fredik   💌 📧 06:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I got here by looking at Collect contrbutions. You had nothing to do with it. Sorry to disappoint. Ratel (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In short, you admit to wikistalking my edits -- your problem is, alas, that one of the conditions of your parole is proper behaviour on Wikipedia.  Congrats -- that a person cheerfully admits to WP:HARRASS is rare - that one admits it so blatantly is refreshing. Collect (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Return to userspace putting the page back into userspace.
 * I have just put it back into User:Collect's userspace, as a revert of a bold move.
 * "edit) has been moved to 'User:Collect/Collect's Laws' '"
 * In the process, I discovered I had not noticed other renames of the page, sorry.
 * User:CFCF should not have moved the page to project space, as (1) it is not his to move, (2) it does not belong in project space, and (3) the prior MfD discussion shows a consensus that should not be unilaterally altered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please await this discussions conclusion. Carl Fredik   💌 📧 06:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are move warring! As there was a community discussion to userfy, you should not have unilaterally de-userfied.  Without consensus to move back to ProjectSpace, it should stay in userspace.  While at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Collect's Law I supported keeping it in ProjectSpace, the decision went the other way, and that decision should be respected, unless it is shown that consensus has changed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, consensus can change at any time and opposing with only "no consensus" is not an argument at all. There has been major activity on this essay since 2012 — see below.  Carl Fredik   💌 📧 07:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't revert a community decision unilaterally, without evidence of support. I don't consider the activity major, the essay is still fundamentally Collect's opinions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Essentially re-purposed. There is no argument for putting it in userspace — it is an essay and very much expressed as such. 1. It was previously in main space, Collect can copy it back to his userspace if he wishes, 2. Yes it does, we are and should be very lax about essays in project space. There is no endorsement implied by having it in project space, and neither is there any risk that another project space article would take its place. 3. Consensus can change — I found it to be a valuable set of laws and moved it.  Carl Fredik   💌 📧 06:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "We are and should be lenient about what we allow in project space" - interesting, that was not my impression. Source for that? Ratel (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The mere existence of the essay template for one. Carl Fredik   💌 📧 06:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I see WP:NOESSAY, and looking at "Collect's Laws" they seem pretty snarky and any reference to them during a discussion with another editor will tend to escalate tensions, not the opposite. So I see no value. Ratel (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * None of those three points are applicable, WP:NOESSAY supports keeping this in project space — the same can be said about WP:Competence — and that you see no value is not relevant, only if noone saw any value would that be an argument, and here we have a number that do. Carl Fredik   💌 📧 06:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then I question the judgement on those people. Jeeze, the very first line of "Collect's laws" contains a diff in which some other editor is being snarked at, if you look at the context. This is horrible stuff, payback in nature. IOW, junk. Ratel (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Gone. I had only seen that as a reference to the first quote, it can be retrieved through other means... Carl Fredik   💌 📧 07:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are flat out ignoring Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Collect's Law? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, 4 years have passed and this is a completely different essay. It has been polished, rewritten and expanded. The premier argument that it was solely the work of one user no longer stands — many editors have been involved since 2012. Carl Fredik   💌 📧 07:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * A polished turd is still a turd. Ratel (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One man's turd is another man's treasure — that isn't an argument, you are free to dislike this essay if you wish. Carl Fredik   💌 📧 07:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The page is still fundamentally the same. It has some decoration added.  NB I quite like Collect and his observations.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: The page has been substantially rewritten, and retains Writegeist's additions, and so on.   The original MfD was based on a far different essay from which I had tried to remove some of the interesting additions.   I would point out, moreover, that some of the  MfD participants have had quite "problematic" histories with regard to me personally, including plagiarists and sock masters. I further note that I had nothing to do with this latest move, other than to emend the essay so that it is much different from the MfDed essay. Collect (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The changes to the essay are cosmetic, fundamentally, it is still the same essay. Other's can write a different essay in Project space if they like, but they must not call it "Collect's".  