Talk:Armando (blogger)

message: This talk page, imo, should have been undeleted when the article was undeleted.
Was there ever any decision about what should happen to  I've seen claims that it's currently under study by the Foundation and claims that it's not. I've seen claims that it's under truce, and that it's not.
The article is currently a redirect to Daily Kos, which seems to be the worst of both worlds -- it acknowledges that Armando of Daily Kos is  yet does not actually give any information about him.
In the meantime, I've got a very very rough draft of an article in progress, so please help flesh it out. Dori 00:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was gonna revert to the last acceptable version of the article last night and post an AfD to find community consensus, but WP acted up and I haven't gotten around to doing it today. I agree, there should be a community decision over this, and individual editors shouldn't try to override this. To be clear, my sympathies in this case are more on Armando's than on the NRO's side, but that doesn't override truthfinding. The main issue I think is that the editors of an entry need to show that this made more than a minuscule splash in the non-blogging world. So far, I haven't found much. ~ trialsanderrors 00:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My take on this is that it isn't about whether or not this one event "made more than a minuscule splash in the non-blogging world." I think it's about whether or not someone who's enough of a public figure to speak about politics on NPR and at Stanford should have a Wikipedia article (obviously, I think yes). Once that's determined, then it's a separate question as to whether or not it should include mention of this particular controversy. Let's take this one step at a time. Dori 02:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, also, if you were actually personally involved in this you might want to take a backseat in the editing process, or otherwise you're putting yourself in a situation where any of your edits can be reverted. WP is not an attack site, not a soabox, not a secondary source, etc. ~ trialsanderrors 01:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I wasn't involved in the "outing," (or whatever y'all want to call it) whatsoever. I agree that it's not appropriate that anyone who was part of that should edit. Dori 02:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in any case the AfD is open now. ~ trialsanderrors 03:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it's closed again, as User:Guettarda has changed it back to a redirect. So much for that attempt. Dori 03:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (I'm not going to restore it, but it's not a personal attack.  It's an accusation, which I don't believe is fully supported, but is a reasonable interpretation of the actions of Guettarda.)  Nonetheless, merge seems the best option, although his name should be in the article somewhere. (The claims of WP:RFA on any version of the article are clearly not justified.  Repeating "attacks" (actually, statements of fact) from a WP:RS are generally includable.) — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Status?

message: Please review WP:BLP and WP:RS
Specifically "Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources. If X's arrest records are relevant to his notability, someone else will have written about them."
This excludes any links to a conference speakers list, a law firm director or something along those lines. Those are primary sources, and not acceptable.
and 
"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used (see above)."
This applies. Please exercise restraint and include only information relevent to his notability, which includes what is currently in the article - a redirect.
and
"In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."
This applies. Do not harm anyone, period. No harm. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for citing the above policies/guidelines, but if you intent was to demonstrate how actual harm was being done in this article, you have failed miserably at it.  Silensor 19:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this count as secondary source? Google cache I hate to flaunt The New Republic as a magazine of note, but WP apparently thinks so. How about this ? ~ trialsanderrors 23:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]] 

message: : 06:49, 27 June 2006 Guettarda (Talk | contribs) (rv anti-consensus edit) 
: 06:40, 27 June 2006 Trialsanderrors (Talk | contribs) (Rv another attempt to disrupt ongoing AfD) 
: 05:06, 27 June 2006 Guettarda (Talk | contribs) (if the page exists it should be a redir as per BOTH afds. Disgraceful to support page meant as harrassment) 
User:Guettarda, there was never a consensus for a redirect, especially not in the 1st AfD. The word "merge" appears only once on the 1st AFD, the word redirect not at all. There is clearly no consensus for a contentless redirect as you just performed. Stop lying to suit your purposes, and stop deleting secondary-sourced information. If the community consensus of Merge and Redirect emerges (which is far from clear yet, I count 9 Merge, 12 Keep), it will be properly performed by an independent administrator. And stop accusing me of doing anti-consensus edits without proper evidence. ~ trialsanderrors 17:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit box comments

