Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)

message: If you could not vote on the main page post here and I will try to transfer them for you. Once transferred the vote will be removed from this page to prevent multiple transfers. Please use the exact same format as the main page for posting your vote here. All votes for transfer must be properly signed please use ~~~~ to sign all comments posted in this section. Thank you! -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 17:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not transferred due to lack of proper signature -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 17:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Transferred -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 17:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when could people not edit because of page size?  How is this a problem? - Hahnchen 19:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Current mobile browsers and some older PC web browsers cannot correctly edit long pages because they crop the source text to 32 KB. The issue has been found in versions of Netscape Navigator up to 4.76 (the latest version is 8 or greater) and Opera up to version 6.04 (the latest version is 8.5 or greater). No other PC browsers are known to be affected.  More recent versions should not have this problem. For notes on unrelated problems that various web browsers have with MediaWiki sites, and for a list of alternative browsers you can download, see Wikipedia:Browser notes. -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 22:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally I'm on IE6. The page doesn't crop to 32kb - I can get the "edit" page fine, but when I try to submit it, it times out. I've noticed this before with particularly large pages - I can load them, but not successfully submit changes. Anyway, thanks for adding my vote. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes for people who could not edit the page because of size 

message: What it is apparent that he wanted was publicity. Look at the press he has received and even generated himself. Along with the attempts by both him and other reporters to discredit the project. I don't think the entire story is out on this situation yet. -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This journalist could have just edited the article of himself and removed the bad information. But 'no', he had to go and make a big fuss and cry about his 'reputation.' I have no love for this Siegenthaler. (Bjorn Tipling 19:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we centralize all this Seigenthaler criticism?  It's not very useful spread out across a dozen talk pages. Gamaliel 19:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And I have no love for people who keep forgetting that he got called a killer apropos of nothing and taking potshots at him for complaining about it. Give the guy a break! Pcb21 Pete 19:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Siegenthaler has said he wanted accountability

message: Primarily my listing this article as an article for deletion was because this page specifically falls under What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information 
 7. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project 
 Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that 
 are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate 
 new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples. 
News articles should posted on Wikinews not on the Wikipedia. Current events qualify as news even if they involve the Wikipedia. This controversy was majorly overblown as the publisher in question could have simply edited the article removing the vandalism and the matter would have been instantly resolved. Instead he used it as a tool to generate publicity for himself and to attempt to discredit the Wikipedia.. 
Then you have the following from the Deletion policy:
:* Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article
:* Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT) 
While this achieved a minor notoriety the discovery of this person is best included as a section on the overall controversy page. Not as it's own page.
So it is a valid listing on AfD and I hope this may change a few people's opinions on the subject. Thank you -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 09:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My response to the issues raised 

message: *Comment The vote is now at 
:28 keep
:17 merge
:7 delete
:3 keep and move
:2 delete and merge
:(Bjorn Tipling 19:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: this list is now way out of date. (Bjorn Tipling 00:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 19:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

message: Keep was at 64 the last time I counted; Delete at 17. Jam2k 08:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please detail as above. How many for keep, merge, delete, keep and move, delete and merge. Thanks :) -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 08:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know SusanLarson. I'm just too lazy to count all that (too stressed out)... so just gave a mini-summary...lol... Jam2k 08:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know the feeling I cheated and used grep :) -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 08:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 08:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

message: Using grep I have the following stats for this vote as of 08:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 08:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

message: :114 keep
:100 merge
:30 delete
: I just went through using a find next for each word, there are some people with multiple "votes" in a sense, but it's at least halfway up to date. Tawker 05:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  05:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 

message: Removed anonymous votes, Unsigned votes both  and 
Unregistered users counted provided they signed with ~~~~. Removed votes from very low edit users which were noted by others.
removed one vote due to uncivil. Just so no one doubts the fairness of this count I would like to note that the position I voted for lost. The decision appears to be keep. with a total of 146 votes total. 
After processing 293 total votes
Total Keep: 146
:129 Keep 
:17 Keep/Merge 
Total Delete: 46
:40 delete
:6 delete/merge
Total Merge: 124
:101 merge
:17 Keep/Merge 
:6 delete/merge
Good discussion everyone. Thanks for an informative insight into the consensus process :) Could someone more familer with the process close out the vote officially. -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  01:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (FINAL) 