If the essay *is* fundamentally change, it should be history-split.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Return to userspace - I see no reason to overturn the previous consensus. BMK (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Return to userspace Eponymously named essay not appropriate for mainspace, should be userfied. NE Ent 01:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Return to userspace. I am the plaigarist that Collect has twice now mentioned. I am not a sockpuppet but have been accused by Collects of being one. I stay away from Collect as far as I can. This essay serves no purpose in mainspace other than to aggrandize its creator. I recall some quip about dressing a pig...I'll let those who want, finish the line. Buster Seven   Talk  02:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that you have specifically accused me of finding your extensive plagiarism.  Sorry -- your hatred of me is so well established that your !vote here is simply "more of the same" Mr. Spade. Collect (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems fine for mainspace, but I don't feel strongly either way Mainspace essays do not need to reflect consensus opinions. Regarding the previous MfD, I noted back then that there seems to have been some underhanded tactics.  At the time of the MfD the essay had been edited to include a bunch of ridiculous "laws" that sounded more like poor jokes than any serious commentary.  I do not consider the previous consensus a particularly strong one.   Gigs (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing to STRONG OPPOSE. Apparently people have been monkeying with this essay in order to skew this discussion. I do not appreciate this and I particularly do not appreciate my time being wasted and me being made a fool of by assholes. Neither should anyone else taking part in this discussion. On general principles, then, I suggest that we now must leave this person alone to put his essay in mainspace as as his right, as a response to trolling and assholery. The author of the essay is a Master Editor not some drive-by person. It's his right to have an essay in mainspace if he wants to (provided it doesn't break some rule, which it manifestly does not). I suggest at the very least the person closing this discussion protect the essay in its proper form and start over with a new MfD. Herostratus (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC). Striking my previous comment which was apparently based on some asshole troll's vandalized version of the page, which as I say this sort of thing renders this entire discussion useless. BTW and FWIW I think it's a terrible essay, but that is not the point here or even close to it Herostratus (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Well, hmn. Pretty much anyone can write an essay, we're pretty lenient about that. Thinking about it, I guess there are three factors that might militate against keeping an essay in mainspace as opposed to userspace: (1)Is it likely that almost nobody other than the author is going to cite it? The purpose of an essay is to avoid having to write the same arguments over and over. That is, basically, the only purpose of essays. You can say "Oppose X per WP:FOO" instead of having to write the arguments contained in the essay FOO over and over and over. If the labor-saving is very small (the essay is not likely to be cited much except by the author, granted this is something we have to guess at) it's just clutter in mainspace, its neater to keep it userspace. (2) Is it incompetent work? Is it supposed to be funny and isn't, or so rambling and non-cogent to not deserve consideration, and so forth. If so, delete it, or userfy it anyway.(3) Is it truly and genuinely opposed to the few very basic principles of the Wikipedia? This is a high bar. An example would be an essay that argued that material doesn't need to be referenced at all ever, that the Wikipedia should actively promote capitalism whenever possible, that short of thing. Nibbling around the edges or arguing against particular rules is OK though. On #1, people could use it I guess; unlikely but you never know. There's all sorts of people in the world. #3, pass, it doesn't go against any core values. #2, though... its certainly not very good, and parts of it are gibberish. I'm entirely unclear on the function of the passage "Provide a link to this essay when you run out of reasonable arguments, and/or as a strategy to denigrate someone else's when they run to more than a couple of lines and thereby outstrip your limited comprehension skills". This seems pretty close to "Do not provide a link to this essay unless you're an idiot or unreasonable person", in which case what is the point of the essay existing??? Unless the writer is being sarcastic? which is not clear. It's gibberish IMO. The rest is not gibberish, though a lot of it is nonsense IMO (which is way different from gibberish), but nonsense is in the eye of the beholder so maybe I'm wrong."The person who posts the greatest amount of 'No consensus for that' is least likely to reflect real consensus" is objectively false generally, but it's not always false: such a thing can happen I'm sure and probably has. That doesn't mean the blanket statement isn't nonsense though. "The person who is most insistent on specific sources is least likely to have found the best sources"... is this remotely true? If it's describing a situation where editor A has good sources and editor B has mediocre source yet editor B is insisting on "specific" (?) sources... is this a common thing? Why would it be? Is it that the person who is, in a discussion, most insistent that their sources are best is, by a factor significantly more than random, wrong? Why would that be? Whatever its supposed to mean, it reads like nonsense to me. The basic problem here is that if someone were to say "I oppose your proposition and refute your arguments per Collect's Laws", what the heck are they even saying? I dunno... all things considered, I guess it's harmless cruft, the editor wants it in mainspace, and so I have no strong opinion either way on the question. Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Collect renaming the essay, like he did, to something generic changes everything. The MfD was largely influenced by his OWNership of his quotes.  If renamed, this is all moot.  I see User:CFCF is still move warring, and he should be warned.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sans a Wikipedian's username in the title, this would be much ado about nothing. I voted for a move to userspace last time, but at this point it seems to meet the criteria for a mainspace essay. Having a Wikipedian's username in an essay's title, while unorthodox, shouldn't be a deal-breaker in the land of "Ignore All Rules". Someone voting "keep" in a second deletion discussion, with the sole argument: "we already voted to keep this four years ago" would most likely be dismissed, so I question how much weight that same argument should carry here. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * return to userspace and tell CFCF to stop being a waste of time William M. Connolley (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is utterly ridiculous to suggest I'm wasting time, when you are one to come here and vote about such a trivial topic as whether or not this should be in project space or user space. Carl Fredik   💌 📧 13:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You can rework this to be public property, or return it to your userspace. Your first assertion, "The person who posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion is least likely to be correct," is probably right more often than wrong.  So work it up as WP:BREVITY or something, where other editors can alter and adapt the phrasing and add other material that seems relevant to them.  Key is, it can't be defined as "Collect's Law", it has to be open for everyone to decide about.  Your second assertion is, IMHO, altogether wrong - people insist on keeping sources only to the extent others keep trying to take them out.  There is very rarely a good reason to totally remove a source from a Wikipedia article, and the real reason more often than not is POV-pushing and trying to censor the other side.  I mean, in theory someone might have cited 20 different sources for an event and people decide they're all the same and some have to go, but in practice that just doesn't happen.  Anyway, if you want to have a community essay about it, it has to stand on its own under some heading or other (what, WP:deletionists are always right?) where people can dispute it and post the counter opinion. Wnt (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We have other eponymous laws, so I don't see the issue here. The only thing specific to an eponymous law is that the original statement, here two short sentences should not be altered. The analysis surrounding them is open for interpretation for all. Carl Fredik   💌 📧 13:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Renamed as that appears to be the only argument advanced. And the people who have said their primary aim is to get rid of me have reliably appeared  The consensus above clearly favors its retention as renamed - though I would not object to anyone editing out some of the shite which had been added.  Collect (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You should be proud that you created something that is eponymous, and which is already referred to as Collect's laws on different places across Wikipedia. I didn't realize it was you who renamed it, but I believe unless you wish to distance yourself from the laws that they should carry your name. Carl Fredik   💌 📧 13:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am proud of raising the issue, but several people who have a preternatural dislike of me will never let this rest. Including sock masters and plagiarists and proud stalkers.    I renamed it only to have them STFU, which they will never do otherwise.  Look at their "talk page edits" for god's sake.   One even proudly announces he routinely follows all my edits.  Rename it to "Writeshit's Laws" if you wish and let them eff it up as much as they want.   What I will point out is that their pure unadulturated hatred seems to get more done than any politesse does.  Is my disposition showing here?  Collect (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * can you clarify? When you say "rename", do you mean rename back to User:Collect/Collect's Laws (the target of this actual rename proposal) or User:Collect/Pissing on essays one does not like (where it was before the move to WP space), or do you mean a rename to Repetition in Argumentation? If you'd like it back in your userspace, then your desire overrules everyone else's, and I'll close this discussion and move it back right now; we don't force people to move pages into WP space if they want them in their userspace.  If you mean rename to Repetition in Argumentation, then it's probably good to make that clearer, as it wasn't 100% clear to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, nevermind, I see now that "renamed" wasn't a desire, but a description of something you did, which has since been undone. User:CFCF, are you really saying that Collect should be forced to have a page with his name on it?  