Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Protest Warrior

message: *ok, I give up, if someone else wants to continue the boxing feel free--64.12.117.10 05:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled comment 

message: As a side-comment, I want to ask the PWs: If you guys win this (which looks rather likely, with 28 to keep and about 13 or so to delete), will you concede that Wikipedia is not a part of the "Liberal media conspiracy"?
No one is alleging any conspiratorial, nefarious cabals. The fact is that Wikipedia is liberal, insofar as the people administering it on a daily basis are almost uniformly on the left, and there are very few, if any, conservatives or center-right Wikipedians, or even centrists. All you need do is look at any entry on the Arab-Israeli conflict, American politics, Islam, etc., etc., ad nauseam. 
I would use the laudatory Indymedia entry as a reference point. 
Jim Whales is perfectly entitled to be a liberal. In fact, every one who moderators Wikipedia is so entitled. This is a free country. I simply think that we should be honest about things. 
72.68.172.20 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey, also

message: I did my best to faithfully copy comments to this talk page and to sort delete and keep votes into respective categories, and to be as neutral as possible in doing so. I would appreciate it if someone would check my work (correcting any mistakes is a plus) and put a note here if you checked the page. My count for before and after is 33/14, including votes that were crossed out. I'd also welcome any comments from experienced editors about the wisdom of my actions. I was doing my best to make the AfD readable for others, though I don't know if everyone will see it that way. Thank you.--Chaser T 08:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of recommendations, however much you may think that this helps the process. Both the context and the order of the comments are essential to understanding the intents of contributors, both at the discussion closure and during the discussion. Refactoring actually makes the job of making the decision at the closure of discussion much harder, not easier.
Moving the comments to the talk page is not considered desirable either, but I haven't attempted to fix that yet. --Metropolitan90 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. I'll have to admit I forgot about the recommendation not to refactor votes into lists, etc., although modifying the disastrous mess of comments seemed like a good idea. Perhaps wikifying them would have made more sense. In any event, I think I could move them back, but I've done enough at this point.--Chaser T 17:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm not sure what you mean by "wikifying them" in this context. When I think of wikifying, I think of turning a sentence like "Following family tradition, he attended prep school in New England, at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts" to "Following family tradition, he attended prep school in New England, at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts." That is, adding Wikilinks to the text, which isn't really needed with regard to most AfD comments/"votes". --Metropolitan90 04:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I meant adding bullets and colons to make clear where responses are, bolding votes, etc. Formatting the way an AfD normally is, but not changing the content or its location. Perhaps wikifying was the wrong word for that.--Chaser T 05:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: **If you just added bullets and colons to fix the ordering of the comments, or removed line breaks so as to prevent a single comment from spreading over multiple paragraphs, that would most likely have been fine. I've done similar things myself in other AfDs. I don't recommend bolding the votes, though, since the commenters should decide when to do that themselves. --Metropolitan90 08:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, I'll keep that in mind for the next AfD that runs to 40 kb. Sorry I screwed with the comments and votes in this one. Live and learn.--Chaser T 08:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All this sorting I did

message: Jdh 24 argued that The White Rose Society (website) ought to be nominated for deletion as well. Someone else has done so.--Chaser T 04:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to start an AfD on both of those entries, then.  That is how this process works.  I think PW is yesterday's news, and is about as encyclopedic as, say, C.U.B.S. This was Citizens United for Baseball in the Sunshine, and was the group that wanted to keep the lights out of Wrigley Field, and I was a member of it.  An encyclopedia entry on C.U.B.S.?  Not a chance.  The group is dead not even worthy of a mention in the article on Wrigley or the Chicago Cubs.  BenBurch 03:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should I? I don't want your page deleted nor do I care. ProtestWarrior's page should not be deleted. The organization is relevant today and therefore should be in this encyclopedia. If it isn't relevant in 25 years, delete it then. Jdh 24 03:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find them relevant NOW, but that is just me.  You are free to disagree, and that is why we are having this discussion.  BenBurch 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just find it interesting that you don't hold yourself to the same standards that you hold other organizations and people. Jdh 24 04:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't create either the Ben Burch page or the White Rose page.  The former was created by a CUer.  I don't know who created the the latter.  I don't find myself to be especially encyclopedic, but three votes, and one on White Rose say otherwise.  There is a current AfD on White Rose, and you should feel free to express your opinion there.  BenBurch 04:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope you realize having your web organization vandalize the wikipedia entry of Ben Burch does not help this debate at all. --70.157.35.245 03:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, it is not my web organization at all, and I do not support the vandalization or defamation of said user's page, nor do you know that it is from Protest Warrior where the vandalizations originated Jdh 24 04:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just had a look over there and they are discussing said vandalization and this AfD.  But feel free to vandalize all you like.  The anti-vandal bots will just remove it, and it isn't like anybody ever looks there or at the White Rose page, either!  But I sure am laughing at your obvious distress!  BenBurch 04:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to know where you got the perception that I am 'obviously distressed'. And if I was, are you saying that you're happy about it? Jdh 24 04:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "You" meaning the PW members who were doing the vandalism whom I presume are reading this, not you personally.  Mea Culpa.  BenBurch 04:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your user page is clearly marked "member and supporter of ProtestWarrior.com" and all of the edits to Ben Burch are very recent so what am I supposed to conclude other than this is some sort of retaliation merely for some minor pruning of wikipedia. --70.157.35.245 04:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?p=11050984#11050984 Jdh 24 04:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting other articles, as well?