message: In law firms, there are a number of levels.
*(people without law degrees)
*Associate
*Counsel
*Junior Partner
*Partner
*Senior Partner
*Managing Partner
*Founding Partner
*Named Partner
Saying someone is a "Counsel" is saying he's a mid-level employee. Saying someone is "counsel for" is saying that he represents them in court. Is there a secondary source that says that Armando is "counsel for" his firm, or are you working without a net, here? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article (under "Puerto Rico opposes Wal-Mart/Amigo," December 20) looks like it might qualify: "In Puerto Rico, Armando , a special counsel with local firm McConnell Valdes, handled the initial negotiations..." However, I don't know anything about that site except that they describe themselves  as "The international journal of competition policy and regulation". Dori 21:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no year on that article. We cannot use articles without a year labeled to determine what someone's job is. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Even worse, the article clearly states that it is before the end of 2002 (though how far before is not clear without engaging in origional research.) I've been promoted since 2002. Have you? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A site search for  dates the article as of Dec 20, 2002. Clearly the procedure is to summarize the article as it pertains to the subject at hand. "In 2002,  represented Wal-Mart in pre-trial negotiations with the Puerto Rican justice department." I fail to grasp how this could possibly be construed as an attack on the subject. ~ trialsanderrors 23:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Easy, we write "at one time was..."  Problem solved.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that provide any value, whatsoever, to the article? I was at one time in Kindergarden, a graduate student and unemployed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,it does.  It provides a context into one of his more noted cases, and if yet another source to back up any allegations that people may have doubts about from NRO, TNR, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you a lawyer? If we are about to go into lawyers client lists and cases where they served as local-council, I want to know if I have to deal with laymen here or if I can just say "We can do that as soon as you publish your client list. Thanks." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm not, but we're not talking about a lawyer's client list as a source here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You were about to - "It provides a context into one of his more noted cases." If you think that some chumly working for some Puerto Rican lawfirm was involved in a "noted" way (when he was not even a partner) in a major case when Weil Gotshal was even remotely involved, we need to talk about having the requisite info to participate intelligently here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your borderline attack aside, his participation was enough to be noted by a third party before his "outing."  I was never "about to" go into a lawyer's client list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counsel is a job title, counsel is a job. 

message: Do we truly believe that information about Armando's job title, clients and his activities are competently verifiable, or do people just really want it in there because it meshes with their worldview? I'll say that I feel that it is innapropriate of the encyclopedia to expose people who took active steps to not be exposed - and doubt it not, we were the verifing exposers here (the genesis of the NRO article were diffs in wikipedia combined with the malicious anonymous email by the individual inserting those diffs, along with armandoatdailykos' hamhanded attempts to get rid of said informations public perview). I think it tarnishes our reputation, and the only reason that the push is still on is that political POV warriors are damaging the encyclopedia, yet again. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF Stop making unsourced accusations. I have no stake in this action other than not letting two editors do an end-run around established consensus finding mechanisms. TBC already cited the Tron case as strong precedent for inclusion. And the idea that a sixty year old law firm has an active interest in falsifying his job title strains credulity, to not use a stronger word. ~ trialsanderrors 22:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm - no.  You obviously have a stake, otherwise you would not have been edit-warring and engaging in personal attacks to keep the page in your favoured version, rather than at was then clearly the consensus version.  You seem committed to maintain the content posted in the original attack page.  The Tron case was very different - he was dead already, the article was not meant to harrass and intimidate, and the Tron issue did not start with Wikipedia.  Together with your friends, you have forced the subject out of blogging - now you are working on getting him to lose his job.  Good job - hurt people in the real world and generate ill-will for Wikipedia.  Good job.  Guettarda 00:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any evidence that trialsanderrors is a sockpuppet or in any way related to the bad-faith editors who initially created and then edit-warred over this article. Please comment on the content, not the contributor. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have asked you before to stop lying or imputing anything about my motives without evidence. Your continued assertion that this is an attack page clearly has at best minority support. The call to reinstate and relist was made in the review decision without opposition and was sanctioned by the closing administrator's decision to reinstate the edit history, and there was never a consensus, nor is there now, to redirect. I have posted the tallies above which you have still not contested. As about edit-warring, just check out the number of editors who have reverted your repeated attempts to remove this article, none of which I ever had any prior dealings with. Your idea that "I have forced the subject out of blogging" is ludicrous. I didn't even know the background of the story until it came up for the first AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 00:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and feel free to parse my edit history on Mary McCarthy (CIA) to see how ludicrous the idea is that my ideology comes anywhere near that of the NRO. Or just go all the way to the top on this talk page where I make my position clear. ~ trialsanderrors 00:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I think is that the editors of an entry need to show that this made more than a minuscule splash in the non-blogging world." I assume you found that his representing wallmart as local council below WG made such a splash, right? Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of now he still fails my T&E:510 test and I would personally vote for merge and redirect to Daily Kos if I hadn't recused myself from voting. I'm still in two minds about between Keep and Merge and Redirect and my opinion might change as new evidence emerges. This is clearly an interesting test case for a topic that makes a big splash in the blogging world but relatively little outside. I see no evidence nor anything resembling consensus for an attack page. Nor even that the original version of this site was more than a minor chip in the whole brouhaha. The partisan blogosphere is enough of an echo chamber in itself, it doesn't need WP for the verification of its beliefs. ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  It would really be appreciated if certain people would stop perpetuating mistruths here, such as "with your friends, you have forced the subject out of blogging - now you are working on getting him to lose his job", that is totally uncalled for.  Silensor 01:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely include it.  It's noteworthy, well-sourced, and part of the whole of his biography. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uninclude 