Collect moved it to Repetition in Argumentation and you moved it back? That was silly.  This discussion about userfying can go on if that's desired, but there is no way we're having a page with Collect's name on it if he doesn't want it to have his name on it.  I'm renaming it back to Repetition in Argumentation, and will move-protect it until there's consensus here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not ashamed of the essay, nor of my words. I am fully ashamed at the behaviour of some editors here, and I suggest this is typical of their behaviour - including stalking, plagiarism and socking. Collect (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's try to move this discussion back to the subject at hand. On both sides of the aisle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Granted that several of the above arguments above are objections at the editor it's named after (which is a personal attack) I would note (and did in the previous MFD) that we have TenPoundHammer's Law in projectspace as the primary creation of the named user. I further assert that using a RM to put back a consensus decision from 4 years ago is out of order. That it was at MFD before suggests that the proposing user. I invite, , , , , , , and  to review their previous statements in light of removing the editors name from the title and also in light of significantly poor statements that could have come straight from the "Arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion". Hasteur (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If you want to make this a public essay, that's OK, but note then that I intend to remove the part about "The person who is most insistent on specific sources is least likely to have found the best sources." It is simply illogical - people don't insist on keeping sources unless someone else insists on taking them out.  So the repetition has to be on both sides; therefore, the charge of repetition is equally shared.  Removing good sources in favor of "better" sources is fundamentally at odds with how Wikipedia should generate comprehensive articles, and I think it's important to avoid misleading arguments that encourage people to do it. Wnt (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should explain further - there's a big difference between "TenPoundHammer's Law" and "TenPoundHammer's Laws". To have an essay on one well defined statement of a general principle is one thing (though there is still an aspect of vanity humor to it).  But to have a mainspace essay on two laws, linked only by the notion that one editor likes both of them, is something different. Wnt (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, your concern about this is that there's two specific assertions.  It can be generalized as The editor that reiterates the same argument or proposition in the face of opposition is statistically the one with the least backing of consensus..  Would this help resolve the issue? If so this shouldn't be a Requested move, but a collaborative editing environment to build up components that are needed and to file off the offending points. Hasteur (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think making this essay about laws is problematic. It seems to me there's a more specific point being made with 'insisting on specific sources' that relates more to "reliable" sources and neutral point-of-view that is getting too far afield from the core concept of "repetition". That "proof technique" can be used to assert flawed arguments in many aspects of editing policy, just one of which is choice of sources. I'd like to remove that "law", and as there are multiple "laws" attributed to, just show the one law pertinent to this essay, and call it "Collect's law of repetition". wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the essay has been renamed to WP:Repetition in Argumentation, the reasons for returning it to userspace are no longer applicable. --Nug (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wikipedia-space is not "mainspace". Not sure where that misapprehension came from.  If this was put in mainspace it could probably be speedied : ) - Though I think most admins would just userfy and call it a day.  As for the current situation, I think my comments in the previous discussion still apply: *Keep but rename, else, Userfy. If this is another Wikipedian blogosphere-like essay, then userfy. If it's to be used to express an opinion about a current practice which happens in relation to policy (such as CON, in this case) then, I don't see why it can't exist in project space like other such essays. But the essay needs to be clearer on this if it is to be kept in project space. And I don't know if anyone else does, but I appreciate the irony : ) - jc37 11:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose; keep in project-space. This essay has been in active development since this RM was submitted, but has now stabilized since my last edit nearly 24 hours ago.
 * It has been moved from Collect's Laws → Repetition in Argumentation, so 's name is no longer in the title. The text has been made generic so it doesn't mention any particular editor, other than giving respectful attribution for "'s law of repetition" in the quote box. wbm1058 (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been changed from the version that was userfied on November 23, 2012:
 * The "second law" "The person who is most insistent on specific sources is least likely to have found the best sources." has been removed as not germane to the core concept of the essay: repetition of the same argument(s).