message: What should be done about comments like:
:He messed with Wikipedia, he deserves his infamy. "Revenge is a dish best served cold".
and
:photoshop his asss on a galow, or in front o a fireingsquad. - anyway this must be remebered as danger to a world of free speach - I hope this guy loses more than just his job, - i shure as hell wouldn't want him as my son.
It's not really relevant to the discussion or a valid reason to keep the article, I think they should be removed. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you can use that as the justification for not counting the votes. Someone who voted just "Keep" or even "Keep, it's a part of our history" could really have been motivated by "He messed with Wikipedia he deserves his infamy" and the like. Likewise, the people who made such comments could've been joking, but really had a legit reason. Unless you can tell the real motivations of all the voters I don't think you just ignore some because of the ones they expressed… —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 13:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments which have nothing to do with the discussion 

message: Not so long ago, Ashenai provided a very helpful vote summary while the Ashida Kim article was being discussed for deletion for a second time.  Employing this method may be helpful to the lucky administrator who elects to preside over this debate.  Hall Monitor 17:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else would have to do that as I don't have that kind of time. Sorry :) -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 17:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ranked voting

message: It was hell editing this page, so I've broken it into subcategories. Hope it doesn't do any harm. JoaoRicardo talk  07:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  subcategories 

message: Except for "born 1966 or 1967" and "American worker", which I don't feel compelled to add, I don't see anything missing as of this writing. I added the hand-delivered apology.
Unless a lot more info becomes available specifically about Brian Chase, why not redirect? - MeekSaffron 12:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any info not in the other article? 

message: as it appeared on voting page-- issue in question has been resolved. Jokestress 23:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not over, I just wish it was.  This Afd sure looks out of control to me.  See my explanation on Talk:Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer).  Friday (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: PS. A redirect does not require a "deletion" (in the Wikipedia sense of "deletion").  It's a "normal edit" that anyone can do at any time.  Bizarre loophole, eh?  Kinda makes you wonder why we attach such strange song and dance routines to deletion, doesn't it?  Friday (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just plain wrong!!! As usual the peoples vote is being ignored!!! Tally the vote before doing this hide and seek routine!!! Dwain 15:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: PS.  Redirects can be undone as easily as they're done.  I consider them pretty harmless for that reason.  Look, someone's already undone it.  I don't agree, but I'll certainly not engage in an edit war over the matter.  Friday (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My objection to changing an article to a redirect while it's still at AfD is that text accompanying the AfD template in the "edit this page" view clearly says Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled - changing the article to a redirect effectively removes the AfD message. CLW 15:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy redirects are considered harmless by many, including me.  However, I should have known that in this case, it would never fly.  The Afd is already a circus, and people don't want to leave until they see the midgets.  Friday (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the midgets back home everyone, so go ahead and feel free to leave a vote in the AfD.. the midgets are already having tea waiting until it is time to tally up the vote. :)  --Aika 18:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys makin' fun o' midgets? That ain't nice. Kinda funny, but not very nice. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved "confused" section to talk page 

message: *Someone just deleted the article and replaced it with a redirect.  Is voting over already? --Mareino 14:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not over, I just wish it was.  This Afd sure looks out of control to me.  See my explanation on Talk:Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer).  Friday (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: PS. A redirect does not require a "deletion" (in the Wikipedia sense of "deletion").  It's a "normal edit" that anyone can do at any time.  Bizarre loophole, eh?  Kinda makes you wonder why we attach such strange song and dance routines to deletion, doesn't it?  Friday (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just plain wrong!!! As usual the peoples vote is being ignored!!! Tally the vote before doing this hide and seek routine!!! Dwain 15:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: PS.  Redirects can be undone as easily as they're done.  I consider them pretty harmless for that reason.  Look, someone's already undone it.  I don't agree, but I'll certainly not engage in an edit war over the matter.  Friday (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My objection to changing an article to a redirect while it's still at AfD is that text accompanying the AfD template in the "edit this page" view clearly says Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled - changing the article to a redirect effectively removes the AfD message. CLW 15:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy redirects are considered harmless by many, including me.  However, I should have known that in this case, it would never fly.  The Afd is already a circus, and people don't want to leave until they see the midgets.  Friday (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the midgets back home everyone, so go ahead and feel free to leave a vote in the AfD.. the midgets are already having tea waiting until it is time to tally up the vote. :)  --Aika 18:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys makin' fun o' midgets? That ain't nice. Kinda funny, but not very nice. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: Bah, I spent half an our sorting this by vote, and it seems that I still missplaced some votes. I'm in the middle of work now, so it would be great if somebody could go and move any votes I misplaced into the appropriate sections. Zocky 04:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting by vote 

message: So, how were the "Other" votes counted? Specifically, mine. :P —Locke Cole 02:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep/Merge.  ALKIVAR™ 02:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I was feeling kinda lonely down there, heh. Thanks! =) —Locke Cole 16:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Other" votes