message: moved by me--Chaser T 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole discussion on whether or not being a global organization as a qualification for a Wikipedia article is getting ridiculous. There are chapters in almost thirty different countries, and hundreds of chapters in the United States. http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=chapters/list_chapters.php I think this just about wraps up this discussion in favor of keeping the article. Jdh 24 06:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous comments moved from AfD 

message: moved from AfD; was in response to Crockspot's vote--Chaser T 05:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extended argument about voters with few edits

message: The weekly vigils held outside of Walter Reed were actually started by FReepers-to the best of  my knowledge-although several Protest Warriors, as well as friends and family of active servicemen, and vets, participate in them frequently.
Pertinent link:
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1645374/posts
72.68.181.68 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It takes 5 days.  Consider logging in, getting an account, and editiing for a while, nothing's going to come of this anytime soon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I don't like this ideologically motivated RFD any more than you do, please keep in mind that on Wikipedia there are no personal attacks. Neverborn 01:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know how you managed to become a "Senior Wiki Master" without anything in your profile page or discussion page. Jdh 24 02:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you're not the only one. NBGPWS has been vandalizing the PW entry and his only activity has been involving the PW entry and discussion pages. He's also "voted" at least twice on the AfD page for PW. And, of course, that whole "Senior Wiki Master" line. Jinxmchue 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More miscellaneous comments moved from AfD

message: The assertion that other conservative groups or individuals are distancing themselves from PW is rubbish. 
Protest Warrior has collaborated with numerous patriotic and limited government/right-leaning groups, as illustrated by Operation Liberty Rising, which had participants from a wide array of organizations, e.g. Right March, Bureau Crash, Free Republic, the New York Young Republicans, Log Cabin Republicans, among many, many others. 
In New York City we work with Liberal Hawks and the United America Committee constantly, and in other parts of the country PWers join with YAF, Move America Forward, among a host of other patriotic, conservative organizations. 
72.82.111.224 03:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care what you say, just keep it inside the box, thank you--64.12.116.133 04:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, you're not actually in the box, the box is mostly for random anon flames, so there are actually several smaller boxes following them around, the markup code tends to get a bit messy after a while--64.12.116.133 04:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Even more miscellaneous comments

message: With all due respect to Mr. Burch, could he please explain precisely how a website that has been hacked-repeatedly-and whose owners/founders have assisted the FBI in a crucial criminal investigation does not meet his unique "notability" standards?
Pertinent links:
http://www.protestwarrior.com/newsletters/05_26_06.php
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005268.htm
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1639178/posts
http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2006/05/leftist-hacker-indicted.html
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=715042&
http://caosblog.com/category/leftist-agenda/
72.68.163.158 04:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BenBurch and IP's argument about notability

message: And here is proof of PW's "irrelevancy."
After all, our Marxist, anti-American opponents have completely forgotten about us, according to you.
We've fallen off their radar, and here's the irrefutable proof illustrating that incontrovertible fact:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/08/29/17631941.php
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=04/09/02/8528112
http://www.orthodoxanarchist.com/2005/01/romper-stomper.php
http://www.antiauthoritarian.net/NLN/photo-gallery/2006_wrl_funeral/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1653855
I know that Mr. Burch will enjoy that last one. 
72.68.163.158 05:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest comments from [[User:72.68.163.158|72.68.163.158]]

message: A. What constitutes "vandalization?"
B. Do you have any substantive, confirmatory evidence that would suggest PWers are "vandalizing" this entry, or that they have created more mischief than those who are antagonistic towards PW?
72.68.163.158 06:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandalism referenced above was a good-faith attempt by an anonymous user (identified by the IP address) to sort the page. That attempt was reverted by User:Alphachimp with VandalProof, a tool used by experienced wikipedians to quickly revert changes. Alphachimp never alleged that it was vandalism, but used VandalProof to revert quickly b/c it appeared votes had been deleted. Since then, the IP raised the issue at Alphachimp's talk and is being amicably resolved. Relevant comments are at User talk:Alphachimp and User talk:71.246.245.50.--Chaser T 08:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment about first attempts at sorting (refactored from AfD)