 * The additional "laws" (in red) have also been removed.
 * I've added a nutshell summarizing the point of the essay, which I lifted from a prior draft and slightly tweaked.
 * I also added a note at the bottom explaining that limited repetition can be a valid expression of assertiveness, and that good judgement should be exercised to avoid over-repetition.
 * WP:NOESSAY was correctly given as the shortcut to our unofficial guidance essay on the criteria for accepting essays. Checking to see whether this meets any of the criteria for deletion or transfer to user space:
 * Writings that have no relationship to Wikipedia whatsoever. The purpose of an essay is to aid the encyclopedia itself (by providing information, instructions, interpretations, or advice) and not any unrelated outside causes.
 * This is related to Wikipedia, and aids the encyclopedia by providing helpful advice on proper talk-page conduct
 * Writings that violate one or more Wikipedia policies, such as spam, personal attacks, copyright violations, or what Wikipedia is not.
 * Writings that contradict or subvert policy (or other pages with established consensus), especially if they are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages. Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays.
 * I'm not aware that this advice violates any policies, or contradicts any guidelines. If anyone feels that it does, please point out which policy or guideline this is in conflict with. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Close, either "no decision" or "moot due to page rename". Most of the above discussion preceded the movement of markers.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:CANVASS
Does violate WP:CANVASS? Collect (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not as long as Writegeist notifies everyone who participated in the previous discussion, regardless of their !vote. BMK (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Have done so—and in fact it seems from the timestamps that, coincidentally, I was busy doing so even as you posted. Nevertheless I don't know why I should be expected to! Writegeist (talk) (Adding) I meant why should it have to be me who notifies everyone; not why should everyone be notified . . . Writegeist (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The section titles used for the notifications were quite biased. Notifications should be done neutrally.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Biased? How so? To me they seem factual and neutral. Writegeist (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The second bite of the cherry is an idiom implying a second attempt that is undeserved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Bollocks., Writegeist (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My hearing of it is more in line with this. Definitely a negative.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK you convinced me. From now on I’ll go with anonymous users on random websites (sounds familiar!). The BBC, Macmillan Dictionary, and Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (“another bite at the cherry colloq an unexpected further opportunity”) et al. are crap by comparison. Feel free to change the section title on your page to whatever you want. Writegeist (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Writegeist, I guess I should rephrase: Writegeist's notifications were good in that he notified everyone involved in the old MfD, and the notifications were uniform, brief and factually correct.  The worst thing I could be critical of, if I try, is the titling, which some people (eg me) could read as having a disapproving tone.  However, it is not serious, and this place is better to have a bit of expression instead of widespread blandness.
 * I guess my comments can come across as direct. It was good for you to notify people.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It was neutral enough for me, and I somewhat support leaving this alone in mainspace. Or at least, not wasting any more time arguing about it. It maybe wasn't the best expression to use but I'm not offended by it. Thanks for the notification. Gigs (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have preferred "My Hovercraft Is Full Of Eels" as more neutral and more likely to gain immediate attention, but its not a big deal either way. It's not worth worrying about. Herostratus (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "My Hovercraft Is Full Of Eels" is sublime. I'll use it next time (with a credit, natch). Writegeist (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well make sure the credit goes to Monty Python. Herostratus (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Some tweaking
I didn't follow any of the several years of venting (see above) about this page. When I got here, it was a quite reasonable community essay.

However, it had some redundant and clumsy wording, lacked links to key policies and guidelines, and was missing a few key points (and few non-key but interesting ones). I worked it over a little, without affecting the intent or tone in any way (nor what it advises, other than by adding some caveats about related negative behaviors on both sides of such disputes).

PS: I find much of the venting above amusingly ironic, since it mostly consists of re-re-rehashing the same arguments about why the page should be deleted or userspaced, and even re-invoking process to formally re-re-re-argue it all in !votes. Gives me a chuckle. >;-)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)