|
|
|
|
|
| [ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Deleting the FCS article | |
Author: A | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 16:12:29 12/10/04 Fri Here's the voting and the comments... Votes for deletion/Federal Commonwealth Society From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. < Wikipedia:Votes for deletion [edit] Federal Commonwealth Society Not notable, useless article that should be deleted. Spinboy 22:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) Comment: It's also a vanity article. Spinboy 01:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) Seems a target for vandals, for some reason. And it has 72 members? Commonwealth_of_Nations is the group that this group affects but doesn't seem to be directly related. Could somebody editing the page elaborate? NO VOTE YET. hfool 23:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) DELETE Political advocacy of dubious notability. Wyss 23:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) KEEP. I agree that they seem to be bunch of nutcases, but they appear to be at least as notable as the British Israel Society, who are a bunch of nutcases of well known provenance. GeorgeStepanek\talk 01:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Why does anyone want to delete our article? Leave it alone | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:54:17 12/10/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I agree | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:24:59 12/10/04 Fri A more inoffensive article one could not wish to read. It it not marxist, racist, fascist, imperialist, radical or even particularly implausible. Had an article been posted which advocated the mass slaughter of Christians or the extension of slavery to anyone who hasn't got a knighthood, then they would have cause to complain, but as it is I think that free speech applies. Deleting it would be as absurd as insisting that the Labour Party entry is unacceptably offensive to members of the Conservative Party. And, now that I come to think of it, there is probably a page on the German Nazi party and one on Zanu PF... so even if they do associate the FCS with everything that is most despicable in humankind, they seem to be following a policy of providing disinterested information and as such there is no cause for deletion. I think that these deletion suggestions emanate from nutters even more isolated than we are... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: top | |
|
Author: top [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:27:44 12/13/04 Mon top [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: well... | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:50:02 12/11/04 Sat Someone pays for the computing power that hosts the Wiki article about the FCS. I don't know who it is, but it isn't me. If the person who is paying for it wants it removed, then they have every right to remove it. I respect other people's freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay for their pamphlet. If someone is paying for ours and believes that the information it contains is not useful, then there you go: what can we do about it? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Fair point. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:59:20 12/11/04 Sat But I stand by my belief that it is a bit odd to want it removed. Herregud, the thing is an ecyclopaedia, for goodness' sake: the person paying for it is also paying for millions of completely pointless articles on the life-cycle of bladderwrack, dry-stone walling methods in the fourteenth century, errata in the works of the Fernando Passoa, and how to truss an 18-foot croc using only six inches of garden twine and a roll of cellotape. I would have thought that a potentially important political movement would come rather low down the list of Articles Which Aren't Worth the Required Four Kilobytes. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: agreed, up to a point | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:32:46 12/11/04 Sat Although I do tend to think that pointless knowledge is one of the most beautiful things about life. It would also be "Pessoa", not "Passoa", as I'm sure you are aware when it isn't after midnight. Perhaps one of the most fascinating of modern poets, given that he not only wrote in quite distinct styles, but invented whole alternative personalities to do such writing for him, complete with detailed biographies and complex interrelationships. Any poet who can claim to have been influenced by a fictional poet of his own invention is more than worthy of memory space on Wikipedia. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Portuguese poets | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:59:58 12/11/04 Sat I read a book some time ago on F. Pessoa, Esq., called "The Genesis of the Heteronymns". Quite interesting, of you're into barmy poets of the 20th Century. It's by a Highlander called James Green, who did his PhD in Portugal on this type of thing, and, apparently, he "explains why these [19 different used names] are not simply pseudonyms and offers a fascinating insight into the work of a major 20th century writer". The author is distinguished principally for being my step-father, but this isn't a plug, as he hardly needs the cash. If you're interested in Pessoa, it's an interesting read. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: F.O. | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:52:07 12/11/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Ahhh, but the administrators aren't the ones judging this, it's other members of the community | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:50:31 12/11/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Looks like our article is gone | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:37:06 12/14/04 Tue And before it had even been fully discussed on their deletion page. So much for the ideals of a community driven encyclopędia. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: This is disgraceful | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:41:37 12/15/04 Wed I think it's appalling that our article has been deleted. Why should it be taken out just because a few people disgaree with it? This is political correctness. Our article was very professional and informative. Those who disagree need not look at it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Yep... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:05:43 12/15/04 Wed God forbid that anyone should portray the world in terms that one or two individuals should disagree with. It's interesting that one of the commentators on the deletion page, a New Zealander, descibed us as nutcases, despite voting to keep our page. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I gathered that their argument was not "offensiveness" but "irrelevance" | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:01:04 12/15/04 Wed The idea is that they are running an encyclopedia, not a free source of publicity for small groups such as ours. If they have such a policy on so-called "vanity" articles and are sticking to it, so be it. You get what you pay for. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Our web sites are good enough for information anyway | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:40:45 12/15/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: exactly: I don't think anyone needs an article on Wikipedia to know what we think | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:43:00 12/15/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Deleting our article | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:34:59 12/15/04 Wed I'm finding it hard to be as reasonable as you guys. I'd be f-ing and cursing here if I didn't want others to read it. I'm pretty angry that our article has been deleted basically because someone has decided they disagree with our views. I guess they must be reading this forum, the list below has some other offensive articles that must be deleted at once. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_the_Travellers_Aid_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dozenal_Society_of_Great_Britain [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: These articles clearly show that ours was deleted only because somebody complained about it - probably Dumb Irelander again | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:50:36 12/15/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Actually several people didn't think much of your article see votes page nt | |
|
Author: anon [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:17:15 12/17/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Good lord | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:17:35 12/15/04 Wed Not long ago I was thinking about a practical alternative to decimalisation, and decided that we need to make the figure 10 represent the twelvth integer and have two extra numbers. Having looked at the website of people who have made this capaign their raison d'etre, I have now decided that I need medical help and am therefore off to Vienna for electric shock treatment. I'll start to contribute again when I have a letter proving that I am sane, provided that a slender majority of the panel can be pursuaded to decide in my favour. TTFN. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ben, I agree | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:22:33 12/15/04 Wed Ben, I agree with you. But, short of reinvesting time in recreating our article, there is little we can do. I agree, it was probably deleted because people found it either diagreeable or 'unworkable'. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Reality bites | |
|
Author: anon [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:53:57 12/17/04 Fri I hate to say it guys, but if you're going to take your message to the wider world, you're going to encounter people who strongly disagree with you. Not to mention the fact that the FC idea has to contend against big forces such as the USA, EU etc, and is only a handful of people. The article was just a promotion spiel for the FCS, not a real encyclopedia entry, and that's why it got deleted. The case against never got a look in, and that's why it was deleted. One of the other guys claims that you weren't "significant" enough. How big must you be? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Of course... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:43:51 12/17/04 Fri Well of course we will meet people who disagree with us, I just thought that the community of Wikipedia would have treated the idea with more respect and not taken their views of us into consideration when debating on whether the article should be removed. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
|
Forum timezone: GMT+0 VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB: Before posting please read our privacy policy. VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems. Copyright © 1998-2012 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved. |