message: Self references are bad in general, but he was outed here.  That was the purpose of this article.  Might as well be honest about it.  The information is factually accurate and verifiable.  It's a clear conflict of interest to remove it.  Guettarda 01:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He apparently outed himself at NPR months before anyone here noticed it, although (apparently) few noticed.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a tree falls? Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please assume good faith Guettarda, his name has been a matter of public knowledge as far back as October 2005.  Wikipedia is not responsible for the actions of this subject.  Silensor 01:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: False.  It was available, but it was generally unknown until this page was created.  If it was public knowledge before this page was created, why did it's creation cause him to resign form blogging?  Why this: The absence of Armando , a corporate lawyer whose DailyKos postings did not sit well with his firm, was keenly felt. Many of the bloggers in attendance chatted nervously about the "outing of Armando," wondering could it happen to them?  The information was in an obscure source.  It was highlighted in one of the top websites in the world.  After sitting here and in the dKos article for a couple weeks, Armando shows up, blanks the page as "harrassment".  A couple days later NRO breaks the story.  Coincidence?  Totally unrelated to the articles?  AGF?  That's an insult everyone's intelligence.  Guettarda 01:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Generally unknown" or not, it was a matter of public knowledge and record before it was added here, Armando almost certainly drew attention to it, didn't really care as much when he put his name out there on NPR, and even if NONE of that occurred, and NRO still broke a story about who he was, it would meet the inclusions standards now.  Mentioning it does not violate any standards on living people whatsoever, as it is extremely well-sourced and does not pose a threat to his livelihood, employment, safety, or anything else.  It's out there, and we would be lax (and it could very well become a non-political POV issue) if we leave it out of here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff, please figure out what the discussion is about before jumping in.  Try reading the context of the discussion and figuring out what it's about first, and then find something relevant to say.  I was talking about Silensor's whitewash, not whether this article should exist.  It obviously shouldn't, because attack articles and articles designed to harrass are speedy-able.  It's an embarrassment to the project that people would argue to keep an article designed to threaten the subject's livelihood.  But that wasn't what Silensor removed from the article.  Guettarda 01:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite aware what this is about, actually.  If you can come up with any argument as to why a line of information that was published in two magazines with readership in the hundreds of thousands, countless other websites, and on NPR is somehow going to threaten his livelihood, I'll be glad to retract my statements on this.  You need to take a look at what constitutes an attack page, as well as re-read WP:BLP, specifically here.  The first paragraph is especailly important. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, so you understand what the issue is about but you choose to answer off-topic?  A very useful contribution.  Guettarda 02:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I'm on topic.  Thanks for the input, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Also,  ~ trialsanderrors 01:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  There's this, from April 2005. First name, last name, Kos affiliation, lawyer, law firm affiliation, college background, etc. This doesn't appear to me to be someone making any attempt to remain anonymous. Dori 02:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Included despite his efforts not to have that info released.  Anyway, if you are right, then why did he try to get the information removed from this page and quit after he was "outed"?  How do you explain this anomaly?  Guettarda 02:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, he clearly wasn't too concerned that his law firm could find out. Maybe the Stanford conference and the NPR appearance didn't make waves in the world at large, but the likelihood that someone in your firm reads this is much higher, and if you're worried about your job (btw, how many law partners are?) you take more precautions to protect your anonimity. Like, pick a handle that's not your first name for starters. Besides, what actual evidence of on-the-job harassment do we have other than A's own "Help, help, I'm being harassed!"? Last time I checked he was still at it at SwordsCrossed (same combative style) and announcements of his firing aren't forthcoming either. To me this looks like Armando used a little strategic maneuver to discredit his opponents and Guettarda fell for it hook, line and sinker. ~ trialsanderrors 02:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment on the content, not the contributor. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a criterion you only apply on editors you have an edit conflict with? ~ trialsanderrors 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there an instance of someone violating WP:CIVIL at you as blatently as you violated it there? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Together with your friends, you have forced the subject out of blogging - now you are working on getting him to lose his job. Good job - hurt people in the real world and generate ill-will for Wikipedia? ~ trialsanderrors 20:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have asked that editor to show the same respect for you that I expect you will show to him and myself (and everyone else) going forward. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Respect is something that is earned, not inherited. But I will certainly continue to focus on the matter at hand. ~ trialsanderrors 20:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self reference/ whitewash 

message: The June 20th post says at the very top "Editor’s Note: First published June 7, 2006 at Swords Crossed. Ender missed it apparently." Armando announced his resignation on June 13th. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? I see 3 more posts after that, up until June 17, plus the June 20 post "from the archives". I scanned the June 13 post, but didn't see a note of resignation. (It was just too damn long.) In any case, I have no problems taking it out. ~ trialsanderrors 16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This still needs clarification. ~ trialsanderrors 20:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it really dosen't. If you are going to say he still posts there, you'll need to cite that information before including it, given that he hasn't posted about anything but his outing since his resignation, and hasn't posted for two weeks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this mean you are retracting your above claim then? As I said, I don't have problems with removing it, I just want to know if your statement has evidential support. If so, it might be pertinent. ~ trialsanderrors 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The June 20th post says at the very top "Editor’s Note: First published June 7, 2006 at Swords Crossed. Ender missed it apparently." Armando announced his resignation on June 13th.Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? On SwordsCrossed? Can you cite? I did a search on his June 13 post for "resign" but couldn't find anything. ~ trialsanderrors 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "This will be my last post. I will no longer be blogging. But not due to any embarrassment or problem. But to avoid the problems sure to come in the future, as evidenced by the “promise” I received from one of the debunked bloggers. And this is now “legitimate” according to National Review. The fact is Spruell should be the embarrassed one." If you are insistant on paraticipating in this discussion, I suggest you read all of the background material. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I don't think it is incumbent on me to verify positive claims made by others. ~ trialsanderrors 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The number of times I will continue to assume your good faith and answer nitpicky queries questioning my honesty or reliability is limited. When I say something says something, you can either read the something and tell me I'm wrong, or you can assume I'm right. Not reading something and assuming I'm wrong is not appropriate behavior. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Show me evidence that I acted in bad faith. And on "nitpicky", please concentrate on the subject at hand. ~ trialsanderrors 21:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resigned but posted June 20. 

message: I've listed this conflict at RfC with the desire to have more than one or two people respond and give independent input.  I would hope that people would abide with what other uninvolved parties might have to say on the matter, as I will. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct link here. ~ trialsanderrors 17:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: There are some points in the article that are mysterious to me. I am not familiar with the Daily Kos web-site.
# Are the columnists there called "front-page diarists", or was that term invented for this article? If the latter, it should be clarified. I am led to understand from the Daily Kos article that users can write "diaries", which are akin to personal blogs, but I am confused as to what a front page diary is. Is a "front page diarist" one whose diary entries are automatically featured on the front page?
# The reference to Mr. Moulistas' "book writing hiatus" is unclear to the uninitiated. What precisely is meant by it? Did Mr. Moulistas leave the Daily Kos site on a sabbatical when writing his book (Which book, by the way, Crashing the Gates? It should be referenced if so.) leaving Armando in charge, or was he (Markos) still associated with the site? 
Thanks. –Dicty (T/C) 01:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His TPMCafe profile refers to him as contributing editor, signaling a different kind of involvement. As for the rest, your speculation is as good as mine. ~ trialsanderrors 01:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Signalling a different kind of involvement? Sheesh. This passes for rigorous review? Since you have no idea what you are talking abut why not say nothing.--Armandoatdailykos 10:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editor signals a different kind of involvement, yes, as the terms are used differently in journalistic practice. If you checked the edit history you will note that I haven't tried to edit the TPM language in, as it doesn't meet my criteria for inclusion. You might also want to tone down your language, as this is not Daily Kos where you can berate other posters. Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors 16:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Dicty, front-page diarists are the four or five members that Kos selects each year to be regular contributors. There are certain days e.g. weekends or when he's out of town when they have unrestricted access to the front page; at other times he promotes them himself. Anyone else has to get their diary "noticed" by others -- via the vote function, diary rescue, etc. -- before they have a chance to be promoted. (This includes politicians like Jimmy Carter or Nancy Pelosi.) It's very like a contributing editor position, but that is the term of art at DK. --Dhartung | Talk 02:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminological queries 

message: I just made significant edits to the article, assuuming the piece will not be deleted and that reference to my full name will be included.
I leave the reference to my name.
I link to discussions of my outing by NRO which discusses in detail the underlying issues although the crucial and initial role of Wikipedia is not mentioned. I refrain from mentioning Wikipedia's role in this affair in deference to the project.
I believe the piece now is as fair as it can be given the insistence on including my name. I have removed the salacious, gossipy links (which are clearly inappropriate for an encyclopedoa entry) and instead included James Joyner's balanced account, which came after extensive communications with Steven Spruiell and myself on the issue. It is utterly superior to the TNR link, which discusses Yearly Kos in the main, and me only in passing. Joyner's article is about me and my outing.--Armandoatdailykos 11:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will also remind you that it's generally not a good thing to edit your own entry, per WP:AUTO.  We certainly can't stop you, but there's still stuff missing. "Salacious, gossipy links?"  Did someone place you in a hotel room with Wonkette when I wasn't looking?  d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken on WP:AUTO; was the snide comment necessary? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think we were all humorless here, but maybe so.  If I were making a snide comment, however, I'm not sure it wouldn't be.  To my knowledge, there has not been any "salacious, gossipy links" in this article at any point in recent time.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EDITING NOTE

message: Is there a reason that we cannot courtesy blank this talk page? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason why we should? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's the talk page of a redirect and includes information which the subject would prefer were not available in a highly-google ranked site like Wikipedia. There's nothing left to discuss here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You'd think that the closing admin would have blanked/deleted this page if that were the case, no? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily.  Anyway, here's one alternative
Archive
Guettarda 15:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike talk pages of deleted articles, talk pages of redirects are generally kept, AFAIK, e.g. to discuss the validity of the redirect (though WP:DRV would be the appropriate forum for that, at least for the moment, as it's the result of an AfD and its interpretation). Try miscellany for deletion if you want it deleted, as I don't believe that the AfD supports permanent blanking/deletion of this talk page. Armandoatdailykos just reverted blanking, however, which seems to contradict the argument that we should do it for his sake.  --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Armandoatdailykos, the purpose of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is the decision to delete or retain an article for a wide variety of reasons. It is not tantamount to a ruling that specific information in that article does not belong on Wikipedia elsewhere, so please do not represent it as such. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking 

message: I have posted a proposal for a straw poll to reach consensus on these issues at Talk:Daily Kos#Straw_poll_proposal. Please comment there as we try to craft a poll that will help us do so. --Dhartung | Talk 04:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The straw poll is independent of the AfD result, as the information would be in Daily Kos, rather than in this article.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll proposal 

message: On this page, could the following text:
Category:Protected redirects
...please be replaced with the following text:

...so that the redirect is is put into the category via a tranclusion in an Rcat template rather than a category transclusion? Thanks!
Steel1943 (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 12 October 2014 

message: #REDIRECT Daily Kos
 2003 LN6 20:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you are asking me to change and why here. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 11 March 2024